Evidence of meeting #24 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was tribunal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Mohawk Council of Akwesasne
I think I made myself clear earlier that with the claims going forward, those over $150 million going to cabinet, there's no transparency. Will there be consultations with individual first nations, or will the cabinet make a decision behind closed doors outright with no consultation with the first nations? That's a big issue for us.
Mohawk Council of Kahnawake
Thank you.
How is it fundamentally different when we put in a specific claim now that the scope and amount is determined, if not predetermined, by a body in Indian claims versus what would happen through a tribunal, as it's prescribed within the law—the bill we're talking about, once we've passed it into law? I hate to answer with a question, but how do you put a price on an acre or a hectare of tax-free land?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Thank you, sir.
That completes this round.
Next, Monsieur Lemay from the Bloc Québécois. You have seven minutes, sir.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Good day.
I have listened carefully to your answers and I have read your submissions closely. I would have about 2,494,000 questions for you, but I likely will not have time to get to all of them. I will try to go slowly.
I have read this document and as I understand it, in nearly one quarter of the province of Ontario, the government needs to sit down and negotiate with the Six Nations in southern Ontario, something it has not done since 1793, if I am not mistaken.
Do you really believe that the claims of the Six Nations can be settled through Bill C-30? The government has not even been able to resolve the Caledonia standoff. Do you think a bill can resolve a problem that has been 200 years in the making? I read the brief submitted by the Iroquois Caucus and found it very interesting. The following is stated:
The federal government has asked the question who can they consult with if not AFN. The simple answer is they can consult and obtain the consent with the same government they signed treaties with—the 80 First Nations across Canada...
I have a problem with that statement. Do you really see consulting with those who signed the treaties as genuine consultation, given that the government does not even respect the treaties it has signed? Would this not be akin to investing in an endless process?
I realize that I have only seven minutes and I want to allow you time to respond. We are not here to engage in politics, but rather to have a friendly discussion. The federal government decided to recognize the Quebec nation and we know what that has accomplished.
You occupied the land long before we did. How can we ensure that successive governments respect your rights so that we can avoid other Caledonias in the months ahead? What is the solution? The government believed that Bill C-30 was the solution.
From what I understand—and you need not reiterate your position—as far as the Iroquois are concerned, Bill C-30 will be of absolutely no use until such time as the government does not sit down and negotiate with them. What then is the solution to this dilemma?
I wish you the best of luck. You will need it to answer the question.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Thank you.
Once again I'll start on the left, with Chief Montour.
Six Nations of the Grand River
In terms of what we see as a settlement for the Six Nations of the Grand River, in 1794 the Haldimand Tract, six miles on either side of the Grand River from mouth to source, was made our land. Those lands were put there for our perpetual care and maintenance, meaning those lands have to look after the seventh generation from my day on and from their day on. That's what we believe in.
Our point is that we would like to sit down with Canada to start looking at the mortgages of the 302,000 acres I alluded to before. And there are a bunch of leases called Joseph Brant leases on which we, in addition to the province of Ontario, should be getting some revenue back. There are lands and claims at the south side going into Lake Erie where lands were surrendered but never sold. There were moneys taken by the crown trustees and used for various projects, like the Welland Canal and the Grand River Navigation Company. Our chiefs of that day had no idea what was going on with our money.
So Canada has to come and sit down with us to look at our perpetual care and maintenance, because there's no reason in my mind that I have to come to Ottawa and beg for a water plant when that should be there, based on that ancient agreement.
Conservative
Oneida Nation of the Thames
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
Difficult question; I appreciate it. I don't think I need to take as much time as the member wants me to take to answer it, but I'm going to repeat what I said earlier.
To resolve these things you must go back and deal with the bodies that originally signed the treaties. Is that labour intensive? Possibly. Is that seemingly overwhelming? Possibly. But these things can't be fast-tracked, and I think this is what you're trying to do with the legislation. You're trying to move it forward, get it fast-tracked. But some of these issues you cannot put on that train. You need to sit down and do it specifically, community by community, nation by nation, to help resolve these things. There's no other alternative in terms of actually doing that work.
We talked about this notion that it could go on forever and ever and ever. This is quite possible. But what we're trying to talk about here and reinforce is the notion that there's the honour of the crown. There's an honour of the crown in terms of trying to establish good faith in negotiations and discussions with this, and if those things occur, then these processes could be sped up a lot quicker.
Band No. 38, Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte
The solution is really a treaty land repatriation process that recognizes the crown's lawful obligation to correct the mistakes it has caused and the injury it has caused our people.
I don't think we can ignore the passion that is in our young people. They see that our land base is totally inadequate to meet the needs for a prosperous future for our people. Many of the people who were added to our band list with the passage of Bill C-31 do not own land. Our membership tripled with the passage of that legislation with inadequate consultation. So there's a passion and a fervour among our young people about our future, and they want the right to have the use and benefit of what rightly belongs to them under our treaty.
It is recognized that there are non-native people there, but perhaps there could be some sort of permit of occupation on a temporary basis there. The terms and conditions of that permit of occupation would be prescribed by our people so there would be some benefit for the use of our land during this transition period.
Mohawk Council of Akwesasne
I think number one would be an exemption in the process for the Iroquois communities; give us a separate process. What process? We'd have to think about that and sit down as the Iroquois Caucus and discuss that.
Mohawk Council of Kahnawake
Just to follow through on the comments of my fellow chief, Chief Phillips, there have to be enough resources in Canada and in Quebec to be able to deal with these issues head on. It took the federal government more than a decade to understand first and then realize the wrongs it did through a large specific claim, which they say it is—a longstanding grievance is what we say it is—for 300 years. If it took the federal government, in all its glory, authority, and responsibility, more than 10 years to understand and appreciate that, there's no way any tribunal, any process, can't take into consideration long-term implementation.
We're not going anywhere. We don't believe our neighbours are going anywhere, but to put adequate resources.... Instead of it going into the bureaucracy of the Department of Indian Affairs, I think it would definitely help every first nation across Canada—600-plus—to sit down with somebody to discuss the honour of the crown, which is what our hope is and what our specific grievance is right now. It should be principle-based and include somebody on the other side of the table who agrees and acknowledges and has a direct line of communication with the people who can make law for this country, for the honour of the crown.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Thank you, sir.
Next we have Ms. Crowder from the NDP.
You have seven minutes.
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank you for coming before the committee with some very well-prepared documents. Unlike Mr. Lemay, I probably have more questions than you have time for.
Part of it is that you have identified a real challenge in that this is a fundamental issue of rights and title. As well, there is the fact that this particular piece of legislation doesn't recognize the differences in process from coast to coast to coast, whether they are under a proclamation of 1763 or the numbered treaties. As I told some of you this morning, I come from a province in which, largely, there are no treaties, and that's presenting challenges.
In your presentations there were a couple of points I want to touch on. As we know, this legislation doesn't define a number of areas. For example, clause 16 talks about things like a reasonable minimum standard for a claim to come forward, but that is not defined in the legislation. The transitional pieces are not defined in such a way that there's any assurance it will actually do away with the specific claims backlog.
Chief Montour touched on this verbal assurance that a negotiation that is in process will continue. Last week the Okanagan band talked about a letter of comfort they received, which poorly defined how their additions to reserve process would go forward. The political agreement itself is vague and ill defined.
I wonder if you could offer some suggestions. One of the things Kahnawake identified was a beefed-up mediation process, a negotiation process, an alternative dispute resolution process. A number of other witnesses have come forward with the same suggestion as a way to move this forward in a more respectful way. I wonder if you could comment, first of all, on how some of the vagaries of this legislation could be locked down, and on negotiation, mediation, or alternative dispute resolution as another option.
Six Nations of the Grand River
The Six Nations position is that this piece of legislation can't do anything for us. That's why we're requesting it be withdrawn.
Thank you.
Oneida Nation of the Thames
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The position of the Oneida Nation of the Thames is that this particular bill will be useless in terms of resolving any of our issues with respect to claims, and it should be withdrawn. I don't think that another independent body doing alternative dispute resolution is warranted. It just adds to the complexity of the bill. Again, instead of trying to remove it for its flaws, we're applying band-aids to it to try to improve it. So another ADR process would not be appropriate, in my mind.
Thank you.
Band No. 38, Mohawks of the Bay of Quinte
We view the existing bill as being unconstitutional in that it doesn't meet the standards of the royal proclamation on how the crown acquires title. It has to be with the informed consent of our people. Our people do not wish to surrender any more land to the crown. Already we don't have enough land to accommodate our population. It's also a breach of our Treaty 3 1/2, the Simcoe Deed. The legislation should be withdrawn.