Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 7th, 2009

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, if you read the presentation of the House of Commons standing committee of today, there's particular reference to this. If I can't ask questions, then why would the chief think he can make reference to it in his presentation to our committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I don't wish to argue the point. I just want to say that our topic for the day is specific to the TLE reference by the Auditor General for Treaty No. 1 first nations. They're here to speak on that issue today. Certainly we'll afford as much latitude as possible, but if we drift into other areas—

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Fine. I understand that. But could we see if the chief wishes to answer my question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

By all means.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you.

Would you care to answer my question, Chief?

[Chief Terry Nelson]

I'm sorry, can you restate it?

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I want to know how it is that you got to this point, where you felt that you had no option but to go to court.

[Chief Terry Nelson]

In order for us to get to court, we were very clear. We sent a phenomenal amount of the paper trail to ensure that we had tried to engage the crown in doing what was legally right.

So for us to go to court, and spend literally hundreds of thousands of dollars to be at court, we certainly did not do this....

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Was there an attempt to--

[Chief Terry Nelson]

Oh, absolutely.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

It wouldn't have been INAC. It would have been perhaps—

[Chief Terry Nelson]

There were letters going to the Auditor General. There were letters going to the ministers, and pretty well to every level of government, trying to engage them and to resolve the issue prior to it going to court.

Clearly the intent was that the first nations were saying that the lawful obligation from 1871 was in fact.... If there's third-party interest in other lands, clearly the crown's lands would be much easier to deal with. The courts have been very clear in that context, that the crown does have that obligation.

We have a very strong legal basis for our being in court.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Mr. Hudson.

[Chief Glenn Hudson, Chief, Board of Directors, Treaty One First Nations]

I want to comment about this case, because when it comes to the Canada Lands Corporation, that process was developed and formalized after our TLE process was established. On the priority, when you're dealing with these types of lands, they are given a mandate under the Canada Lands Corporation to protect those crown lands for the government. But when it comes to our shortfalls under TLE, which was mandated before Canada Lands Corporation, they seem to be set aside. This is one of the problems with these lands that are spoken about specifically, and in your territory also.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

It is suggested here that there are other agencies of the Government of Canada that are not respecting agreements made by the Government of Canada via INAC.

[Chief Glenn Hudson]

Via INAC and also through Canada Lands Corporation...because that was established after the TLE process was established, and they're conflicting.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

I'm sorry I'm not familiar enough with the TLE process. It's certainly binding to INAC, but is it also binding to all government agencies and departments?

[Chief Glenn Hudson]

They certainly play a role in the lands of interest within that process. In the additions to reserve policy there is a process we must follow to obtain clearance on that land.

But in this situation it seems that the government has implemented TLE on the one hand to look after the interests and rights as far as our failed obligations are concerned, but on the other hand it's to look after the government--the crown's interest in specific lands. And those two are conflicting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That's it.

I recognize that one other witness wishes to add a comment. I think it is Mr. Chief.

Make it very brief, please.

[Paul Chief, Board Director, Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba Inc.]

Good morning, and thank you for allowing us to be a witness.

My name is Paul Chief. I'm a member of Brokenhead Ojibway Nation and I'm a council member.

I was a council member when Brokenhead first made the decision to take Kapyong as one of our selections in 2001. With that selection came many processes that were very new to us, and we were learning the agreement. We were under the impression that any lands that were available through the crown in Canada were available to first nations. Brokenhead made that selection, and new legislation, policies, and procedures were thrown at Brokenhead. In particular was the strategic land disposal.

We were able to view the property. It felt like a movie, in particular when Chevy Chase looked at the Grand Canyon. We walked in, took a look, it was good enough, and we walked out. That was the process. There were no formalities. We initiated it, but it wasn't part of our original treaty land entitlement selection, as you asked, because of the unanswered questions about what this actually falls under. Is it a true land entitlement agreement, or does it fall under strategic lands?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you for that.

We have to move on.

Thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

It is now your turn, Mr. Lemay. You have seven minutes.

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

I suggest that you use.... Do you understand what I am saying? I think you had better use the interpretation earpiece.

Mr. Chair, you can start my time once his earpiece is in. It is important; I want him to understand what I have to say. Let the members get settled. We will get there. I want Chief Nelson to understand what I have to say.

Good. We can get started.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Make sure you have English on channel 1.

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

First, I want to thank you for being here. I have read all the documentation, and I have listened to all of you. My first reaction was to admire your incredible patience. I know some of your colleagues who would have blocked roads for a lot less than that a long time ago.

We heard from the Auditor General. No matter what the Conservatives and Liberals say, it makes no difference because those two parties have been in power since 1871. The committee wants to know what we can do, and that is why we asked you to appear before us.

What can we do to poke a stick in the hornet's nest—to use a polite turn of phrase—and make something happen quickly? It makes no sense that you have been waiting nearly a hundred years. What can we do today? Should we tell you to go before the courts? You are already doing that. Should we talk to both governments?

You have members from the two major parties in front of you. One will replace the other; it may take a few years, but one will always replace the other. What can we do?

In Quebec, we have the peace of the braves agreement. We have done a good deal of the work. This afternoon, with Bill C-28, you will see that we have made significant progress, but what are they doing in your province?

Go ahead, Mr. Chief. You have raised your hand often. Mr. Nelson's turn will be next.

[Paul Chief]

Megwetch.

One of the biggest problems we have in Manitoba is continuity. We've had six directors of lands within our region of Manitoba. Our files keep getting passed on or forgotten.

We have no continuity with the Province of Manitoba, which you have no authority over. We need people to stay on the files. We need resources within our community. We need treaty land entitlement to get rid of third-party interests, which is one of the major problems we face in Manitoba.

We are so different from Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan has an agreement to take care of third-party interests, yet the treaty land entitlement committee has not received a contribution agreement to actually fund for this year. Last year we went six months without a contribution agreement for us to handle third-party interests. With the changeover in the personnel within our regional department it's frustrating, difficult, and we have no means of actually getting anything done.

Until we have the continuity and the dollars within our community to handle these affairs, we are going nowhere fast and spending taxpayers' dollars with no results.