Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 10th, 2020

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

There was a half-day meeting between the hereditary chiefs and the people supporting the project for a great part of Friday.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Okay.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

You weren't there, Jamie, so why don't we get on with how we're going to go forward?

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Well, I started that, and then your divisive language at the beginning derailed me.

Having said that, when you're talking about the title—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

You have 10 seconds.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

—when you allow the communities, will you bring this before Parliament after the Wet'suwet'en people...? If they ratify this, will you bring it before Parliament before you sign the deal?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

As you know, these conversations are starting to happen between the hereditary chiefs and the nation. This is an exciting time.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

I just need a yes or no.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Most section 35 agreements remain confidential until their ratification by the nation. That's normal in labour agreements and in section 35 agreements. Impact benefit agreements, however, remain confidential.

We are breaking new ground here, Jamie.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Mr. Battiste, for six minutes.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair and wela'lioq to the ministers for being here.

Prior to the establishment of the Indian Act and Canada, there existed several different governing structures across Canada. We are framing this as a project dispute, but this is about reconciliation moving forward over generations. With that in mind, there are several traditional and hereditary governing structures that exist across Canada today.

Could the ministers update us on how we've engaged traditional or hereditary governments, and could you share with us what we've learned about the complexities involved in creating improved relationships with traditional structures of governance?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Two years ago I was able and honoured to be at the ceremony where the Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs signed an agreement with Canada on child and family services, and that work is ongoing. As you well know, Jamie, in some parts of Canada the hereditary chiefs became the elected chiefs. In other parts that governance has stayed. Marc will add a little about how the Haudenosaunee take decisions. Right now, we have signed an agreement with Heiltsuk, which includes the hereditary and elected chiefs. The Haida already have an agreement in the way they work together. With Stó:lo, even in the B.C. treaty process, those two groups are coming together. Maybe Marc will talk a bit about it.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

I think you are familiar, Jaime, with some of the hereditary structures that exist in Mi'kmaq communities and some of the challenges that have been faced there with respect to elected band councils and, in fact, with some of the progress that has been made. It is absolutely uneven throughout the country

I think, as Carolyn summarized, some progress has been made out west in starting to create the basis for engagement with hereditary leadership. In the country, the Indian Act-imposed band council system is viewed in many indigenous communities as colonialist and paternalistic. It has removed, and the Government of Canada has consciously contributed to remove, structures that existed well before the existence of Canada that are highly democratic in nature and have a very rich history.

As a country and as a nation that wants to move forward with what we call reconciliation, we cannot ignore those voices, conscious of the fact that at times the government, as I mentioned earlier, has been deliberate in dismantling those structures. In some cases we have had very little engagement, if any. I, myself, have been involved in opening dialogues with the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. They are modest. They tend to be not in the public sphere. But there is a lot of work to be done. There is an immense amount of complexity in that relationship because we're talking about many nations that cross the U.S. border as well. It is something that has created within certain communities, in fact, the crisis of legitimacy. This isn't to say that elected band councils are not fierce defenders of their communities. They are. It just has created a reality where there is sometimes a perceived sense of illegitimacy that has contributed to frustrate not only the relationship but the ability to work in partnership. It is something that we are realizing, probably more slowly than we should, but we are realizing it and we need to address fundamental issues that Carolyn had to face over a four-day period with respect to lands and title that had been recognized in the Delgamuukw decision. Simply saying to yourself that you're only going to engage with this particular band council because it suits your needs is highly utilitarian in thinking and not the right way to approach things.

There are some communities that are entirely comfortable with an elected system, and there are some communities that wish to do a different job and move forward. That's why we have all those instruments that I named in my opening remarks. For some communities, that doesn't work and we have to realize that and get creative and see how we come together. This will all contribute to stability, good governance and respect for the relationship, which is perhaps the element of respect and truth that is missing. But I think it is the right way to advance the nation. It can be complicated. It can be messy. But we can't sit here and say we're going to go dictate the terms on which we engage, whether it's rights recognition frameworks or otherwise. We have to realize that in some communities and some nations there is a treaty-based relationship that communities are demanding to be respected and in others there's a much older and some others a much newer relationship.

There is an immense amount of nuance, and I think you hit the nail on the head in asking that question, Jaime, because it goes to the complex nature of that relationship and the steps we need to take to move forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

You have 40 seconds.

[Jaime Battiste, Liberal, Sydney—Victoria, NS]

Well, 40 seconds.... Throughout my life on reserve I have seen many different occasions when indigenous protests have caught the attention of the national media and Canada in general. I can remember Oka, Ipperwash and Idle No More. What lessons have we learned? What lessons has our government learned from those, which we're using today in terms of moving forward in our current approach?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Be very brief.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

I think this is why we ended up having to take the approach we did. We want durable solutions. We have learned the lessons of Oka and Ipperwash. Idle No More was a bit different because it was an educational approach, with round dances, and it was a peaceful recognition of indigenous rights. I think we know that this has got to be about agreements and settling land claims and being able to move forward in the way that our partners feel is the justice that they have not received up until now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thanks, Minister.

Ms. Bérubé, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, the Oka crisis cost the life of Corporal Marcel Lemay. It created deep wounds in Quebec society.

In his book, The Inconvenient Indian, Mr. Thomas King recalled that the deployment of the army at Oka had cost nearly $200 million, while the territories claimed by the Mohawks and ceded to them in 1997 were acquired for only $5.2 million.

The Oka crisis has also taught us that we need to talk to each other and that politicians need to take responsibility. There are several parallels between the Oka crisis and the one that is now coming to an end. What have we learned? What did we not understand? If the federal government had assumed its responsibilities, there might have been fewer crises downstream.

Why didn't the federal government act sooner to prevent this crisis?

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

We are going to share our speaking time.

As you know, Ms. Bérubé, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was a product of the Oka crisis. There were a lot of lessons to be learned as a result of this huge inquiry by the commission, lessons that were not necessarily followed, for example, with regard to land purchases. I am not telling you that this is a simplistic analysis, because it is a very profound reflection. Many of the recommendations were not followed. There have been times when the government's commitment has fallen short, admittedly, and that has happened in every respect.

The splitting of the former department into our two current departments is precisely because of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, a split that did not take place at that time, but more than 20 years later. That is the same lesson we learned from the Delgamuukw decision. In the wake of the Okanagan crisis, we realized, as Quebeckers and Canadians, that there is a real tension, which has a legitimate basis that dates back long before the very creation of Canada, with respect to the participation of the armed forces. It is a scar that remains open within these communities.

We often talk about the economic repercussions that persist on the economies of Quebec and Canada, and it must be emphasized. On the other hand, the greatest impacts, proportionately, have been felt in Kahnawake and Kanesatake, an underdevelopment that has persisted and continues to this day.

We have seen the prejudice and bias that followed resurface, whether in the media or in comments posted on Facebook. These were the same comments that were made after the Oka crisis. There was the death of the corporal appointed following the intervention of the Sûreté du Québec, or SQ. There was also the death of a man who was leaving Kahnawake when a rock was thrown against his window. He had a heart attack and he died from it.

These are things we need to think about as a society. I dare to believe that there have been changes as a result of the Ipperwash crisis. In Ontario, there has been a reform of police practices and indigenous engagement within the police force, which is a response to that cultural sensitivity and the demands that have been around for a very long time. Is there more work to be done? I would say very humbly yes.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

I just want to add something.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Excuse me, Ms. Bérubé.

We thank the Bloc Québécois for adopting the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and for supporting it, because with the two departments, it is no longer possible for me to deal with the issues of rights and title. We know that where land claims are settled there is certainty. It's a solid foundation on which to build when we make decisions, when the indigenous people and the people with those rights are around the table.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Ms. Bennett, I also wanted to tell you that the government's attitude during this crisis has been similar to someone who keeps pushing the panic button in the morning. Why did it take so long to act? I know you mentioned this earlier. There are a lot of reminders about the first injunction, the article in The Guardian, the failure of the talks, the first demonstrations, the first blockades, and so on.

What took you so long? It took almost 25 or 26 days to resolve the situation. The so-called indigenous crisis has become an economic crisis across Canada. Hereditary chiefs came to Canada when there was no negotiation between Parliament and the hereditary chiefs, how can you explain that?

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

A year ago, the Province of British Columbia appointed Mr. Murray Rankin to begin discussions on the rights and title of the Wet'suwet'en Nation. After the difficulties in December, Mr. Nathan Cullen became involved in the process of resolving the situation.

Initially, there were discussions between Minister Scott Fraser and myself. Then our government proposed a meeting with the hereditary chiefs of the Wet'suwet'en Nation.

We are committed to the process, and with patience, we will achieve a sustainable result.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Sorry, it's been a minute over. We're in six-minute rounds. We now have the NDP.

Ms. Gazan, I believe you'll share with Ms. Ashton.

Please go ahead.