Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Sept. 29th, 2017

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

I would also like to acknowledge that we're on the traditional lands of the Tyendinaga Mohawk people. Thank you so much, Chief, for allowing us to use these lands today during these proceedings.

I also want to let everyone know about Orange Shirt Day today, which is in recognition of residential school survivors. The local college, Loyalist College, is hosting an official event today around Orange Shirt Day. I see that one of the members in the crowd is wearing an orange shirt. I commend you.

I also want to express the profound gratitude I have to Chief Maracle for his guidance and his education over the past 20 years of our friendship in helping me to better understand the injustices that have occurred to indigenous peoples. He has informed my position on many issues since I've been here on this committee. Thank you very much, Chief.

Because we don't have a lot of time, I want to try to encapsulate some of what we have heard here today and throughout the issues around land claims that need to be solved. I'd like to just go through the list and then see if there are others you would like to add to it and comment on.

First, right off the bat, is the issue of land title and the determination of trying to extinguish that title. People have made very, very clear that it is just a non-starter right out of the gate and that indigenous peoples will never give up title to their land.

Second on the list is funding, and it starts right from the very beginning of the process around funding for research, funding for negotiations, and then funding for settlement. As you mentioned, the cap of $150 million is far too low, and as Chief Maracle mentioned, it isn't just about compensation, it's about land and the return of that land. We need to find settlements in funding for the government to purchase land and not just give money to indigenous communities to then purchase the land for themselves to bring back into reserves.

On negotiations, timelines, and inefficiencies, when negotiations take 15 to 30 years to achieve a settlement, that's a generation, a lost generation of development, a lost generation of economic opportunity, and a lost generation of once again making our indigenous peoples whole in respect to their connection to the land.

The next issue is negotiations from the standpoint of clear mandates and of the authority of the negotiators to negotiate and not just come to the table and then go back and report to their masters back at INAC or back in Ottawa. They need authority to ensure that the right people are at the table and that it's not just INAC. Justice, Natural Resources, Fisheries, or whatever entity has part of that claim needs to be at the table and needs to have authority to negotiate.

Concerning the independence of tribunals, we have tribunals for specific claims, but we don't have a tribunal for comprehensive claims. When the negotiations break down, and then everybody walks away from the table, there is no recourse to take it further. There is no independence as far as determining whether a claim is legitimate or not. There is no independence around working together towards policies or, in fact, a legislative framework that could better enforce, not just for today, but for future governments, so that we fulfill the mandate of being fair and equitable in developing a trusting relationship that finds resolution in this process.

The list includes independence, not just on ruling that there is a right, but being able to assign either compensation or land as part of that ruling so that, once again, it's not just kicked back over to government, or appealed, and we start the process all over again.

Finally on the list is education, educating the public on the importance of finding solutions, the importance of the historical injustices that occurred in the first place, and the importance of partnership in that solution, moving forward, so that all concerned parties benefit from the final outcome of negotiations in this overall process.

Would all of you agree that all of these issues are at the heart of what we're discussing?

Finally, as part of that legislation, we've heard loud and clear that a minimum standard of UNDRIP should be the basis of legislation moving forward.

Have I been able to encapsulate the overall framework that a lot of indigenous communities have brought forward in relation to the land claims issues in general? Could Chief Maracle respond, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

You have one minute to respond.

[Chief R. Donald Maracle]

On the issue of equitable compensation, Canada uses the 80-20 split. They deduct 80% of the loss-of-use funding from your settlement. You're only getting 20% of the value of the settlement.

The Specific Claims Tribunal ruled in the Huu-Ay-Aht First Nations case and rejected that 80-20 split. We understand that Canada is not appealing that ruling of the Specific Claims Tribunal, but there's another case before the court, the Lac Seul case, and Canada needs to enunciate its policy on the 80-20 issue very soon so that we know what we can expect in our relationship with the federal government.

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

Chief Hill, could you briefly comment?

[Chief Ava Hill]

Yes. I think you have touched on most of the points, but another important point is accommodation back to our community. You've talked about all of the stuff, and we do want land back, but in addition, we want financial resources. We want to be accommodated for the land we've lost, because as the largest community in this country we still have services.... There are a lot of people still knocking on the door and wanting services that we have to provide, and even though the federal government has the fiduciary responsibility to provide funding for those services, it's never enough, and it continues to be cut back.

That's why, in my presentation.... I think you know that we've gone off to start generating our own revenue, but we also want to get into agreements on resource revenue sharing, because we still have to provide services to our people. I think accommodation is a big and important part of this too.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

I'd ask our MPs to ensure that we have time for responses, because we're cutting into time for others.

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

I just wanted to get all of that on the record, all of which I agree with.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP Waugh, please.

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

Well, we're here to listen to you, if you don't mind me saying that.

Chief Maracle, you've made a statement about eviction of third parties. I've not heard that this week. That's a stunning statement that you've made here today. I want you to go into that. We have not heard that since we started on Monday in Vancouver. We've talked about partnerships, but that was a big statement you've just made.

[Chief R. Donald Maracle]

It's not just a statement. It's a treaty provision. I would strongly recommend that the standing committee have a presentation and be better informed on what the wording of the treaties is. That would help the crown better understand its obligations.

That treaty was made at a time after the American Revolution when Captain Joseph Brant, whose portrait is here in this room, committed our loyalty to the crown. We lost our homeland.

We were compensated with the Haldimand deed, the treaty there, and the Simcoe deed, Treaty No. 3½, which put 97,000 acres of our land under the protection of the crown. One of the things that the crown agreed to in that relationship was that they would protect the land from trespass. Instead, all the crown did was accommodate illegal alienation, with fee simple deeds being given to third parties without a surrender of the land required by the treaty and also by the royal proclamation.

Canada has not followed its own legislation and treaty obligations in its dealings, so we have these outstanding issues.

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

What are the third party developments on your land currently?

[Chief R. Donald Maracle]

For third party development, we've had quarries on land that's never been surrendered by the crown. Non-Indians have made hundreds of thousands of dollars by extinguishing our mineral rights, which have never been surrendered by the crown. The crown has been aware of it. We've objected to it, and the crown has failed to act. There's also a lot of residential property. The current Indian Act has many instruments through which non-Indians use Indian land. There are leases, cottage leases, and permits. There are plenty of instruments that accommodate third parties under the existing legislation, but they prefer to use the land for nothing and keep us waiting for justice and a resolution.

We've always worked very well with our neighbouring municipalities. As Chief Hill has mentioned, it's very important to first nations to generate revenue streams to meet the needs of a growing community. Canada continues to pass legislation to correct injustice toward native women by adding members to our base without adding extra financial resources to accommodate their needs or an adequate land base.

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

What you're saying, then, is that there are homes and businesses that would be affected.

[Chief R. Donald Maracle]

There are homes and businesses. On the Culbertson Tract, half of the town of Deseronto is on that land. If they want to use our land, they can work out an agreement to lease our land. The crown was responsible for what went on when our chiefs back in 1837 objected and the government's own lawyers said, “What you're doing is illegal”, and it chose to commit illegal acts. Our people have been harmed and prejudiced by that, and that needs to be corrected. The extinguishment of our title to that land is not acceptable. Maybe there's some other instrument that it could use, but Canada says, “We don't lease land to settle claims.” I guess it prefers to use the land for nothing.

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

We've heard from panels coast to coast here saying how important it is that Canada have a better understanding. Do you have any thoughts on that?

Chief Hill.

[Chief Ava Hill]

It is. As a chief, I think we're always invited to do a lot of speaking engagements. I just want to go back to the education piece. Canada does need an understanding, and not only the federal government. We, as Six Nations, have made efforts to educate as many of the MPs as we can, and we will continue to do that. We've spent some time on Parliament Hill doing advocacy work, and when we come back we encourage all of you to take the time to sit down with us one on one and have that meeting. But my colleague and I do a number of speaking engagements. We call them our dog-and-pony show. We give people our global solution. We explain what our land rights are and we explain the injustice that happened to our people, because we want people to understand the history and the culture. Too many times—

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

Okay, we're listening to you. You're doing your advocacy, but what is Canada doing to educate the people?

[Chief Ava Hill]

Well, Canada is making a number of commitments, and so we're going to hold its feet to the fire to make sure it fulfills those commitments. I think it's come forward and said it's—

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

But is Canada educating people?

[Chief Ava Hill]

I don't know if it's educating people. I would hope that it would take the steps to educate people.

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

But isn't that the most important thing here? Is Canada itself educating the people? I do see a disconnect here. You're doing your advocacy, but I'm not too sure Canada is doing its part in moving this forward. Would you agree on that?

[Chief Ava Hill]

Well, I think it could do more. Maybe it's not fulfilling all of its part. As the regional chief said, we hear a lot of good words, but I think it probably could do more. I think part of problem is the bureaucracy that's in place and within all these federal departments that has been there for the last 10 years. I think this new government is having a problem getting the bureaucracy to change the way of its thinking and its attitude, so maybe it needs to start educating its own bureaucrats.

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

So what about the change? We have the two ministers now. Were you consulted before?

[Chief Ava Hill]

No, I wasn't consulted on whether there should be a change in the division, but I do know that it was a recommendation made by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples 20 years ago. Why it wasn't implemented over the last decade, I don't know. Your government was in place. I don't know why you didn't implement it. But we're talking about nation to nation. Why should I go to another nation and say, “This is how you need to structure your government”? I wouldn't want them telling me how to structure my government.

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

Well said.

Do I have any more time?