Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 7th, 2009

[Chief Terry Nelson]

Thank you. I appreciate your comments.

Successive governments have failed. The treaty was in 1871, and 138 years later we still don't have the quantum of land that was promised in the treaty. Farther west of us, the first nations got 640 acres for a family of five. We agreed to 160 acres for a family of five.

You asked what the committee can do. The committee can clearly understand the legal obligation and the honour of the crown. The crown promised that the most basic premise of the treaty--the peaceful coexistence between the indigenous people and the immigrants--would be respect for each other, and we would have separate jurisdictions.

On the reservation land quantum, treaty land entitlement is separate from the addition to reserve process. When we select our lands--and they are our lands, all 10.7 million acres of land--they will automatically have reservation status. That is the critical thing to do without....

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Chief Hudson aussi.

[Chief Glenn Hudson]

I just wanted to reiterate that when it comes down to third-party interests, that seems to take precedence with respect to having these lands converted to first nations that are under TLE. It boils down, basically, to the commitments of Indian Affairs. I know when we started on this process there were commitments that were put in place by the department, and I guess this may stem from what Paul was saying about the continuity. Those commitments were never followed through with, and again, we have to start the process over, over, and over again.

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

Since I am a lawyer in my spare time, I know that it is possible to ask the Federal Court for fee provisions and that the federal government could be asked to pay the fees so that you can you continue your proceedings.

I get the sense that the federal government is in total conflict of interest. It is the federal government that is funding the process and choosing negotiation dates, times and places, and if there is a lack of consistency, all the government has to do is change deputy ministers. There have been eight in the span of five years.

There is another problem I find very troubling. The Auditor General spoke to the committee. How is it that oil, gas and pipeline companies and companies like Manitoba Hydro can use your land and assert rights without your being able to stop them? Please explain how they are allowed to do that. From a legal standpoint, they cannot, so what allows them to do it?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We're out of time here, actually, so we'll have to really limit it to a very brief response. Who would like to go?

Chief Nelson, one brief response, and then we'll have to carry on.

[Chief Terry Nelson]

I guess it is how Canada is viewed internationally. Clearly, it is a black eye for Canada, because in the United States, which is a smaller country, with 10 times more population, the reservations are 64 times larger than the reservations on the Canadian side. It's clearly a question not so much that there isn't any land; it is a question of the honour of the crown and the commitment by the government to ensure a fair process. No question, what's clear is the economics, that the resources and the lands are being used without compensation for the indigenous people...and keeping the indigenous people at the 63rd level of the United Nations' living index.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Mauril Bélanger]

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nelson.

Madam Crowder.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Acting Chair, Liberal, Mauril Bélanger]

It is my pleasure to tell you that your time is up, Mr. Lemay.

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

I want to thank the chiefs and the TLE for coming before the committee today.

I think part of the challenge we're faced with is that there's a fundamental lack of commitment and understanding by various governments around what “treaty” meant. My understanding of it is--and I'm not a lawyer, unlike Monsieur Lemay--that it was an agreement based on a nation-to-nation basis. It's a legal document that says this is what the two parties agree on. For 138 years, you've had one of the signatories to the agreement continuously fail to live up to its obligations. Is that a good summary?

[Paul Chief]

That's a great summary.

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

Based on that, what we have is this complete and utter failure of the honour of the crown. How do you even begin to resolve it when you don't have governments.... Again, Monsieur Lemay is right, this is not a partisan remark; we've had governments in power since 1867 that have failed to live up to their 1871 obligation. So what needs to be done to shift the mindset of governments, so that they are actually dealing on a nation-to-nation basis?

[Chief Terry Nelson]

Speaking for Treaty One first nations, the frustration we have felt over a number of years is clearly getting to the point where we must take action. The reality is that the two pipelines that are coming through Treaty One territory will be blockaded, and they will be blockaded this summer. We have been authorized by our people, and the chiefs have been very clear on that.

The crown has authorized the licence with permits for two pipelines to come through our territory, which will ship 1.9 million barrels of oil per day to the United States. The Americans are very clear that they want the oil. Seventy-two per cent of all foreign investment in Canada comes from the Americans. Eighty-seven per cent of all exports from Canada go to the Americans. The relationship between Canada and the United States is clear. There are three nations that are opposed.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples includes Canada and the United States. Canada and the United States have over 30% of the world's GDP. Essentially the indigenous people have patiently said that we have agreed to share the resources and the wealth of our lands; however, we did not ever agree to impoverish ourselves.

Therefore, it is important for the government and people like you to understand our frustration. I thank the committee members for understanding that clearly our intention has always been to not be in conflict. And in fact the treaty is very clear on peaceful coexistence. It is critically important that Canada, which was declared by the United Nations seven years in a row to be the number one country in the world to live, understand the value of peaceful coexistence and understand that blockades and conflict are not the way to go. Respect for each other is clearly the intention of the treaty, and the committee must do everything in its power to ensure the honour of the crown.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Mr. Chief and Chief Hudson, do you wish to comment?

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

The reason this is so important in the context of treaty land entitlement is that it underlies everything else that falls out, so if we don't get this right, it's tough to get anything else right.

Mr. Chief and Mr. Hudson.

[Paul Chief]

Thank you.

Your statement was correct. It's a nation-to-nation agreement. The problem is that although I'm a councillor from Brokenhead Ojibway Nation, when I go to meetings in regard to treaty land entitlement, I spend most of my meetings with technicians. I don't get the respect of Canada, nor do I get the respect of Manitoba. I spend more of my time dealing with technicians in regard to treaty land entitlement issues, where I'm not treated as a nation-to-nation representative. We are left in the dark. When it comes to respect of nation to nation, I do not see members of Parliament, MLAs, or any others besides technicians. Only when I come to Ottawa do I get the respect that I truly deserve as a political leader of my community.

With that said, there is the underlying reason we have made no gain in regard to treaty land entitlement. They treat us like technicians.

And may I say that I go through an election every two years--not every four--and I've been around for over 10 years.

Megwetch.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Chief Hudson.

[Chief Glenn Hudson]

I just want to add to the answer. In support of Chief Nelson and Paul Chief, the bottom line is that there has been a failure with respect to the duty to consult and accommodate through this process. We've never been shown that respect, and I don't think the bureaucrats who are dealing with this issue truly understand that duty. When it comes right down to it, that's where we end up failing.

Obviously the second part of my answer would be to clearly understand and clarify the benefits of treaty on our part, in terms of those returns coming back to the first nations. I don't think that's fully understood at the bureaucratic level and at the government level.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

You have about 15 seconds left, Ms. Crowder.

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

On the next round I'll address some of the findings in the Auditor General's report. From INAC's perspective, it's pretty damning of the performance of the Manitoba region.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Mr. Duncan.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you.

We are here to talk about the Auditor General's report. This has been in place for about 12 years. I was here when this was negotiated and created under legislation. I remember the push-back from some of the third-party stakeholders that you've made reference to. I think that despite some of the conversations we've heard today, there has been a great deal of progress.

There has been quite a bit of attention focused through the Auditor General's report. The performance in Saskatchewan is something we've looked towards, and the comparison is definitely a concern. I forget who made the statement that there was no third-party agreement to deal with third-party interests with the Province of Manitoba. Was that you, Mr. Chief?

I'm wondering if you can round that out. We have a long-time provincial administration in the Province of Manitoba. I would have thought that this item would have been taken care of, if it was seen as a real impediment. I'm just wondering what the impediments are, as you see them.

[Paul Chief]

One of the biggest is Manitoba Hydro. It's not a signatory to the treaty land entitlement, but for some reason, at some point, Canada relinquished its responsibility for all waterways. My understanding is that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has all say on water, but for some reason in Manitoba that's not the case. It's at a 100-year flood level. It's this dynamic where we have to negotiate easements. That's one of the bigger ones.

I would like Carl Braun to add more to the comment.

[Carl Braun]

There's been a lot of discussion on third-party interests. I want to make it clear that there are now 105 parcels of land, totalling 150,000 acres, that are sitting. There are no encumbrances on this land. There are no third-party interests. Why hasn't that land moved? I think the Auditor General was clear about why that land hasn't moved. We're talking about mismanagement of files, miscommunication, a lack of directives, and a lack of leadership. I want to start with that.

Certainly, there needs to be more attention to detail in resolving third-party interests. The committee has a responsibility to assist the first nations. The phrase in the agreement says, in effect, that the entitlement of first nations will remove, accommodate, or discharge third-party interests to the satisfaction of Canada, Manitoba, and the third-party interests. That's the clause that seems to be creating the paradigm.

I understand that the first nations need to take the initiative. We've done that. We've prioritized parcels. We've identified third-party interests. We've set tables. We've allocated the first nations own resources for this. We now need Canada to come to the table as a fiduciary, with the proper legal instruments, whether under the Indian Act or the Federal Real Property Act, to facilitate the process.