Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 10th, 2023

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you to both of you for your presentations. Your presentations are very much music to my ears.

Bruce McIvor, I have a question for you. You are exposing that, going through the courts, our rights are not supported within the court. Even if we pursue legal actions, our proceedings are categorized, and categorization is harmful. This is very obvious as an indigenous person.

I have a question for you. As members of Parliament, can we pass....? I believe so, but I have a question for you. You are legal counsel.

As indigenous peoples, if we table the indigenous legal traditions, can we use them as a tool and as ammunition to pass a law? I have that question for you.

[Dr. Bruce McIvor]

Thank you very much.

It's a really important question, and it's being played out in courts all across the country. As a lot of you know, there is a direction we're going in to recognize indigenous legal orders.

When I teach about this at law school or different venues, I always talk about how we're mistaught as lawyers. I know that will come as a surprise to most of you, but we're taught a lot of things that I think are wrong now. One of them that I remember from law school was that all decision-making authority and all law-making authority has to be connected somewhere to the Canadian Constitution. It has to be in either section 91 or section 92, or in either the provincial or the federal law-making authorities.

That's wrong. That's wrong in Canadian law. It's really hard speaking to government representatives who don't recognize that.

I have a file on fisheries in Atlantic Canada. I'm trying to convince federal government representatives that the Mi'kmaq have their own law-making authority, and you get a conversation of, “Wait a minute. We have to delegate them some law-making authority first.” That's a fundamental misunderstanding of the law, so I think where we need to get to is government officials recognizing it and courts recognizing it.

Yes, you can rely on these legal traditions and principles. It's starting, but it's very slow and it needs to move more quickly.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you.

I think it is possible that we parliamentarians can introduce a bill that effectively recognizes indigenous legal traditions.

What do you think would be the most effective way to ensure that, as parliamentarians....? When we're sending signals to our governments that we want to recognize indigenous legal traditions, what is the best way to do that?

[Dr. Bruce McIvor]

We live in a parliamentary democracy. It's parliamentary supremacy. Parliament can move ahead and do these things. It can do these things. I don't just think it can. I think there's a responsibility to go ahead.

We talk about reconciliation all the time. I know I get frustrated. Indigenous people across the country get frustrated. What are we actually doing? It's not just apologies. What are we doing? One of the most important things to do is to move away from all the decision-making authority being either in provincial or in federal government hands. We need to move away from that.

I do a lot of duty to consult work. People are surprised I'm not really a fan of it. I hope we've moved past that. I would like to see indigenous people being the ones who are doing the consultation: “We're going to make a decision. Federal and provincial governments, what do you think about it?” Then we'll go off and decide behind a closed door, because that's the way it usually works.

I definitely think there is an important role for Parliament through legislation, and they've done it in certain one-offs to create that space for indigenous decision-making in exercising laws.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

Thank you, Ms. Idlout.

We'll proceed to our second round, beginning with Mr. Zimmer for five minutes.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks to our witnesses.

Ms. Tsetso, thank you for appearing. I see from your resume that you have quite a lot of knowledge. Your degree is in environmentalism and really conservation, and you reside in Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories, currently. Is that correct?

[Dahti Tsetso]

Yes.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

We have a common interest that way. I co-chair the parliamentary outdoor caucus, in which we endeavour to cross party lines to really represent people who fish and hunt and sport shoot and so on. One of the concerns we've been hearing from many folks across Canada is about losing access to fishing grounds and hunting grounds and things like that.

Looking at your resumé brought up a memory for me. We were recently in Cambridge Bay, where we heard from the Kitikmeot Inuit Association. They brought up concerns around 30 by 30, and the current government's coming in and saying, “We're going to close access to all of these areas, even for local Inuit peoples, for protection reasons.” I thought it was an interesting twist, because here is a government that's supposed to be turning over access to first nations and Inuit populations, and here is an Inuit association coming to us and saying, “We're concerned about getting shut out of our own backyard.”

Previously this government said they were going to listen to territories and governance, yet they implemented a moratorium across the entire three territories without even asking any of the territories whether or not they could do it. I think it's this kind of “Ottawa knows best for the territories”, and it's being perpetuated even though it's under the guise of protection. Can you maybe speak to that and maybe to your own knowledge about some of those concerns locally in the territories?

[Dahti Tsetso]

Yes. Thank you.

You're right. I come from a strong conservation background. I just want to maybe reorient your perspective around conservation, because while I come from a strong conservation background, it's from the perspective of indigenous communities. Our communities, when they assert conservation, don't do it from a perspective of the big “C” conservation that is likely how many people in this room understand conservation, which includes the expulsion of people from the land. If you look at the Canadian tools—territorial and federal—oftentimes they're based on that premise that for conservation that occurs to protect the land, we boot the people out. From the perspective of our communities, that's actually very much in conflict with the way we see land and the way we assert protection and stewardship responsibilities over our lands.

In our communities and in our nations, when we talk about protection, it really is about the strengthening of our relationship to our land. To strengthen our relationship to our land, we use our land, so we don't kick ourselves off the land. It's quite an interesting discussion point, because it links back to this whole notion of authorities and the assertion of rights and indigenous rights and who has the authority to make decisions over what.

In Canada, there's been a growing movement around guardians. There's been a growing movement around things like indigenous protected and conserved areas. When our communities assert our governance or our rights to protect our lands, it's not actually to kick our people off. We're not threatened by others practising harvesting-like rights. What we're trying to do is assert our decision-making authority and strengthen our relationship to the land. We do that on the basis of culture and language and way of life.

That is the perspective of conservation within our communities, and legislation and the importance of legislating a way forward to recognize the role that ICPAs could play within the Canadian landscape to fit things like 30 by 30, I think, is a really important factor and consideration to explore.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Yes. I just want to squeeze in one more question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

You have 15 seconds, Mr. Zimmer.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I think that's our concern as well. The government kind of pretends to be talking with local Inuit associations about doing this, yet it's kind of implementing its own version of preservation and conservation—

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

Madam Chair, the interpreter is saying that Mr. Zimmer is too far from the microphone.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Hopefully I can get my last 20 seconds in here.

I'll quickly start again.

I guess my concern is that the government is saying it's doing conservation, but it's on its own terms. It's not really listening to local Inuit and asking how they would like to see this happen.

I'll maybe just finish with that last question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

We'll have to proceed to the next question. You could add it to your response.

We'll have to move on to Mr. Battiste for five minutes.

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

I'm going to try to step up where Michael McLeod's technology has failed him, but I am sure I won't be as eloquent as Michael.

My question is for Ms. Tsetso.

Could you describe how your program supports the wider “land back” movement?

[Dahti Tsetso]

Thank you.

Thank you and hello to Michael.

I work for the Indigenous Leadership Initiative and our goal is to grow guardians across the country. Our goal is to have the role of indigenous protected and conserved areas firmly embedded within the way governments across this country—and when I say “governments”, I include indigenous governments in that description—are taking care of land and taking care of waters.

What I was going to say earlier, and I think it fits well with this response, is that part of the solution is, yes, legislative avenues, but it's also resourcing in order for indigenous communities to be in an empowered position to work in partnership with other levels of government. When you empower our communities to work in partnership, it's a benefit not just to our communities, but actually to all Canadians. We can't do that unless we're properly resourced.

I've heard a lot of federal leaders talking about the importance of reconciliation and their respect for indigenous peoples and our nations, but for our nations, it's not an equal playing field. In my work experience, I've been working to grow these types of programming and this type of work within the north. It's enabled me to then step into these positions with the Indigenous Leadership Initiative, but I did it often with what felt like two hands tied behind my back.

We are not properly resourced to engage in this work. If we're going to address these issues and have our nations be in empowered positions, then we need investments. The federal government needs to play a very significant role in honouring investments into programs like indigenous guardians and into the exploration and establishment of indigenous protected and conserved areas.

From my perspective, it's not just about the legislative solutions. It's also about the investments that the federal government should be making and needs to be increasing into these types of programs.

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

Ms. Tsetso, I'm going to keep you on the hot seat on the request of Mr. McLeod.

It's great that you were talking about partnerships. I think my next question speaks to that.

How can the Government of Canada better support indigenous peoples as they expand their rights and jurisdiction over their lands and territories?

[Dahti Tsetso]

In some of the work that we're engaged with.... I'll harp again, but not intentionally, on the issue of resourcing.

We've seen a growing movement across this country. I mentioned earlier in my opening statement that there are guardians gathered here in Ottawa from across Canada. I hosted a panel, just before coming to this hearing, around innovative governance and financing opportunities. We have people who are working so very hard to grow their work and to grow and empower their communities to assert their stewardship responsibilities over their lands and waters, but they're having the hardest time doing that in a meaningful way without proper resourcing.

Resourcing is incredibly critical and incredibly key to empowering our communities to play in a partnership space. It's not an equitable relationship right now and that needs to change. Part of our goal as an organization is to bring forward these messages to people within positions of power who have the agency and the responsibility to affect change. There are existing avenues within the federal government right now to grow those investments over time.

From my perspective, if we're going to be talking about the restitution of lands, about respecting indigenous authorities and about indigenous rights—not aboriginal rights—we need to be putting our money where our mouths are and investing in those approaches and in those partnerships.

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

Very quickly, I think I'm hearing you when you say stewardship. Would you say that the land back movement is about stewardship on the land and not about commodities to be bought and sold?

[Dahti Tsetso]

Yes.

Where I'm from, “land back” has a different context. Where I'm from, our leaders are people who say we never gave up the land. We're not asking for our land back because we never gave it. In the work that I've been engaged with, and in the opportunities I've had to learn from our leaders, it's all about that relationship to land. It's about asserting and growing that indigenous world view that is based off of the idea we are in relationship to our lands and water and they are in relationship to us.

My understanding of “land back” is empowering and strengthening that connection to land. It's about asserting, and being in a position to assert, decision-making authorities over our lands and waters.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

Thank you, Mr. Battiste.

Ms. Bérubé, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question is for both witnesses.

I asked a previous witness for examples of countries that use different practices from what the federal government is currently recommending for land restitution.

Can you tell us about countries whose example the federal government could follow and explain why it should do so?

[Dahti Tsetso]

Yes, I have one I'd like to showcase. Again, coming to the indigenous interpretation of conservation and the ways in which we assert our sacred stewardship responsibilities over lands and water, around the world, I see our story reflected in this conversation.

One international model to look at is Australia. There, the federal government makes significant investments. Again, it's coming back to that idea of investments. They also have legislated methods and approaches to recognizing the indigenous peoples of Australia and their relationship to their lands through protected areas. I've had the opportunity many times in the past to hear Australian rangers share their experiences of asserting their stewardship responsibilities in their homelands. What has been really interesting is to learn about their relationship to their own federal government.

One of the things I loved learning about, and I talked about it in my opening statement, was that return on investment. One of the things that I haven't fully touched on is the benefit that we have not only within our communities but also in the broader Canadian society when we invest in these types of approaches. It not only empowers our communities to be in better partnership positions but also heals our communities. We end up seeing a return on the benefit in terms of both the health and well-being of our communities. We are not only physically healthier but also mentally much stronger. That then has a positive, transformative ripple impact across our communities. You see it in the education system, in the health system and in the decrease and the reduction of addictions.

I've seen these benefits within my own home territory, but Australia has also seen those benefits. What's really interesting is that you have a model in Australia where the federal government makes significant federal investments into these types of programs. One of the things I really loved learning about Australia was that the growth of these programs happened under one type of federal party. Another federal party came into power, and their instinct was to reduce the funding to these types of programs. They initiated a study, and what the study found was exactly what I just testified to. The investments into this type of work grew the benefit not only to the communities but also to the country. That government did not cut funding to those programs, but they actually grew it.

I have brought that message forward in the opportunities I've had to meet with different federal representatives over time, because I think the potential exists here in Canada. We're actually catching up to that Australian model, but I would like to see us eclipse it.