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

[Jason Madden]

I think through the consultations in and around treaty land entitlements within Manitoba, clearly the Métis need to be consulted the same way as other indigenous groups. There's not a hierarchy of rights in section 35, and those discussions have begun.

I also think that land in relation to the Métis and how that ultimately plays out.... We know that land has to be a part of the settlement, but also the issue is what that may look like in the Métis context may be different. No one envisions the current system as the be-all and end-all either.

I think that's happening and, as I said, in self-government terms, this has been moving at lightspeed. We signed an MOU in May 2016. We had a framework agreement in November 2016, and we now have a formal mandate to negotiate. We're beginning those issues, but I think what we also need is a policy framework.

One thing I'd just like to flag from the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples is that there needs to be a legislative base for negotiations that incentivize progress, as opposed to policies that can flip on the governments of the day.

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

This question is to both Ronald and Wayne. This committee is called upon to review the comprehensive and specific claims policy. I'd like to know from both of you in which way, if any, the present policy has helped you in your negotiations, or whether that was separate from the issues that you guys talked about.

[Wayne Wysocki]

We've always been told that this is not a comprehensive claim; it's a claim of a third kind.

Notwithstanding the fact that everything the Government of Canada is asking from us, in terms of certainty and releases, is what's in.... Let's say you get a comprehensive claim. We're not getting that same thing back in return.

From a policy perspective moving forward, the simple thing is that I think there are two words that need to be purged from any revision of policy with respect to the resolution of claims in Canada. The first word is overlap. It doesn't work. The second word is transboundary.

The boundaries that are in there are not the boundaries of indigenous people. That was the beginning of the problem with the Dene. The litigation was filed in the first place because they weren't recognized, as if somebody drew a line and said you're now on the wrong side of the line.

It's the same problem. After 18 years of negotiation, we're having the same problem. They're saying, “We won't recognize you on this side of the line the same way as we recognize people who have a P.O. box there.”

Going forward, please purge the words overlap and transboundary.

[Barry Hunter]

If I might add a little piece on the transboundary thing, when we first started negotiations, you could always find information on both of these claims on the Indigenous and Northern Affairs website under “comprehensive claims”. It was probably about five years ago that it switched, and you can sort of find this lumped under “transboundary”. I would fully echo Wayne's notion that they are not transboundary. They are not Dene boundaries. They are outside boundaries, and those outside boundaries have created all of those problems.

The issue we're facing now is exactly that. It's one of boundaries. It's one of saying, as Canada did, “You Dene have no rights north of the 60th parallel,” for no reason other than because they created the 60th parallel. It's an astounding argument, which is why we were relatively promptly out of court and into negotiations, because there was no way that was ever going to stand.

The time has come to move on. The time has come to say, “We've tried, and we've tried.” Our issue is certainly around territorial governments at this moment in time. We've sorted out the differences as well as we can with the other indigenous folks. You have to think about it from a territorial perspective. What is actually in it for the territorial government to sign with either of the Dene groups? We don't vote for them. They don't view us as residents. They may face internal problems about settling a land claim for a group that may be perceived to be outside and not from there.

We appreciate all of those things. That's why Canada needs to stand up, take a strong stand, and say, “We're the treaty-making party. It's a nation-to-nation relationship.” Territorial governments are not a nation.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you very much.

We've ended our allotted time. The issues are complicated and important. We are taking submissions. If you have time, please continue to provide specific recommendations and broader recommendations on how we should approach this. Those will be put together into a report which we will submit to the Government of Canada. One would think it will be fairly soon, maybe by the end of November but before Christmas anyway, before the new year.

I want to thank all of you for coming out, and for the very informative and passionate presentations.

Meegwetch.

Thank you.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Yes.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I was going to add, on the submission front, that doesn't mean submissions before Christmas.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

No, I mean by mid-October.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

That's mid to late October at the latest.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Yes.

Thank you so much. On behalf of all of the committee members, we really appreciate your words and we take them to heart.

The meeting is adjourned.