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

[Chief Jim Bear]

While there are still third party occupants and outstanding specific claims to conclude for our first nation, we'd like to offer some solutions. The claims tribunal should be completely independent. It is not a fair process when Canada's reviewing, researching, and judging itself. Canada should appoint a minister of treaty and aboriginal land claims, or the settlement process should be streamlined to quickly address the claims process in a manner that minimizes delays.

We continue to experience more loss. Individuals who work on these files in this forum should be required to participate in indigenous education and awareness so that they can gain indigenous knowledge and protocol. We'd like to see that with anyone working on our files.

Also, the issues with files should supersede the election process, regardless of which party gets in. That's what we're trying to do in my community: the election process is just a blip and the work goes on to conclude, but this does not happen in the mainstream system.

Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

We'll move over to Chief Roulette.

[Chief Lance Roulette, Chief, Sandy Bay First Nation]

Thank you.

I'm Lance Roulette of Sandy Bay Ojibway First Nation.

It wasn't too clear exactly what type of information was requested from the Sandy Bay Ojibway First Nation. In 2007, Sandy Bay's claim was rejected as a result of some information not being conveyed from lawyer to lawyer in relation to how the claims process had worked for Sandy Bay. There was a denial in 2007. Sandy Bay then began to wait out the five-year period to once again re-apply for the specific claims process, and right now we're waiting to present this claim in the face of the issue of land claims and specific claims.

Some of the things we have noted and have seen throughout the process are, once again, getting access to the right areas, not only where the claim can be expedited, but more along the lines of how the claim itself can move along more quickly for Sandy Bay. It's been very, very difficult at times not only to overcome the barriers of accessing the right resources to move forward but also because the first nations begin to question whether the claim will be even harder, seeing that we are being requested to do our submissions, but at the same time, it's the same group that decides whether it's yea or nay.

A lot of the time we see an extension of certain negotiations that truly affect the first nation at hand and how they move forward. I want to speak more to the issue of the default and intervention within the first nations. It's been duly noted that the first nations have undergone interventions, and they are usually engaged through the overall debt associated with their contribution agreements. Most of the time these contribution agreement terms are non-negotiated, and that's one of the key factors, because, most of the time, to enable our systems to work adequately and properly, I believe that the contribution agreements need to be negotiated to fit what each specific first nation is going through rather than having a proposal or a formula driven for all of the first nations across Canada.

More along the lines of looking at the issue and the word “intervention”, what does the word “intervention” imply? It's the action or process of intervening or actions taken to improve a situation. Today when many first nations hear the word “intervention”, it throws shivers down their spines, because a lot of the time there's a stigma attached to it that they are deemed to have poor governance, which is usually an indirect statement and the main contributing factor to funding model limitations in the intervention programs which, as designed, do not truly fit what the actual needs of any first nation. The funding models are difficult to implement to improve our way of life, which is why we have such a high rate of suicides and a lot of health issues, and especially where we're situated.

In Sandy Bay's case, one of the problems we have encountered is that there's no additional funding for the actual needs rather than the needs of any first nation as they are perceived and identified in the current process.

Also, the flow-through mechanism needs to be a little bit more prompt at flowing funds. This includes sources that encompass infrastructure projects that surpass deadlines as a result of delayed funding. These delays lead to debt being created for a first nation and year-end monies being clawed back, when they should automatically be transferable from year to year.

Under the INAC guideline, the recipient has not met its obligations under that funding agreement. The obligations under the agreement are clearly spelled out, but it does not address the adequacy that is needed within many first nations to close that social and economic gap.

Some of the changes, whether they happen federally or provincially.... If you look at the issue of wage increases, I find that kind of unique in this section, because we are part of Manitoba's government union collective bargaining agreement. When wage increases occur from year to year, the first nation doesn't get the additional funding to address that specific issue. The increases in the cost of living also pose a huge problem, which then invokes the issue of intervention.

Some of the problems that have occurred through the specific claims process could be used as a leveraging tool to offset some of the costs once a first nation gets its claim. We have two systems impacting each other, and this creates either levels of intervention or spitefulness as a result of not being able to move forward as promptly as the 23-step process currently sets out.

In closing, I will note the specifics to identify during the process of self-sufficiency. Through general understanding, parameters are set in place to govern the areas of service delivery based on the perceived needs of the current model of intervention and the model of promoting poverty.

Whether you are a politician, an advocate, or a service provider, one thing that remains is how the decisions of today improve the access to needed services and programs that truly reflect the needs of many first nations communities under the level of intervention. It is also necessary to ensure progress by means of partnerships, dialogue, and healthy relationships.

In order for an intervention to work perfectly, we need clear timelines for transferring skill sets back and forth as well as for developing an exit strategy within many first nations communities. I think there are a few out there who are looking for a process rather than just saying, “Hey, you're 23% over your overall funding within your debt retirement. You are going to be running under a regional intervention committee, and you therefore need to go into intervention.”

A lot of the first nations communities need to be aware of what the timelines are in any level of intervention. We have first nations that have TLE but that are still under third-party management. What steps are being taken to help them become self-sufficient? I'm keying in more on the issue of intervention and how it relates to first nations, because we are going through the exercises ourselves.

In relation to the claims issue, I think there is still a lot that Sandy Bay needs to learn. We are still fairly new at this, and some of the barriers we have encountered are related to getting the dialogue straight across and having that last interaction.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

We're now moving into the question period.

We start with MP Mike Bossio.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you all very much for being here today to be a part of this important discussion trying to find solutions so we can get beyond everything changing at re-election, because that, I think, is really the crux of the situation.

Before we start, I know there are still a number of members from the previous panel as well. We have so little time in these questions. I encourage you to submit any further information you feel will be valuable. I know we spoke afterwards about some of the stuff we need to nail this down and to figure out.

From a legislative standpoint, we get a very strong sense that UNDRIP is the path to follow, based on a lot of the submissions in B.C. and here today to an extent. How do we formulate that within the legislative process to ensure that we do get beyond this election-to-election change, if that is the path we think could be beneficial? We want to do the right thing, but if we don't formalize it, then it's too easy for people to define the right thing to do.

[Lorie Thompson, Legal counsel, Brokenhead Ojibway Nation]

[Witness speaks in Cree]

Good morning. My name is Lorie Thompson. I am here assisting Brokenhead Ojibway Nation with their presentation this morning.

With respect to your question, I'll make it very simple and very brief: It's through a renewal of vows in the treaty relationship that was entered into.

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

The problem that I see with that, though, is that too many times past governments, over the last 200 years, have had their own way of defining what those vows are. Once again, I would like to think we all enter into these things with a good heart and that we want to bring about that positive change and make everyone's lives better. Unfortunately, we know the reality has been very different. You have lived it.

I'm looking at it and wondering how we can ensure that the spirit of those vows in those commitments and treaties and the relationship is honoured if the laws don't reflect it to ensure that this is going to be the case. Once again, from a legislative standpoint, if there are any mechanisms.... I know this is not a question you are going to be able to answer in a couple of minutes, so I would once again encourage... That's where I think we need to try to find some mechanisms and witness testimony that can help inform the report at the end of this stage.

[Chief Jim Bear]

I want to throw Quebec back to you. If you can do what you are doing for Quebec...we even precede Quebec.

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

That's a great point. One that I always raise is the Quebec agreement, but we all know that was hammered out and hammered out. How can we now formalize the process and use that as a template? I also know that every nation is different and has different realities. How can we take the underlying fundamental mechanisms that helped to make that a success and try to embed them in the legislative framework so that, once again, we can get past election-after-election changes in interpretation and ensure that these negotiations occur in good faith?

I know some have also recommended that we need to have joint processes for first nations and Government of Canada representation working as part of independent tribunals, both pre-negotiation leading up to the submission of the land claim itself and then post-negotiation of the land claim, and have independent bodies bring that forward. Would you agree that this would be one of the very key principal mechanisms that need to be in place?

[Chief Jim Bear]

Certainly those kinds of avenues can be explored, but the treaties do not make a nation. We signed as a nation. We had our own laws and everything. Canada has continually undermined it.

I guess what we're saying is that part of the process, which we've made part of our solution, is to get involved in indigenous knowledge but also knowledge of the treaty. Then all we want is the funding. We do need Canada. All we want is the government to honour us with our share of the natural resources that we have always been requesting.

We have our own laws. I have been asked to adopt the mental health law, judicial systems—federal and provincial. I cannot adopt broken laws. I think if you look at ours, in ours there are cost-saving factors. They're integrated; they're holistic, and there's reconciliation. The mainstream isn't that way.

All we want is not to be further imposed upon, and for the crown-to-nation relationship that we have to be honoured.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

The questioning now moves to MP Kevin Waugh.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Welcome to Treaty 1 territory, the homeland of the Métis.

I see here that in 1997—and you talked about it—you had the agreement, the MFA. You were awarded the rights to over 14,000 acres of land, but up until two years ago you had only 680 acres of that.

What has happened with all of this?

You've filed four other specific claims that have resulted in a variety of outcomes. Fill us in, if you can. You were awarded that back in 1997, and you talked about that. It says here 14,481 acres of land, but, as of March 2015, only 680 acres had been converted to reserve land. Can you talk about the process for that back in 1997?

[Chief Jim Bear]

In the treaty land entitlement process, first of all, the Province of Manitoba didn't want to settle so we took up their challenge. They didn't want to give us our shortfall, so we took the challenge and went to the people of Manitoba. We went to every forum, all the cities, like Brandon, Dauphin, Thompson, Winnipeg, and other places like that.

They gave their presentation. What we told Manitobans is that we will never treat them the way that we have been treated. Subsequent to that, we got it approved. But even in TLE—not a specific claim but treaty land entitlement—we're having all sorts of difficulties even getting a simple little frigging service agreement with the municipality.

The chair, Minister Mihychuk, is well aware of those types of things. What's a simple thing like that versus a specific claim? A specific claim should be a little more complicated than a TLE, but both are challenging.

Also, I hope you have an open mind in terms of that. You may say welcome to the Métis homeland but, to let you know, historically it's us, the first nations, who were originally here and indigenous to the land. We did not come nine months later than anybody, regardless of when a contact was made.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Is the Métis situation an issue?

[Chief Jim Bear]

When it comes to third party interests, you guys have an issue with it. You're the ones who saw fit to include it in whatever processes you're making in terms of treaty land entitlement.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

Is Sandy Bay different? Maybe just talk about that, if you don't mind.

Chief Roulette, you're pretty passionate. You talked more about the provincial issue than the federal ones, but maybe just talk about the land claims that you're up against up there. Everybody has talked about the funding issues. We just came from B.C. That was first and foremost on everybody's mind, and I think it's first and foremost on your mind because it's pretty hard to follow through when you don't have the funds to work on specific land claims.

[Chief Lance Roulette]

Indeed, the barriers are all wrong for many first nations communities, especially in areas like education, which I'll use as a prime example. Provincially, you're funded at $15,000 or $15,000 plus per unit, our students. In Sandy Bay itself, we see about $5,300 per unit. We have a school of 1,100 kids. Right off the bat, our budgeting for the school itself is automatically put in a $1.3 million deficit, which is accumulated through our own-source programs. Among the barriers we're encountering along the line of the claims process right now, due to the rejection in 2007, is one that was brought down as a result of the first nations that claimed one of the...a few members who were a part of scrip of the overall White Mud Band. As you know, Sandy Bay, Long Plain and Swan Lake were part of the White Mud Band, prior to the separation of the three bands. Long Plain and Swan Lake have already received TLE agreements. Sandy Bay is not that different from Swan Lake and Long Plain, but not being included within that process or having our claim validated is basically a barrier on its own, as a result of, once again you guys requesting submissions but you guys making the overall decisions on the validation of the claim.

The past governments that had already done their submissions had the same notion. What would be the use of submitting, when the requests are coming in from the committee but also are going to be decided by the committee? A different process needs to be streamlined.

Every leader within our first nations community is very passionate about making sure that they try to provide the best outcome in life, not only for their people but also by trying to engage in partnerships to close the economic gaps. The passion is there for a lot of first nations and I think that Sandy Bay itself is also in a learning curve with specific claims and that is being shared with the community.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

That concludes the question period for MP Waugh. We now move to MP Romeo Saganash.

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

[Member speaks in Cree]

Since Quebec has been referred to on a couple of occasions today, for the record I want to make something clear around this table. When we signed the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the federal government was absent for a couple of years. The Quebec government did not wake up one morning and say to us, “I like your big brown eyes. I want to sign a treaty with you.” It never happened that way, and even the successive agreements did not happen that way. It is with many thanks to the Cree for their efforts both politically and legally, and that's how it's always going to be.

This brings me to my question, and I've asked this question to many others who preceded the presenters here today, even the previous panel. A policy is a policy; it's not necessarily a legal document. It's a policy, while our relations to the crown and indigenous people's relations are constitutional in nature. To my mind, there's an incompatibility between those two notions.

I want to at least ask the question. A lot of these issues have to do with the implementation of our different agreements and treaties. That's been a regular theme throughout our hearings since we started in Vancouver.

The question is for all three of you. Do you think a policy is reflective of what a nation-to-nation relationship should be?

[Chief Lance Roulette]

Thank you, Romeo Saganash.

Especially in relation to a policy being a policy, no, I think if you look at it historically, the issues and the stigma also surround policies. We need to make sure it's a fair and equitable process, as we do for certain legislation that still needs to be adopted by Canada, mainly in relation to UNDRIP.

As you've seen in the past, and historically, you'll know that policies, namely the Indian Act, have basically been there to keep us down, at the minimum, where we're moving forward in relation to other economic development are all sealed in specific areas of land claims. For them to even be a fruitful indicator item within many first nations communities has proven to be problematic. The inclusion and the consultation process through developing a policy as such should be driven by both sides. Feedback, inclusion, and consultations across Canada would need to happen with Canada in order to have a clear win-win situation in developing a policy.

[Chief Jim Bear]

In terms of policy, yes, it is problematic. As far as I'm concerned, the transparency act, for example, is totally illegal and demeaning. We're all subject to blanket policy, and for a nation, I, for one, am opposed to that.

In terms of finances, we just had a meeting with our auditor, and upon conclusion, we set up a community session for October 16. We're very transparent in terms of finances. If a first nation is going to be delinquent, if somebody is going to be delinquent, it is the one that should be dealt with, and not everyone. Rather than looking at a fair process, the government, through its bureaucrats or whatever, comes up with a policy that it applies to everyone. It should be taken on a case-by-base basis.

In a lot of instances, I think too much is left to interpretation. We've experienced that in some areas, so we've had to really try to focus on governance so that everything is clear. You have lines of authority, roles and responsibilities, and so forth.

I'll just stop there.

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

I have about 45 seconds left, I believe. I only get one shot at the can here.

Article 40 of UNDRIP says that “Indigenous peoples have the right to access to and prompt decision through just and fair procedures”. I think that this policy is not consistent with that provision. It was suggested that any policy cannot just be fixed by minor changes; it has to be consistent with our constitutional obligations and international obligations. Do you agree with that?

[Chief Lance Roulette]

That's a fair statement.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Does anyone want to respond? We have only 10 seconds.