Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Sept. 27th, 2017

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

They can take some of my time to respond.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Go ahead and respond, if anybody wishes to respond.

[Lorie Thompson]

Most definitely, consistency is lacking due to the fact that we're all sitting here. In terms of UNDRIP, ultimately the crux of everything is the right to self-determination. That was never ceded, and that encompasses everything, our way of life holistically, not just the lands. The land is what we come from, what identifies us, how we speak, how we treat each other, how we govern, and how we interact, nation to nation or externally. In terms of the implementation of UNDRIP, yes, I definitely agree. However, we have a lot of resources and information that we've gained throughout the years. We have RCAP, the AJI, and the TRC report. All of the information is in there, and now we have the MMIW inquiry ongoing.

In terms of that right to self-determination, when you impede that for a nation, genocide takes place. You are taking away everything that encompasses that human being and trying to turn them into something else. Within that process and within these processes of reclaiming our lands, a lot of healing has to take place as well, and that is something that needs to be provided with a huge focus.

Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

The questioning now moves to MP T.J. Harvey.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First of all, I want to thank you all for being with us today and taking time out of your schedules. I know you are all very busy, and we truly appreciate the time you've taken to allow us to come and have this conversation with you. I think it's an important conversation to have. I recognize that there has been a history of failing to recognize and implement a mutually beneficial relationship between indigenous peoples and Canada as a whole. I think that's a fair statement to make.

Given the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the body of this study, which is around laying claims specifically, whether it's funding for the process or the overarching framework, would either of you like to elaborate on what you feel the best steps forward are in revamping the process, on a go-forward basis, to streamline this and allow for a best-foot-forward to occur?

[Chief Jim Bear]

I think we recommended that you people take training in indigenous knowledge, our interpretation of the land and all that it gives to us, and the loss that we have gone through. For anybody involved with the indigenous file, it should be mandatory that they have a true understanding of the whole thing and that you put factors in that are going to ensure that we get some kind of good response.

Considering what we've put in, what we are offered is embarrassing. I wouldn't do that to my worst enemy. I don't know whether I am the worst enemy, but certainly it's embarrassing to receive that. We just have to counter, and we shouldn't have to, if they truly understand our perspective in terms of loss. Then we should be given a reasonable offer, not an embarrassing offer.

[Chief Lance Roulette]

I would just offer once again that you are looking for the parameters of what would work. I think the clear message that was given by the panel before is one that's based on fairness, equity, honesty, and inclusion.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

You have two minutes.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

A question to follow....

Go ahead.

[Lorie Thompson]

I would just add a few points.

Of course, ultimately, as has already been stated, a joint goodwill good faith effort needs to be implemented, but we also need to look at establishing a priority-basis process, jointly or collectively, whatever the case may be, and we need you to meet us halfway, to respect and harmonize the processes that we have. Right now, we are dealing with minutes, but when we sit in circles with our elders, we are talking about days, when we need to listen and talk about things, so we need that forum to actually have a real conversation, instead of always being strapped for time. That time needs to be provided in order to address these issues.

[TJ Harvey, Liberal, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Perfect.

I'll just follow up on that context, as well as some of what was said earlier around the idea of blanket policies and how they can negatively impact the process when it comes to individual first nations, especially taking into account that there are significant differences in economic circumstances among first nation communities, depending on geography and proximity to large pockets of population. How do we go about ensuring that we have a fair and equitable conversation with each community, recognizing that it needs to be an individual conversation, but without getting mired in years and years of due process by not going for a broad-strokes approach? By using a more individualized approach, you are inevitably going to create more stumbling blocks, so how do we ensure that this process is fluid and done in a timely manner?

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

That is a very good question to be saved for another time, since our minutes have run out.

I'm going to move the questioning to Cathy McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and again, I really appreciate the witnesses coming today and talking about this very important issue.

Chief Jim Bear, you talk about some recommendations, and you also talked about a very difficult specific land claim—I believe it was—for which your elder was so distraught about testifying. Can you tell us a little bit more about that claim and how the process unfolded, so that we can really understand on the ground what was happening?

[Chief Jim Bear]

I need the assistance of Lorie.

We had given a presentation in, I think, Vancouver.

[Lorie Thompson]

Yes.

[Chief Jim Bear]

From there, what was recommended out of those sessions was to try to have it in an environmentally friendly area, i.e., where it's occurring, on the reservation. So a forum was structured to be held in our community for our presentation, and it was to involve oral presentations by our elders. I think three elders participated. Again, Lorie will have to explain it in terms of the set-up. She's a lawyer, so she knows the judge, or whatever. I don't go to court very often.

In terms of the elders, the individual, who I guess was the crown representative, was very harsh. You would almost think the elder had killed someone, and that was the kind of questioning that was taking place. That's why I facetiously responded earlier that I felt like saying, “I'm guilty”. There was total disrespect for the elders. Even in terms of scientific.... If you live on the land long enough, you know what's going to happen. The other individuals who can understand indigenous knowledge are farmers, who live with the land and understand those types of things. It was very adversarial, though, and I basically felt sorry for putting the elders in a spot like that.

[Lorie Thompson]

Just to add to the technical and legal side of it, I will say that it took quite a bit of time convincing them that the oral history evidence was important and should go on record in terms of the type of claim. The response was that we don't usually provide it for this. Well, this is how we've always lived, never mind “usually”.

So there was that context; it was difficult to persuade. Even with Brokenhead's specialized legal representation, I myself had to do some convincing that our oral history evidence was important. Also, that's something that still needs some work in terms of what we bring to the table and our contributions and the context of where we come from. On those understandings, as I just said, they need to meet us halfway with what we are bringing to the table from our perspective, our cultural governance, and judicial-legal perspectives that we originally had. We still have them, and we still practise them every day in our nations, despite the Indian Act, and everything else that comes with that.

Within those processes, especially when we are trying to make historical impacts right.... Again, there was no funding for extracting the information and sitting with the elders. As well, during that process we lost elders who I want to name today: the late Carol Jones, the late Clarence Kent, and the late Lawrence (Happy) Smith. Those were individuals who were going to either give testimony or provide information, and within that couple of years' process they passed on and went on their spirit journeys. So time is important and it is of the essence.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

We're in a five-minute round of questioning now, so it's even tighter.

The questioning moves to MP Gary Anandasangaree.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you very much for being here. I acknowledge that we're on Treaty 1 territory as well.

With respect to the benefits of UNDRIP, maybe you can talk about how UNDRIP can have a direct impact on reframing the comprehensive and specific claims processes, and also maybe a brief discussion on how you see the future adjudication process. I know that's something you have mentioned, Chief Bear, that the adjudication process should be changed to a more joint framework that will incorporate many of the practices and traditions of the indigenous communities.

[Chief Jim Bear]

Definitely. Again, all it takes is dialogue, and we're prepared to do that. We don't want to be put in the position of the 1982 fiasco of the Canada Act, for which I would have liked, even at that time, to see principles and to have the opportunity to work on those principles in a fair and trusting win-win situation. That never did take place.

In terms of the claims process, we've made some recommendations as to what should happen in those areas, so the sooner the adjudication process.... Again, we are a nation. I know we aren't being treated as a nation, but we are a nation.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

If I may probe a bit further, I know in your initial statement one of the suggestions you made was for an independent tribunal. I'm trying to see what that would look like. What would the elements be for the tribunal to be truly independent, to your mind?

[Chief Jim Bear]

In terms of any summation, it should be an independent tribunal that is not obligated to the federal government for setting it up. If it is, then our ways have to be incorporated so that when we look at it, we know that at least we have some recourse once it has decided how it's going to respond to our requests.

Right now, everything is under the purview of the government and very little is in the way of the first nation. I think we've all said, and you've probably heard it all through Canada, that there is simply no funding to even prepare the submission and get an understanding of just what our loss entails. There are the oral traditions of our people, our view of the land, and a tremendous amount of research has to take place, and consultation has to take place. Then it's taken out of our hands and reviewed by those who I think have an obligation, but it doesn't reflect a fair process in terms of the first nation, because it's taken entirely out of our hands.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We have a couple of minutes left because we started a bit late, so the questioning goes now to MP Saganash.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Oh, surprise. Thank you. I thought I was done.

A lot of these issues we've talked about over the last two days, in Vancouver and here, have to do with implementation of the agreements that we have. There's a concept, at least in our world, of the need to uphold the rule of law. Upholding the rule of law means respecting the Constitution, and in that Constitution, our Constitution, are aboriginal and treaty rights. That's what upholding the rule of law is, and that seems to be the theme that has come up with every panel since we started.

I'd like to get a sense from this panel of your understanding of a nation-to-nation relationship. The way things are going today in Canada, is that a nation-to-nation relationship?

It's a very general question.

[Lorie Thompson]

In terms of the implementation of that relationship outside of the rule of law, it's just based on human respect, upholding the dignity of the human condition so that everyone can achieve that mino-bimaadiziwin, that good life, and respect the processes that are developed within each other's nations.

As for Brokenhead, in terms of addressing outstanding issues, they've taken initiative and created their own elders dispute resolution panel that has the opportunity to look at the facts and determine what the solutions are, based on respect and fairness, and to provide recommendations to the governance administration processes, and consider the well-being of the whole community while carrying out that function on a voluntary basis.