Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 9th, 2008

[Kathleen Lickers]

Are they being assisted by any third party?

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

I don't have that level of detail, but they set out a good case that if they were not able to conclude by December 31, they would, in effect, go back to being in the lineup, and their claim and the other 800 claims that are currently there will be at the same stages, unless they've already been rejected by the minister.

I know Mr. Pratt probably has some comments on that.

[Alan Pratt]

Yes, thank you.

The way the transitional provisions work, as I understand it, is that everything begins on the day the act comes into force. For example, I'm in a number of specific claim negotiations with clients now, some of which have been in negotiations for five or six years, as of now, but as you say, if we were unsuccessful and wanted to take a claim to the tribunal, we'd have to put in another three years, as I understand it, which is wrong. That is an example of where perhaps the committee could grandfather the acceptances of certain claims for the purposes of that clause. Where the crown has agreed to negotiate a claim, it shouldn't matter whether that agreement took place before or after this bill came into force, and the first nation shouldn't be compelled to put in another three years of unsuccessful negotiations if it already has put in its three years.

You're right. I haven't addressed that situation, but it merits a closer look. It is an unfair result.

[Christopher Devlin]

The CVA—you're right—didn't take an official position on the transition provisions, but in the first few pages of our paper we alluded to the political agreement that was reached. Like Mr. Pratt, I sit at negotiation tables and I have specific claims, on behalf of clients, that are in the queue and haven't been accepted yet.

If the political agreement and the financial commitment of the government and of Canada continues, the CVA supports the bill. It thinks it remedies not all but a lot of the mischief of the current process, which is policy-driven, and provides a real impetus for the government to get cracking and get serious about reviewing and negotiating claims.

It's not perfect. I've been at a table that has been negotiating also for six years, and this means that there's up to three more years to go. But the fact of the matter is that the federal negotiators are telling us they now have the resources and the commitment behind them to actually get these things done, so it might be wrapped up in less than three years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you very much, Mr. Devlin.

Now we have the last turn from the Conservative Party, with Mr. Bruinooge for five minutes.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate all of the testimony today. Of course you all come here with the best intentions to assist us in delivering the best product for Canada.

As a parliamentarian, when I was elected my biggest interest was systemic reform. Madam Lickers, as you presented your opinion on this matter, I tend to agree wholeheartedly that when the federal government was judge, jury, and also the entity that had to pay out settlements and could choose not to, that was a situation that treated first nations very poorly. This bill, I feel, is a fantastic systemic reform that is going to, in many people's opinion, bring a whole new era to the way specific claims are dealt with.

My first question to Madam Lickers would be in relation to the situation we find ourselves in as a Parliament. Of course we can't necessarily count on our time here being long, in light of our minority circumstances, and Mr. Russell is chiming in that he'd like to see the government thrown out as soon as possible. In that sense, because we have an opposition that is perhaps suggesting an election soon, which of course would kill this bill, do you have a recommendation to expedite our work—and not only that, for I know we have some senators in the room, but perhaps that the Senate should also consider this in short order?

[Kathleen Lickers]

I think you have the opportunity, upon reflection of the witnesses who have appeared before you, to ask whether or not the amendments that are being called for can be addressed within the confines of the bill through the creation of the tribunal's rules, which have yet to be determined; by the striking of any advisory committees and councils that are required in the development of its work; the role for an oversight committee, which has been agreed to in the political accord; and frankly, the role of this committee and the Senate committee, which have the ability to study any subject they desire. Taken together as an environmental context, this bill really causes Canada to stand at a precipice, saying to the first nations of this country: we hear you; we get it; this isn't perfect, but we are prepared to go this far.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

I tend to agree with that.

Before I move on into questions, I'd like to clarify a few points. I think there was some opinion put forward that first nations bringing forward claims would in fact be out of pocket, should their claim not be successful. I want to put on the record that this is actually not the case. Any first nation that is in the tribunal process and has their case heard won't be out of pocket for their expenses. Only the Government of Canada will be.

Moving on to one part of the presentation put forward by the Canadian Bar Association. Mr. Devlin, you spoke about some other claims that might be brought forward but that you thought perhaps couldn't be under the existing bill, in relation, I believe you mentioned, to trap lines.

Would you agree that the unilateral undertakings clause could perhaps incorporate, dependent on the opinion of the judge, some of these other claims that might exist?

[Christopher Devlin]

Sorry, which section is the unilateral undertakings in, so I know what you're referring to?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

It's in paragraph 14(1)(c).

There was some opinion expressed by the negotiator for the AFN that the justices would be able to have a broad mandate to incorporate such things as you're suggesting. I'm wondering if you agree with that.

[Christopher Devlin]

I guess there's more specific language in paragraph 15(1)(g), where the first nation may not file a claim that is based on treaty rights related to an activity of an ongoing and variable nature, such as harvesting rights. That's really where you get your hunting, fishing, and trapping rights, and I think that specific language may trump the more general language of unilateral undertakings.

That's why we raised the concern there about historical grievances with respect to those harvesting rights. So it's not the ongoing exercise of the rights now; for example, it's the imposition of provincial trapline registration regulations on those treaty rights and the resulting breach of the lawful obligation by Canada to honour the treaty rights to harvest.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you very much.

That concludes our questioning for today.

I'd like to thank the three witnesses for being here. I'm sure all of my colleagues would agree that we wish we had more time. I'm sure there are many more questions. But we will review your briefs and take those into consideration when we consider this bill.

We will suspend for a few minutes to change witnesses. I ask my colleagues not to stray too far.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order.

There is a little housekeeping to do before we begin with our witnesses. Next week, which is the last week before our constituency week, we have committee meetings on Monday and Wednesday. We also have a subcommittee meeting scheduled for Tuesday. So if committee members have any questions about process, you can have them ready for Tuesday.

The schedule essentially is that we will conclude with Grand Chief Fontaine one week from today, we will have a constituency week, and when we return we will begin with clause-by-clause. That constituency week will give us an opportunity to get ready for clause-by-clause.

I'd like to welcome our second panel here today. For those of you who were not in the room at the beginning of our meeting an hour ago, we have many witnesses we want to hear from today, unfortunately with limited time. The bells are going to ring at 5:30 for us to vote, and I believe we have five different votes today. We must end at 5:30.

There will be three presentations. I will require you to keep those to less than ten minutes. I will give you a one-minute warning when we're at nine minutes, and that way you can complete your time. If two of you are going to speak, I can give you five minutes each. That will be followed by one round of questions of either five or six minutes--we'll see when we get to that point.

First today we're going to hear from Mr. Allan Donovan and Chief Fabian Alexis from Donovan & Company. They are here together and will be making one presentation of ten minutes or less. Second will be Mr. Tom Waller and Raymond Chaboyer from Olive Waller Zinkhan & Waller. They will be splitting ten minutes. Finally will be Chief Rosalind Callihoo and Doris McDonald from Ackroyd. You will also have ten minutes to make a presentation.

I'd like to begin with Mr. Donovan. Will it be just you speaking, or will you be splitting your time?

[Chief Fabian Alexis, Okanagan Indian Band, Donovan & Company]

We'll be splitting our time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Okay, I'll give you a five-minute warning.

Welcome. The floor is yours.

[Chief Fabian Alexis]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd just like to thank everyone for allowing the Okanagan Indian Band to come before the committee with our representative, Allan Donovan.

I won't take up too much of your time. I understand there have been many witnesses who came before the committee and spoke on many changes and amendments here and there. I'll just say the Okanagan Band is very familiar with the specific claims process. We have settled two claims in the past. We have five awaiting at the Department of Justice.

One of our claims that I'd like to share with you that we were in negotiations on is called the commonage claim. Just recently we received a letter from the minister formally withdrawing from those claims, and we were kind of taken aback, because we are following the new Bill C-30, the tribunal bill, and we had some questions we were wondering about.

Anyway, we're here to talk about two amendments to the bill that we're going to propose. One is about the reserve creation process, and that's around specific claims.

In British Columbia there was some debate going back to when reserves were created at law, and recently there was a Supreme Court decision that looked at this; it's called Wewaykum. In that case, it was concluded that two reserves that were set apart by the Indian Reserve Commission in the 1880s weren't created at law until 1938.

Our claim is a little bit different. The Okanagan reserve was set apart in the 1870s by the Joint Reserve Commission, and I must differentiate that it's not the reserve commission at issue in Wewaykum. Canada purported to relinquish our commonage reserve back in 1889.

I must say that when Canada eliminated that reserve, they didn't tell us. Also, they didn't pay any compensation when they breached their legal duty to the Okanagan Indian Band in that respect. Our legal position is that our reserve was in full existence when it was set apart, and we also rely on the statement by the Supreme Court of Canada in Wewaykum that Canada owed a fiduciary duty to aboriginal nations during the reserve creation process, which in British Columbia stretched over a number of decades.

Bill C-30 includes some language that was meant to track this law set out by the Supreme Court of Canada. One of the parts that we are kind of uncertain about in the bill is paragraph 14(1)(c); that talks a little bit about reserves, but it does not use the words “reserve creation process”.

Also, I'd like to share with you that B.C. AFN Regional Chief Shawn Alteo had written a letter to the minister regarding the reserve creation process, and the minister wrote a comfort letter back to Regional Chief Alteo, ensuring him that claims relating to the creation of reserve lands are admissible. We are not comforted by this letter. As I mentioned earlier, we did get a letter from the minister, with Canada formally withdrawing from the negotiations of our commonage specific claim.

We relied on the minister when the Minister of Indian Affairs accepted our commonage claim for negotiations. The letter accepting our claim for negotiation, however, was ripped up by the future minister.

We need more than a comfort letter from the minister, and one that we're hoping will help us interpret Bill C-30 better. If Canada's intention is to address these breaches of obligation during the reserve creation process, then Canada should say so in the legislation. That's what we are proposing, and we have done that in a clear way on page 4 of the written submission we've provided.

The next area I'd like to speak about is regarding claims over $150 million. Right now, with the claims definition, we need to get away from past differences as to the validity of a specific claim. When Canada brought forward this legislation, its goal was to change Canada's existing role as judge, jury, and--the word I didn't hear from one of the MPs earlier--executioner for specific claims.

That goal is achieved in part by the creation of this tribunal. But what we're proposing also is that, where we're at right now, our access to a tribunal will be changed and will dramatically impair us, because if we were to go before them, we would have to lessen our claim by 80%, down to $150 million. We've had our claim valued at $750 million by an appraiser. So we're hoping we can change some of the laws around the $150 million and then go from there.

I'll just turn over the next few minutes to Mr. Donovan.

[Allan Donovan, Lawyer, Donovan & Company]

Thank you very much, Chief Alexis.

Thank you, committee.

Having tagged off, I will just turn quickly to the two issues that Chief Alexis has brought forward and comment on them briefly.

The first issue is the wording of paragraph 14(1)(c). The minister says in his comfort letter that this section is meant to deal with claims relating to the reserve creation process, like the Supreme Court of Canada said in Wewaykum. The committee members at various times have said that's how you understand that as well. Your expert witness, Bryan Schwartz, has said that was the intention of the drafters. So all we're saying there is, why not make it clear? Why not use that language, so there's no possible doubt after the fact?

I know many of you might think, how can a lawyer possibly argue that this wasn't what was intended? Believe me, lawyers are willing to try any kind of argument on for size, and I wouldn't be surprised at all if a Department of Justice lawyer, three years from now or five years from now, says, “So what if the committee on aboriginal peoples thought that's what it meant? It's doesn't use those words, so they must have meant something different.”

We're saying track what everyone knows this section is meant to say. We've provided draft wording, and that can be examined, but let's do what we're intending to do and this should be an easy amendment. It shouldn't be something that takes any time at all. We're just doing what the minister says and what everyone says this section is meant to say. It would bring a lot more comfort than a comfort letter, that's for sure.

On the $150 million cap, I've had the privilege to read through the transcripts of your hearings to date, and I must compliment you on your careful analysis of this legislation. The honourable member for Winnipeg South has asked almost every witness the rhetorical question, wouldn't it free up a lot of time and resources for the government to deal with the big claims, now that we're going to be able to deal with the little claims? There's a lot of sense to that. The trouble is that's not what is happening on the ground.

Canada right now is dealing with the little claims. In B.C. last year, they dealt with about 15 or 16 little claims, some of them less than $100,000. That's good. Those are important claims in their own right. But has that freed up the time and resources of the government to deal with the big claims? Not in Okanagan's case.

In Okanagan's case, they've submitted a 70-page legal opinion, and the government's response has been that they'll pull out of negotiations, after agreeing to negotiate. The Okanagan sends in a supplementary legal opinion, and the government provides a second opinion: “No, we won't negotiate.” And there's no appeal; there's no appeal process. They can't go to the Indian Claims Commission, because that route has been shut down, and they can't go to the tribunal because of the cap.

We hear there's going to be a new process, the cabinet process, but can we get into that? Well, no, the choice is the minister's, and the minister is the one who has closed the door. So it's like Alice in Wonderland. There's jam yesterday and jam tomorrow, but never jam today. That puts Minister Strahl into the role of the Queen of Hearts, and I'm sure he doesn't want to sit in that role.

If we can either eliminate the cap and have claims paid out according to what they're worth, or have the tribunal simply look at the claim and tell the government, “It's valid, and you should go to the negotiating table”.... It's the second-best solution, but it's a whole lot better than closing every door that's available to a first nation to have its claims heard on legal principles.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you very much, Mr. Donovan, and thank you again for your timeliness.

Next we'll go to Mr. Waller and Mr. Chaboyer. I'll tell you when it's five minutes and one minute.

[Tom Waller, Lawyer, Olive Waller Zinkhan & Waller LLP]

Mr. Chairman, I'll be doing the speaking on behalf of my client. I appear here today as legal counsel on behalf of the Cumberland House Cree Nation. I've been asked to speak, although Councillor Raymond Chaboyer, a member of the Cumberland House Cree Nation Council, is present. Chief Walter Sewap had planned to appear, but a death in the community has prevented him from attending in person.

In terms of my background, I have more than 35 years in the practice of law representing first nations on claims work. My experience pre-dates the existing specific claims policy. I was legal counsel for the Assiniboine people in the negotiation of what is known as the White Bear/Pheasant Rump/Ocean Man claim, possibly the first specific claim settlement in western Canada. I've represented several first nations in Saskatchewan on treaty land entitlement claims and served as a consultant legal counsel to the FSIN when the framework agreement was negotiated.

I've appeared in a number of Indian Claims Commission inquiries on behalf of first nations. Three of those have involved full inquiries with the release of extensive reports: the Cumberland House Cree Nation claim, which is what we'll discuss today; the claim of the Carry the Kettle First Nation to a reserve in the Cypress Hills; and a claim by the Peepeekisis First Nation arising out of what is known as the File Hills Colony experiment.

We understand the practice of the committee is to have a presentation of approximately five minutes, and we'll try to stay fairly close to that.

Cumberland House has filed a brief, and we do not intend to read the brief. Generally, Cumberland House is supportive of the proposed bill. We believe it deals with several key issues that need to be addressed. However, the legislation is only a start, and in our view the committee needs to understand this.

In the brief we've identified three areas where we would suggest the committee should focus its attention. The first of those is the issue of delay. Under INAC's existing policy, a first nation is required to file its specific claim and the documentation submitted is then taken by INAC and Justice Canada for review and opinion, and it literally disappears for years. In my experience, that's often more than a decade. At some point Canada appears with an answer. If the answer is positive in the sense that Canada is willing to negotiate a claim, often the basis of the settlement is much narrower than the claim as originally submitted. By way of example, oftentimes when a first nation submits a claim based on an improper surrender, Canada will purport to validate the claim, but it will do so on the basis of an improper sale or improper compensation. That's essentially what happened with the Cumberland House claim.

If a claim is rejected, first nations have had the option of requesting that the Indian Claims Commission conduct an inquiry. That process takes some time. It has had the advantage, however, of being the only forum in which Canada was required to share its work product and defend its position. However the ICC process itself involves a considerable period of time. Then, if the Indian Claims Commission report is positive, the first nations are left for a number of years while Canada considers its response.

In the three claims I mentioned before, the Cumberland House claim was originally submitted to Canada in March of 1986. There was a revised complaint submitted in September of 1988. Canada's preliminary response was in December of 1997. It was referred to the Indian Claims Commission in February of 2000. The ICC report was released in May of 2005. And Canada's response, after a mere 34-month period, has not yet been provided. We met with Indian Affairs earlier today, and it estimates it will be several more months before we hear.

The Peepeekisis First Nation claim was submitted in 1986. The request for the ICC inquiry was made in April of 2001. The ICC report was released in May 2004. After 24 months, Canada rejected that recommendation.

The Carry the Kettle claim was submitted in 1992. It was referred to the Indian Claims Commission for an inquiry in 1996. The Indian Claims Commission reported in July 2000, essentially telling Canada that it did not have to negotiate, and that report was accepted by Canada in something approximating five months.

An individual from Cumberland House who was born in the year in which the claim was submitted to Canada for review under its policy is now 22 years of age and we still haven't received an answer.

There is a well-recognized legal principle that says that justice delayed is justice denied, and I think that in the specific claims area this is something that has come to pass. But that issue is, in our view, addressed in the bill.

The second area mentioned in our brief is the need for an independent review process. You've heard a number of witnesses provide comment on that. At the present time Canada controls all aspects of the claim system, and this is problematic. Whatever the reality, the perception is that the system is not fair, and from our perspective, the bill is an improvement.

The third area identified in our submission deals with the issue of the need to have the process recognize the unique nature of the relationship between Canada and first nations. While under the bill a committee comprised of members of the tribunal will determine rules on process and procedures, we believe it is important in setting those rules that Canada and members of the tribunal do not lose sight of the unique nature of the claims and the relationship that exists between Canada and its first nations people. If all the tribunal is intended to do is duplicate the role of courts, you could accomplish this by simply amending Canada's Crown Liability and Proceedings Act by adding a provision similar to clause 19 from the bill.

The final point that we want to emphasize here today is that while Bill C-30 represents a start, there are some claims excluded from the process, and as noted in the brief, some key issues in the resolution of claims have been excluded from the jurisdiction of the tribunal.

We have identified in the brief the need to have some effective mechanism that will allow first nations to ensure that land can be added to reserves as part of a settlement. And this is particularly important to the Cumberland House Cree Nation, since its existing reserve land, in a modern context, is of poor quality and cannot support economic development for the first nation.

The fact that the proposed process will not apply to claims above $150 million also has particular impact on Cumberland House. Following the clear recommendations of the Indian Claims Commission and applying the quantum of dollars that have been offered by Canada on other claims within Saskatchewan, the Cumberland House claim arising out of the Cumberland 100A Reserve could exceed $250 million.

As is outlined in the brief, Cumberland House is most concerned that its claim and other large claims will be lost as Canada focuses on the process that is outlined in the bill. While process is important, in the end it is the outcome that is most important for Cumberland House and for all nations.

We think the passage of the bill before you is preferable to holding it up. The situation that currently exists is that there is no recourse to the Indian Claims Commission. You've essentially started down a path and we think you must finish it. The bill isn't perfect, but it's an improvement over things as they exist today.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Next we will hear from Chief Rosalind Callihoo and Doris McDonald. You will both be speaking, so I will give you an indication at the five-minute point.

[Chief Rosalind Callihoo, Michel First Nation, Ackroyd LLP]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon.

I am the great-great-granddaughter of Michel Callihoo, who signed treaty in 1878 by an adhesion to Treaty No. 6. I'm here today on behalf of over 700 members of the Michel First Nation who were reinstated under Bill C-31.

I would like to present to the committee today the issue of discrimination throughout the Michel history. The whole band was enfranchised in 1958 under section 112 of the Indian Act, which was later repealed because it was deemed to be discriminatory.

Bill C-31 was also discriminatory. I stated that 700-plus members have been reinstated. However, there are probably approximately the same number who were not reinstated because they were enfranchised under the band enfranchisement. Bill C-31 did not address that. They only addressed individual enfranchisement.

My third comment regarding discrimination is the specific claims policy and access to it. In 1998 we had concluded an inquiry from the Indian Claims Commission. That inquiry made a recommendation to Canada that Canada should grant the Michel First Nation special standing to file a specific claim. In 2002, after four years, the Minister of Indian Affairs of the day refused to give us that special standing, and the recommendation was not adopted.

Our sole recommendation here today to this committee is to propose an amendment to the definition of first nation in Bill C-30. In order to bring a claim before the Specific Claims Tribunal, a first nation must meet the first nation definition under section 2 of the Indian Act. This defines first nation to mean a band as defined under the act. This definition needs to be expanded to include the Michel First Nation, which would be a first nation if not for Canada's breach of lawful obligation, because Canada's breach goes directly to the status of the Michel First Nation.

The Indian Claims Commission did note that Canada should not benefit because of a technicality. In our case, Canada is still benefiting from its own wrongful act; it points to its own discrimination as the justification for not granting us status as standing under the policy. Parliament would continue this wrong by enacting Bill C-30 without the requested amendment.

One of the purposes of Bill C-30, and the reason why it was endorsed by the Assembly of First Nations, is that it removes the non-binding status of recommendations under the former Indian Claims Commission. Bill C-30 is a positive step, and we endorse it. However, the benefits of Bill C-30, as it is currently drafted, exclude us because of the catch-22 position we are in. We are not recognized as a band, but we say we should be a band. We can't argue that we should be a band.

The basic principles and values of Canadian society are reflected in the constitutional provisions designed to protect the rights of aboriginal peoples, to abolish discrimination. These basic principles and values need to be applied to our situation. We have the same issues before us as all the other first nations in Canada; however, we have no platform to bring them forward.

We respectfully urge the committee to recommend that Bill C-30 be amended so we may have equal access to the legal processes that Bill C-30 set out.

Thank you to the committee for allowing us to attend today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, Chief Callihoo.

Now, Ms. McDonald.

[Doris McDonald, Aseniwuche Winewak Nation of Canada, Ackroyd LLP]

Thank you.

I'm Doris McDonald. I'm the vice-president of the Aseniwuche Winewak Nation. Aseniwuche Winewak in Cree means the Rocky Mountain People.

Our community emerged as a distinct society in the first two decades of the 1700s when Iroquois men from the Six Nations migrated to the Rocky Mountains. They intermarried with other indigenous peoples of Beaver, Sekani, Cree, and other nations and settled in the Athabasca River Valley in what is now known as Jasper National Park. Our ancestors were expelled from Jasper National Park when it was created.

At the time we were advised by the federal government that we could move wherever we wanted and not be bothered again. Our ancestors chose to relocate to the remote area of Grande Cache, and here we lived undisturbed for almost 60 years, until coal was discovered and a mine developed at Grande Cache. The town of Grande Cache was built on our settlement, and our hayfields and pasture lands were bulldozed to build the town.

At the time that the Dominion government made its first preparations for Treaty 8 in the early 1800s, it identified our people at Jasper House as one of the groups it would enter treaty with. However, when the treaty commissioners traversed northern Alberta in 1889 and took adhesions to Treaty 8, they did not travel to Jasper House. We have never adhered to a treaty or been offered the opportunity to do so.

Some of our ancestors entered into Treaty 6. Chief Michel, one of the descendants of the original Iroquois settlers in Jasper House, and his family migrated to Lac Ste. Anne outside of Edmonton. He and his extended family and followers signed an adhesion to Treaty 6 in 1878.

The historical records show that some of our ancestors applied for Métis scrip, which they were denied on the basis that they were Indians. The Government of Alberta has recognized that we have an aboriginal right to hunt, fish, and trap. In the early 1990s Alberta researched our history and concluded that we were Indians within the meaning of the Indian Act, because we are entitled to be registered as Indians. Unfortunately, Canada has not shared this opinion and has refused to register our members as Indians.

We currently have approximately 400 members living on four cooperatives and two enterprises near the town of Grand Cache, Alberta. These cooperatives and enterprises were created to hold land communally, land which was set aside by Alberta for us in the early 1970s.

What we are seeking is recognition by Canada that we are a first nation and an Indian band within the meaning of the Indian Act. We are seeking an adhesion to Treaty 8.

Today we are striving to maintain a standard of living for our people comparable to that of other Albertans. It has been a struggle for our people to adjust to the loss of their traditional livelihoods and way of life, and to adjust to the values of mainstream society.

We welcome this opportunity to present our concerns about Bill C-30. Our concern is that it's limited to the definition of first nation in clause 2 of the bill. The definition is limited to bands as defined by the Indian Act or nations that have entered into comprehensive land claim agreements or self-government agreements. We request that the definition be expanded to include first nations who qualify to be bands under the Indian Act but for Canada’s breach of its lawful obligation. Bill C-30 excludes from the jurisdiction of the specific claims tribunal those first nations, like the AWN, whose claim is based on a breach of a lawful obligation, which directly relates to their status under the Indian Act. Currently there is no policy or tribunal available to the Aseniwuche Winewak Nation to pursue its claim, outside of the courts.

We are seeking an adhesion to Treaty 8 and recognition of our status as Indians under the Indian Act. We believe that Canada has breached its obligation to us in two ways: first, by failing to treat with us; and secondly, by failing to register our members as Indians.

Under paragraph 14(1)(c) of Bill C-30, a first nation can bring a claim for failure to provide reserve lands, including unilateral undertakings that give rise to fiduciary responsibilities at law. We believe this applies to us.

We understand that the Supreme Court of Canada has held several times that the honour of the crown is at stake and it must deal honourably with the legitimate claims of first nations.

We ask for this committee's support to help achieve justice and dignity for our people, and we thank the committee for its consideration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you very much.

We'll have time for one round of questions. We can do a six-minute round. If the bells start or the white lights start flashing, we'll complete that fourth questioner.

I'd like to begin with the Liberal Party. Ms. Neville, you have six minutes.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you very much.

I'm just going to take a very few minutes, and my colleague Ms. Keeper will follow up.

My question is directed to Chief Alexis and Mr. Donovan.

Your issue and your arrival here today have been heralded by many. We've heard about the issues that the Okanagan community is facing. You made the proposal that a claim over $150 million be heard by a tribunal with reference to cabinet. Do you have any other suggestions as to how these claims over $150 million might be dealt with?