Evidence of meeting #70 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was manitoba.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
Thank you.
That wraps up this session. Thank you very much for coming out and taking time away from the important work that you have in your own communities. It was nice seeing you.
Meegwetch. Thank you for your time.
We'll take a short break. We have about 10 minutes, and then we will reconvene.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
Welcome. This is our final panel in Winnipeg, and this is our second day. The committee is interested in hearing your views on comprehensive and specific land claims.
I want to thank you for taking time to come and present.
Before us we have the Manitoba Metis Federation, the Athabasca Denesuline, and the Ghotelnene K'odtineh Dene.
Each group will have 10 minutes to present, and after that we will have an opportunity to do a question period.
We will start with you, Jason, from the Manitoba Metis Federation.
10:30 a.m.
Jason Madden Legal Counsel, Manitoba Metis Federation Inc.
Good morning. Thank you.
My name is Jason Madden. I'm a Métis lawyer, a citizen of the Métis Nation, and legal counsel for the Manitoba Metis Federation in their land claim and self-government negotiations.
I'm going to start with a little bit of history, because I think that part of reconciliation is telling truths about our history. The story of the Métis is often done in little sound bites. However, it is not really fundamentally understood that Canada wouldn't be the Canada we have today without the constitutional compact that was forged here in 1869 and 1870 between the provisional government of the Métis and the Government of Canada.
I have a presentation that I've circulated. I think one of the things the Métis have been constantly struggling with is finding their place within Confederation, and also making sure that they stay on the map. There are two quotes that I want to highlight, one from Louis Riel and one from Sir John A., which show the dynamic or the differences of perspective about what actually happened or what was forged.
This is what Riel is writing in 1885 about the relationship. He says:
When the Government of Canada presented itself at our doors it found us at peace. It found that the Metis people of the North-West could not only live well without it...but that it had a government of its own, free, peaceful, well-functioning, contributing to the work of civilization in a way that the Company from England could never have done without thousands of soldiers. It was a government with an organized constitution, whose jurisdiction was all the more legitimate and worthy of respect, because it was exercised over a country that belonged to it.
That's Riel's perspective about what was negotiated, and he later on refers to it as a treaty between the Métis and Canada.
This is what Sir John A. writes in his diaries, likely to one of his drinking buddies:
...it will require considerable management to keep those wild people quiet. In another year the present residents...will be altogether swamped by the influx of strangers who will go in with the idea of becoming industrious and peaceable settlers.
That's Sir John in 1869. That's the vision. Of course, yes, make the promise, whatever gets us through the day, whatever gets us what we want, and we will swamp them. Of course, that is the fundamental starting point of the relationship between Canada and the Métis Nation. If you're going to enable reconciliation, you need to talk truths about it.
Louis Riel is in vogue now. You see him on sweatshirts and on social media, but you have to remember what Riel fought for. It wasn't western alienation. It wasn't just French language rights. It was for his people, the Métis people. So if you're going to honour Riel, you'll have to have reconciliation with the Métis. That has been a long time coming, and we think that we're making progress, and we're going to talk about it in the context of the modern-day land claims agreement processes, as well as self-government. But I think it's important to remember that that's our history. Let's own it.
No one can go back and rewrite it or change it, but we also can't duck it.
Reconciliation and whether you call them claims—I hate the term “claims”. Get rid of it. It is so patronizing, that we are claiming to get something. There are historic grievances. There is unfinished business. But the idea that you have the underlying title is your assumption, and it's not true in law internationally. The idea that we are then claiming, coming cap in hand, as opposed to trying to tell truths about how this country was formed, and dealing with the unfinished business of Confederation, or these historic grievances.... If you do want a recommendation, let's get that vernacular out of the system, because it's pejorative and also incorrect, and embedded within it are biases that I don't think stand any more.
This is the original compact that essentially brings western Canada into Confederation. I think the Métis have gone through what we call several stages in that relationship. Post-1870 is a history, which I think is familiar to first nations and others, of dispossession, denial, and discrimination.
Post-1870, it's not just that they are going to swamp us with settlers; it's that there is going to be a reign of terror. There are going to be rapes. There are going to be beatings. There are going to be murders, and that's how they acquire the land. It's not simply diligent settlers coming in. All this leads to the Métis losing much of their traditional land base and actually scattering throughout parts of the province as well as into other parts of western Canada.
In the era following the Second World War, Métis veterans came back and began reorganizing and rebuilding the Manitoba Métis community. They had gone to fight for Canada and for international human rights, and the idea that they didn't have them on their own soil was deeply offensive. From 1967, you see the Manitoba Métis Federation form and Métis groups beginning to organize again in the Prairies.
The period from 1982 to 2016, I call “negotiations interrupted” and the “hunt for justice in the courts”. The Métis thought that in 1982 everything was going to change and negotiations were going to begin. They soon realized that all section 35 really meant for the Métis was the right to go to court. They did, and they have continued to do so over the last 15 years. I've been there five times and have been successful each and every time.
Through a trilogy of cases, from the Powley case in 2003, to the Manitoba Metis Federation case in 2013, to the Daniels case in 2016, the fundamental constitutional legal questions with respect to the Métis were asked and answered. In these cases, it was decided that the Métis have jurisdiction, rights equal to those of first nations and Inuit, and outstanding land claims that need to be resolved. We hope we're entering a new era of reconciliation, redress, and respect.
I want to talk about what's called the MMF land claim. In respect of section 35 of the Constitution Act, it's sometimes thought that a land claim must actually claim a specific piece of land. What section 35 states in subsection 35(3) is that “treaty rights” include rights that now exist, or may be so acquired, by way of land claims agreements. The idea for the MMF is that section 35 is to be read progressively and that ultimately aboriginal rights can be converted into treaty rights through negotiations.
The problem for the Métis is that in 1981 they filed their land claim with Canada, and some learned Department of Justice lawyers looked at it and said there was nothing there. In fact, we included the letter, and what they actually said was:
Please find enclosed the Government's response to your land claim submission, as prepared by a legal advisors. You will note it is their considered [legal] opinion that the claim as submitted does not support a valid claim in law nor...justify the grant of further...research.
That was sent back to the MMF in 1981. Six months later they did what every indigenous group does—they retained Tom Berger. Thus began a litigation of 32 years. Now, the good thing about the Department of Justice lawyers is that they are always wrong on these sorts of things. Thirty-two years later, the Supreme Court of Canada said that there was indeed an outstanding claim, that this was a fundamental compact or promise for Canada, and that the honour of the crown was breached in the implementation of section 31, or the land grant. That took 32 years and millions of dollars in time and energy, but Métis were successful in demonstrating that they ought to be included after years of historical exclusion. Since 2013, a memorandum of understanding and a framework agreement have been signed, and Métis are beginning to finally get to the table in these negotiations.
I recommend that everyone read the report on Métis rights by Tom Isaac, the ministerial special representative. It is a short, well-written, and very helpful report that gives a far better synopsis than I can do in 10 minutes of the trajectory of Métis rights and how your existing policies in relation to land claims and self-government agreements need to be modified to include the Métis. He essentially says that the Métis have no place, that your policies are designed for first nations and Inuit, and that these policies exclude the Métis by their very nature. The idea that we have to take additional cases throughout Manitoba and other parts of the Prairies as opposed to getting to negotiations is absurd.
The other big issue for us is the policy. Right now I, as MMF's legal counsel, feel that I'm Charlie Brown and that Lucy has the football, because at any time it can be pulled since I don't have a policy framework to operate under for Métis negotiations. There is no legislative base.
I think that's one of the key messages that we want to send today. There needs to be some sort of framework to support Métis negotiations, so that football doesn't get pulled away at a later date.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
Thank you.
I'm sorry that it's so rigid. The committee tries to establish a process that's agreed to by all political parties, so that we all have a chance to ask you questions and make it fair, but it does seem very rigid. My apologies.
We'll move now to the second presentation.
Ronald, please go ahead.
10:40 a.m.
Ronald Robillard Chief Negotiator, Athabasca Denesuline Né Né Land Corporation
Good morning. My name is Ronald Robillard, and I am the chief negotiator for Saskatchewan Athabasca Denesuline. I have here with me Barry Hunter, who is the adviser to negotiations as well.
I have a presentation that I'm going to read to you. This is a submission on behalf of the Athabasca Dene leaders and the membership of Fond Du Lac, Black Lake, and Hatchet Lake.
On behalf of the Saskatchewan Athabasca Denesuline, we would like to thank the committee members for this opportunity. Following seven years of litigation, the Athabasca Denesuline have been working towards a negotiated settlement for the last 18 years. With regard to the background of the negotiations, the Athabasca Denesuline includes Black Lake, Fond Du Lac and Hatchet Lake.
Our history, culture, and way of life span thousands of years and were predicated on the movements of the Beverly and Qamanirjuag caribou herds. Our traditional territory parallels the range of BQ caribou herds, including portions of what are now known as Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. There is also a map attached to that.
The recent political boundaries have dissected our traditional way of life, making it difficult to exercise our way of life. We are dealing with regulation of multiple jurisdictions. Other social changes have negatively impacted our culture, our economies, and our traditional way of life. There is a feeling of disrespect and disregard for our treaty rights.
During the seventies and eighties, the Athabasca Denesuline became concerned that Canada was negotiating—without consultation or input—comprehensive claim settlements with other indigenous groups in the NWT, including the determination of territorial boundaries over the area of current and traditional use by the Athabasca Denesuline.
Canada's position that the Athabasca Denesuline have no unextinguished rights in the NWT is based on the blanket extinguishment provision of Treaties 8 and 10 and because the Athabasca Denesuline also have treaty land entitlements in Saskatchewan.
Failed efforts to get the federal and territorial governments to recognize our rights led the Athabasca Denesuline to launch a court action in 1991. The AD sought declarations that we have treaty or unextinguished aboriginal rights and damages for infringement of those rights.
In 1995, our claim was recognized by the Indian Claims Commission, which concluded that the Athabasca Denesuline have treaty harvesting rights north of the 60th parallel and recommended that Canada formally recognize the existence of these rights and afford them section 35 protection.
In 2000, we began out-of-court settlement negotiations with the intent of resolving the litigation, reconciling lost opportunities, and recognizing Denesuline rights north of 60. Although this out-of-court settlement that deals with some elements of a comprehensive claims package like land and resource management, there are no subsurface rights, royalty-sharing or self-government provisions, or other elements of a comprehensive claim.
Our concern is that despite these limits, the AD draft final agreement still requires comprehensive release from all past and future claims to aboriginal rights.
While we find this objectionable in principle when considering the time and costs of litigation and Canada's terms for negotiation, following consultation with our community leaders and elders, we proceeded with negotiating a settlement with Canada that included some significant but not all elements of a comprehensive claim.
The negotiation process has been incredibly challenging due to multiple territorial jurisdictions, provincial jurisdiction, an entrenched bureaucracy unable to adapt to the unique situation, and overlapping interests among aboriginal groups. However, we have reached a draft final agreement with the federal crown. We would like to focus the remainder of our presentation on some of these key challenges and accomplishments.
First of all, on overlapping indigenous interests, through compromise and negotiations, a historic agreement was reached between AD and GKD and the Inuit in 2007, supported by Canada. This arrangement outlined the understanding between the parties on the negotiation of AD and GKD land, harvesting and resource management rights in Nunavut, and required amendments to the NLCA to accommodate these rights.
This has set the stage for concluding negotiations of the rights of AD and GKD in Nunavut. Discussions with Akaitcho and NWT Métis in the Northwest Territories have been ongoing, but it has been challenging to reach overlapping arrangements.
Canada has applied different criteria for establishing settlement boundaries for various indigenous groups. Only the Athabaska Denesuline and GKD have had to prove to Canada and GNWT their settlement area through land use and occupancy research.
On the other hand, the other indigenous groups are negotiating settlement areas with Canada and GNWT covering most of our traditional territory in South Slave Region without similar evidence of traditional use and occupancy. The overall situation differs from that of Nunavut as there are no other final land claim agreements in the South Slave Region. The draft AD and GKD agreements are written with placeholders for resource management and other provisions to avoid adversely impacting the rights of other indigenous groups.
The AD agreement is currently undergoing a consultation process with these other groups. With regard to territorial issues, the Government of the Northwest Territories, unfortunately, opposes the draft AD final agreement with Canada due to the quantum of settlement land and resource management provisions. This opposition is due to their unjust characterization of the AD as non-residents and not deserving of the same rights and benefits as other northern indigenous peoples. Their opposition caps years of frustrating, half-hearted participation of the GNWT and their ultimate withdrawal from negotiations. AD have met with GNWT and Canada many times at great expense to seek a solution to a land quantum issue and particularly to get the GNWT back to the negotiating table.
We've suggested several possible approaches, but these have been rejected. Neither has the GNWT provided us with any clear alternative offers to consider. We no longer see them as party to the negotiations or settlement. As a consequence to GNWT's opposition, Canada has offered to conclude a treaty with us bilaterally. Most of the difficult drafting and technical land-use-related issues have been resolved. Canada and AD must continue with the bilateral approach to settling.
Until very recently, the Government of Nunavut had been back at the negotiating table. Upon their return, they began providing comments on the draft final agreements and implementation funding, and insisting that they must be ratifying parties to the treaty. We see no constitutional justification for their participation as parties to our treaty. By allowing the territorial governments to delay conclusion of the treaty on the question of their participation as parties to the treaty, Canada is allowing the narrow local concerns of territorial governments to prevail and act as a veto over Canada's constitutional treaty obligation and paramount objective of reconciliation. In the end, treaty-making is a nation-to-nation endeavour.
Frankly, seven years of litigation and 18 years of negotiations are long enough. During this time we have dealt with nine Canadian governments, 14 federal ministers, six federal negotiators, four special ministerial representatives, and myriad territorial administrations. These governments have come from across the political spectrum, and our issues have never been partisan. Each change necessitated a political reset and resulted in a significant delay to settling our agreement. Such lengthy time frames impact negotiations' credibility, as well as the timeliness and relevancy of the agreement.
In conclusion, Canada and Athabaska Denesuline have reached a bilateral draft final agreement that settles a long-standing dispute 25 years in the making. It must proceed to immediate finalization. The opposition of the territorial governments cannot stand in the way. The territorial governments do not have a veto if they are included as ratifying parties over Canada's constitutional obligation to conclude our treaty on a nation-to-nation basis as part of the reconciliation process.
The Athabaska Denesuline thank you for this opportunity to make a presentation. We have been in negotiations for the past 18 years. It's been a long process dealing with multiple jurisdictions and dealing with overlapping issues and so forth. A lot of our elders have sat around the negotiating table with us since we started back in 2000. A lot of them are six feet under the ground now. A couple of days ago we lost a chief negotiator who sat on the Manitoba side; he wanted to see the final agreement. I think 18 years is long enough, and I hope this matter is taken seriously by the governments. Their policies have to change to accommodate today's reality of how we do things. All we want is recognition of our traditional territory.
Thank you.
10:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
It's very long and painful.
I don't know if I gave significant recognition to the Northlands Dene who are part of your group.
10:50 a.m.
Representative, Ghotelnene K’odtineh Dene
As you'll see and read here in the presentations, there are similarities between them, but they're—
10:50 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
I see. I apologize. You should have been introduced originally.
Please, go ahead. You're going to split the time, with five minutes each?
10:50 a.m.
Representative, Ghotelnene K’odtineh Dene
We're going to take our 10 minutes, and then there will be time for questions.
10:50 a.m.
Representative, Ghotelnene K’odtineh Dene
Respectfully, on behalf of the Sayisi Dene First Nation and the Northlands Denesuline First Nation, collectively known as Ghotelnene K’odtineh Dene, I would like to thank the committee members for the opportunity to make this presentation.
My name is Wayne Wysocki. I'm a partner in a consulting firm called Symbion Consultants, and I've been working with the two first nations on a negotiated solution to the Samuel/Thorassie litigation since 2001.
Also with me is Benji Denechezhe, currently the chief negotiator for Northlands Denesuline First Nation, and Geoff Bussidor, the new chief negotiator for Sayisi Dene First Nation.
The traditional land of Sayisi Dene First Nation and Northlands Denesuline First Nation stretches from northern Manitoba into what is now Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. Both signed treaties. Northlands is part of the Barren Lands band. They're part of Treaty 10, which was signed in 1907. Sayisi Dene are adherents to Treaty 5, which was signed in 1910. In the seventies, the first nations established communities and reserves at Tadoule Lake and Lac Brochet. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s, both first nations sought to select treaty land north of 60, but were consistently denied this by Canada because they had signed treaties, and Canada's position was that they were no longer entitled to land north of 60.
In March 1993, just prior to the signing of a Nunavut land claim agreement, Ghotelnene K’odtineh Dene commenced litigation—Samuel/Thorassie versus Canada—seeking a declaration of their rights north of 60. In the spring of 1999, after spending nearly seven years in litigation, Ghotelnene K’odtineh Dene took their drums to Parliament Hill, demanding that Minister Stewart meet with them and agree to establish a table to negotiate their rights north of 60. Since then, these two first nations, along with the three Athabasca Dene first nations, have been negotiating with the Government of Canada to complete two land claim agreements covering settlement areas in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. There's a map attached to our presentation that shows you all the settlement areas that have been agreed to pursuant to these negotiations.
These agreements have been negotiated in conjunction with changes to the Nunavut land claims agreement to ensure consistency. This has been achieved with the support of both Conservative and Liberal administrations. It has never been a partisan political issue, nor should it be. The issues have been complex because of transboundary claims involving three jurisdictions—Canada, the Northwest Territories, and Nunavut. Through hard work and reasonable compromise, Ghotelnene K’odtineh Dene have reached a close-to-final agreement with the federal crown.
The issue is that the two territorial governments are delaying finalization of the treaty. The two territorial governments have had full opportunity to be involved in all discussions and have been fairly consulted and accommodated with respect to their interests and concerns. Nevertheless, they have delayed the finalization of the treaty. Throughout these 18 years of negotiations, the territorial governments have consistently raised concerns about the substance of the treaty, which has led to their leaving the negotiating table or adopting positions leading to a stalemate.
Canada has appointed three outside facilitators over the last 11 years to overcome territorial government resistance. No one has been successful. Currently, the GNWT is not supporting conclusion of the treaty because it believes Ghotelnene K’odtineh Dene should accept the treaty that provides them with second-tier section 35 rights. The Government of Nunavut, which after a five-year absence began providing comments in late 2016, believes that its consent is required as part of the conclusion of the treaty, and that ratification cannot occur until it has been adequately compensated for treaty implementation costs. By allowing the territorial governments to delay conclusion of the treaty, Canada is allowing the narrow local interests of the territorial governments to prevail over the paramount objective of reconciliation.
Canada has the legal authority to ratify the treaty without territorial government concurrence. In fact, the rationale behind the crown-indigenous relationship as set out in a royal proclamation and the Constitution Act was to ensure that local interests did not interfere with the crown's fulfilling its obligations to indigenous peoples. The royal proclamation placed the sole responsibility for Indians and Indian lands in the crown and the right of the United Kingdom. The royal proclamation recognized the rights of Indians to unceded lands in their possession, and established that those rights to the lands could be ceded only to the crown. Section 91.24 of the Constitution Act passed this jurisdiction to the new crown and the right of Canada. The territorial governments are not the crown. The treaty does not change their jurisdiction. Therefore, there's no legal basis for their being parties to or giving consent to the treaty.
After 18 years of negotiations, it's time for Canada to exercise its authority and conclude the treaty bilaterally. Failing to conclude the treaty bilaterally, given the offer to the Ghotelnene K’odtineh Dene and the case law, would be inconsistent with the honour of the crown. Canada's offer was bilateral, and we accepted the offer as being the basis for negotiation.
At no point in the offer is the consent, or even the co-operation, of the territorial government required. The offer provided for territorial government participation in those matters within their jurisdiction. Not only have they fully participated in those matters, but they have also, on many issues that go well beyond their jurisdiction. The case law requires the crown, once it has entered into negotiations with an aboriginal group, to resolve outstanding claims and to negotiate honourably and in good faith. Outside considerations not related to the conduct of the indigenous negotiating parties do not override Canada's obligation to negotiate honourably. Further, the honour of the crown requires Canada to fulfill its constitutional promise to Ghotelnene K’odtineh Dene in a diligent way.
In addition to Canada's legal obligations, there are equally important political and moral reasons to conclude the treaty. This government has sent clear political messages that following policies and practices that do not accord with the constitutionally protected nation-to-nation relationship is not acceptable. Consistent with the promise of a renewed relationship, the Prime Minister directed his minister of indigenous affairs, in her mandate letter, that her overarching goal will be to renew the relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples. This renewal must be a nation-to-nation relationship, based on recognition, rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership.
Furthering the promises of a renewed relationship, on July 17, 2017, the Government of Canada proclaimed its principles respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples. These principles are further evidence of the reset of the relationship between Canada and indigenous peoples. What is particularly significant about these principles is the focus of the crown/indigenous relationship in the negotiation of treaties, the importance of treaties in effecting reconciliation, and the right of all indigenous peoples to enter into treaties with the crown.
For the Ghotelnene K’odtineh Dene, the reset of the relationship and implementing the constitutional foundation of the nation-to-nation relationship for treaty-making means that territorial governments do not have a veto over their treaty, and territorial governments are not parties to their treaty. Nowhere has the Prime Minister said that the new relationship is subject to the consent of territorial governments or that recognition of indigenous and treaty rights is dependent upon the approval of territorial governments or that the crown support is dependent on support from territorial governments. Any further delay signals that this government has no intention of honouring its duty and the promises of its leaders.
Canada's moral obligation to move forward cannot be overlooked. There is a profound human cost attributable to Canada having allowed these negotiations to drag on for nearly 18 years. An entire generation has watched and waited for fair recognition of Ghotelnene K’odtineh Dene rights north of 60. Those people who were middle-aged when this claim was filed are now elders; those who were preschoolers are young adults; and most of the elders who encouraged their people to stand up for recognition of the rights in the early nineties have died.
Both of the original Ghotelnene K’odtineh Dene chief negotiators have passed on since these negotiations started. Peter Thorassi, chief negotiator for Sayisi Dene, just left us last week, and Jerome Deneshezhe was taken in 2015. Along with this loss of life, there's a loss of hope and a loss of confidence in the negotiators and community leaders. Patience is running out and cynicism is gaining momentum. Disregarding these obligations to move forward is a form of contemporary colonialism. We are asking this committee to advise Parliament that any further delay in concluding the treaty is wrong on legal, political, and moral grounds. Concluding the treaty is simply the right thing to do. We are also asking each and every one of you, as parliamentarians, to take this message back to your party caucuses.
Thank you.
If the committee can indulge us for a second, I'd like the chief negotiators to make some concluding remarks.
September 27th, 2017 / 11 a.m.
Benji Denechezhe Chief Negotiator, Northlands Denesuline First Nation
[Witness speaks in Dene]
We presented the history of what took place, but I'm going to speak on the grassroots level about how our people are today.
When this government came into power, there was hope that reconciliation and nation building were priorities, and our people had hope, but now that hope is fading away since these are always delayed by bureaucrats not willing to move forward. At our grassroots level, our people are waiting patiently. We are very kind people and very tolerant, despite how we have been treated, and history says it all.
Today I'm here. I am speaking from my heart for our people. We all have a common goal. We would like something better for our children. For over 100 years that's what we've been trying to do, and we're still struggling today.
The minister last August in Tadoule Lake was crying. She had tears, and I have a recording of that, and she said never again will the Government of Canada treat our people.... Guess what? Today we are still having the same struggle.
I hope you can help us. If we have to beg, so be it. Please, we are asking you to help us get what is rightfully ours, because we've been waiting for justice for a long time. Our people are dying. The people who started this negotiation have both passed on, and we buried one three days ago who was my partner and colleague. As you can see, it is heavy for us at times.
This is not the first time I have come to present and talk in front of people, but when I start going, I think about the people back home. I hope you can hear us. We have been waiting long enough, and it's time to move forward and get on with what's already agreed upon by Canada.
Masi cho.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
Thank you.
We're now into a period of questions, and MPs will have an opportunity to ask the groups questions. We've heard from three groups, so I'm going to ask you to direct your question to who you would like to respond.
MP Anandasangaree.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Madam Chair, I believe Mr. Bussidor has requested the floor for a few minutes. I wonder if we have consent just to give him a few minutes to conclude.
11:05 a.m.
Geoff Bussidor Chief Negotiator, Sayisi Dene First Nation
I don't know if you can hear me. I have a soft voice.
This is my first time publicly presenting on behalf of our band, the Sayisi Dene First Nation. I just inherited the chief negotiator's position. He passed on. We buried him two days ago here in Winnipeg.
According to one of the social workers who was involved with our relocation, the Sayisi Dene First Nation is the band treated the worst by the government in all of Canada. That's not a very good thing, but I don't want to dwell on that. What we're here for is to talk to the NWT issues.
I just want to mention that if you look at territorial borders from the past, from when Canada was first being developed, you'll see that the territorial border has been moving steadily up and steadily up and has been reduced and reduced. Our treaties were signed while we were still within the Northwest Territories' border, so we're actually territorial treaty people. My grandparents were born in the territories. My mother was born in Edehon Lake, which was in the Northwest Territories in 1931, but now that's been turned over to Nunavut. She's passed on, but there would be that question: what territory are you from? What would you answer to that? Anyway, those types of things happen.
I just want to let you know that our people have suffered enough. We're struggling to regain our territories, and if you could help us in that way, it would be appreciated.
My grandmother was a Dogrib, or part Dogrib, and my grandfather was part Nasiyu, which is an extinct tribe. They were underground dwellers. There's an island named after them at Duck Lake. It's called Battle Island. I don't know why they called it Battle Island, because it wasn't even a battle where they were killed off. But we call it Nasiyu Nughe, which means Nasiyu Island. That's where they lived underground on an esker.
I just wanted to give you a little bit of personal history and the relevance to the issues at hand. Thank you.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Madam Chair, this is just a sidebar. Given that we have 21 minutes, would one round of seven minutes each be appropriate?
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Thank you.
Thank you very much for the presentations. They're quite powerful. They're quite a reminder to us of the enormous work that we have ahead of us. I know the process here has taken a generation and that I see a lot of grey hairs, a lot of people who put a lifetime of work into this. I want to just start by thanking you and, really, acknowledging the work that you've done for future generations.
I want to talk about this relationship not just with Canada but with other nations and other jurisdictions, and I know the frustration you've expressed with respect to the territories. What can we do in terms of developing a framework that can actually bring different jurisdictions into one table? I think the situation you have is that Canada should go ahead notwithstanding the territories' position on this. But it may not be that easy to do given perhaps the framework that currently exists with the territories. I'm not a legal expert on it, but that's my initial inclination. Could you maybe assist us in advising how we can develop a framework such that before the negotiations or discussions start, we would have a set of principles that can guide us?
11:10 a.m.
Representative, Ghotelnene K’odtineh Dene
With respect to this file, we do have a framework. It starts with the Royal Proclamation, and it continues with the Constitution. It went to the offer. The offer was bilateral. There was a clear framework when we started these negotiations. Then there is a legal framework under which Canada is honour-bound to conclude these negotiations.
Respectfully, Mr. Saganash said, in the previous presentation, that the rule of law needs to be followed. The rule of law has to apply here. We have a framework. It's very clear. The Government of Canada is ignoring the framework. We had a promise from the Government of Canada, with this new government, that this framework was going to be respected, implemented, and reset in a new way. Reconciliation means following the frameworks that we have, honouring them, and building upon them.
With all due respect, the framework with respect to this file is extremely clear. It's clear from a constitutional perspective. It's clear from a legal perspective. It's clear from a political perspective. There is no need to try to reinvent a framework that would fit this file. The only thing we need is for this committee to make an absolutely clear recommendation to Parliament that this treaty needs to be concluded. Otherwise, this whole notion of reconciliation is being disregarded.
That's a point that this committee cannot overlook.
