Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 10th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

Thank you, Mr. Schmale.

Now I'll go to Mr. Aldag for five minutes.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Thank you.

I want to thank our witness for being here and for sharing your insights and your experiences with us today. It's very important for us to hear a variety of perspectives, including yours.

From the questions we have heard already from members around the table, I think you can see how complex the ridings are that we represent. We have seen Lori, who has a territory with a specific agreement in place. We have large areas like those Mr. Melillo represents, with many indigenous communities. Then we have areas like the area I come from, which is metropolitan suburban Vancouver and B.C.'s Lower Mainland. I think it's probably closer to the situation of our witness. There there's a lot of occupied land, a lot of settled land and not many opportunities for the three land-based nations that live in the area I'm in to seek economic reconciliation and to pursue land back opportunities.

I would like to get some thoughts from our witness: In these metropolitan areas, what are the opportunities for land back? How does that work?

In particular, in your opening statement, you referenced national parks and, again, by way of context prior to my career in politics, I spent over 30 years with Parks Canada in a number of national park settings. I would say that there were some good examples and some not good examples about things like comanagement. I also served on the environment committee, where we did a study on protected spaces and made recommendations to the government on other forms of protected areas—other than national parks—things like indigenous protected conservation areas.

Right now, Parks Canada has been tasked with things like pursuing urban national parks. This is something that I'm very interested in for the area that I represent and in speaking with the three land-based nations—the Semiahmoo, the Kwantlen and the Katzie nations—about what the economic opportunities are and what the land opportunities are.

I would like to go to our witness and see what she thinks. In situations like we live in, these settled areas, sometimes the go-to is monetary compensation, but are there other means of getting land back that may not necessarily be part of an expansion of existing reserve lands or new reserve lands? Is there room for other models?

The last contextual piece I'll give is that, in the study that we did in the 42nd Parliament, there was some information that came from Australia. It talked about how the return on social investment related to protected areas far exceeded the investment that was going into social programs. It actually helped with a lot of healing that needed to happen within the aboriginal community in Australia. They saw that there was a huge return on investment for those who were managing indigenous protected areas.

I'll stop talking now. I would love to get your thoughts on how we pursue land back in these settled areas such as you and I live in. Is there any hope for things like urban indigenous protected areas, perhaps, that could be done in concert with initiatives by the federal government?

[Ellen Gabriel]

It sounds like a really complex question. I don't know if I can answer, but I will do my best.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

There's a lot there. I apologize.

[Ellen Gabriel]

I live in a small community in which the population has expanded. It's an hour north of Montreal, and we get a lot of tourists who don't even know we exist here.

One of the things I think is a really tiny thing to do with regard to land back and parks is to create names and streets in indigenous languages. It's a really small thing to do. If I go to the Montreal airport, I see every kind of language up there that says “hello” or “welcome”, but I don't see any indigenous languages there. It's a really small thing.

You know, it is something that is needed. For the metropolitan indigenous peoples to see that their identity is reflected back in this place, when they've had to leave their homes because they don't have the jobs.... Most people who become educated can't work in the community. It's not that they're.... They can't work for the band council unless they're a lawyer. A lot of jobs are dependent on providing services.

I think that, for the indigenous population that lives in these urban areas, it would be nice to give them a home away from home, whether that's a community centre or whether that's setting aside some land where they can see the traditional medicines and the traditional plants indigenous to that area. It's really small things.

We have been colonized for so long, and it could take another 150 years before we get to where we really want to go, but we need to discuss this amongst ourselves. I don't have all the answers and neither do you. I feel like we're always spinning our wheels in the mud and just thinking about the really tiny gestures when the public—society itself—is not educated as to the colonial history of the land they're living on or is not even aware of the genocide that took place.

We think about those young children who never came home from Indian residential schools. It shouldn't just be a day. It shouldn't just be a month. It should be everything embedded into every aspect of Canadian society, whether it's federal, provincial or even in the community.

[John Aldag, Liberal, Cloverdale—Langley City, BC]

Thank you for your thoughts. I think I'm out of time, so thank you.

[Ellen Gabriel]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

Thank you, Mr. Aldag.

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.

In answering questions from my colleagues earlier, you talked about the importance of elders in the community.

Please tell us more about the role they play in the community.

[Ellen Gabriel]

When I say “elders”, I'm not talking about people who are simply old. I am talking about those who have traditional knowledge and who have that wisdom of saying.... I hear stories from, say, an elder that go, “When I was a child, this is what we used to pick to help a stomach ache.”

One of the reasons that, in the Haudenosaunee people, women are title holders to the land is that, when a man marries a woman, he goes to stay in her community and it's her land. The Indian Act undid that. The Indian Act imposed a patrilineal culture upon indigenous peoples.

It's women who give birth, and so does the earth. She provides food. She provides many things to us. The symbolism that is embedded in indigenous people is there from indigenous knowledge-keepers. A person we term an “elder” could be someone who's 30 years old or 20 years old. They could be a child. It's just that sometimes people are old souls. For us, this is our philosophy. You might think it's weird, but this is how we think. An elder is someone who understands exactly what I was talking about. This is how you respect the land. This is our relationship with the land, and we need to nurture that relationship. It's not just thank you and goodbye. It's also what you are giving back to the land. What are you giving back when you go hunting? It's customary that you provide tobacco to the deer or moose that you kill to send that spirit on its way.

There are so many things involved with being an elder, and it's not just about doing an opening prayer and then making the elder sit in the back and listen to everybody. It's about involving the elders in decision-making processes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

Thank you, Ms. Bérubé.

We'll now go to Ms. Idlout for two and a half minutes.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you.

I was going to table this, but I have a question instead, besides the one I tabled earlier.

I know for a fact that, in Nunavut, the Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation.... Having this understanding, I have a question for you regarding first nations who support mining activities because of the lack of employment opportunities, lack of federal government support, lack of housing and lack of support from provincial governments.

The mining companies are seeking support from the communities. Do you agree with this? I'm asking you this.

[Ellen Gabriel]

I'm not sure whether the translation was correct. Are you talking about whether the mining companies seeking consent within the communities are doing the right thing? I think.... Could you clarify?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

No, I did not ask you that.

I'm asking you.... For example, you're here to speak. Do you know whether indigenous people are supporting mining activities for monetary benefits? We all know indigenous people who support mining activities. It is because there is a lack of other employment opportunities and no other sources of income or support. There is a lack of proper support from the governments, so they are seeking employment.

Do you have the same understanding? That is my question.

[Ellen Gabriel]

I think this is what developers and mining companies do. They know there is economic depression in a lot of the communities, whether they're remote or not—like my community. They manipulate indigenous people using the economic and job arguments. For indigenous people from that community—please excuse the expression—it's just going to be pushing wheelbarrows. We don't have the high-end jobs and we're shooting ourselves in the foot because, when the mining company is gone and they're through, they've contaminated our water and polluted our lands. What do future generations have? They have nothing but living in a polluted environment.

This is what I constantly hear.

There's a company called Niocan that wants to open up the old uranium mine. They're going to be using over two million gallons of water a day. We use aquifers. I have water from a well and that's in jeopardy, but the mining companies have more rights than we do. They have more rights than a hospital.

There is something extremely wrong with this picture. That's why I'm calling for an independent investigation into the colonial laws that allow this kind of corrupt activity that decimates the environment. Sure, we want jobs. We want to be able to buy nice things for our family, but, at the end of the day, we are jeopardizing the health and prosperity of future generations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

Thank you very much, Ms. Idlout.

Our time is quite tight. We do not have time for another round.

I'd like to sincerely thank Ms. Gabriel for her testimony today.

I really appreciate what you've offered for our opening day of this incredibly important study. Thank you so much for your time and efforts.

We will briefly suspend as we set up for our second panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

We will resume.

We are now beginning our second panel with Dr. Bruce McIvor, partner, First Peoples Law, who is here in person, and Dahti Tsetso, deputy director, Indigenous Leadership Initiative, who is also here in person.

Just to let you know, there is Inuktitut, French and English interpretation. Please select your choice of language now on your console in the room. If interpretation is lost at any time, please advise me and we will stop the proceedings.

We will begin with introductory comments for five minutes each.

Ms. Tsetso, we'll begin with you. The floor is yours.

[Dahti Tsetso, Deputy Director, Indigenous Leadership Initiative]

Good evening.

[Witness spoke in Dene Zhatıé and provided the following text:]

Dahti Tsetso suzhe, si Tłı̨chǫ Dene ot'e, Lliidlii Kue gots'eh at'e, the Indigenous Leadership Initiative gogha eghalenga.

[Witness provided the following translation:]

Good evening, all. My name is Dahti Tsetso. I am Tłı̨chǫ Dene from Fort Simpson, Northwest Territories, and I work with the Indigenous Leadership Initiative.

[English]

I'd like to thank you for inviting me to speak with you today. The subject of this study is an important one, and you all have a unique responsibility to advance the dialogue in a meaningful way. I very much appreciate the opportunity you are creating for indigenous voices to inform your report and the broader conversation around the restitution of lands.

For those of you who don't know, the Indigenous Leadership Initiative, or ILI, works to uplift indigenous nations and their voices to honour their responsibility to lands and waters.

From our perspective, indigenous-led conservation and stewardship can and should play a critical role in the path and dialogue towards reconciliation and the restitution of lands. One central example is indigenous protected and conserved areas or IPCAs. These are places that are identified by indigenous nations according to indigenous values and authorities.

The Indigenous Circle of Experts, in their landmark 2018 report, highlighted IPCAs as lands and waters where indigenous governments assert their rights and responsibility to protect and conserve ecosystems through indigenous laws, governance and knowledge systems. Culture and language are the heart and soul of an IPCA.

Indigenous guardians are another expression of nationhood that strengthens relationships to land and honours the sacred stewardship responsibility of indigenous peoples. Guardians are nation building and are an opportunity for Canada to work in partnership with indigenous communities across the country.

There are positive returns on the investments in indigenous-led stewardship and guardian programs. Early research in the NWT has shown that, at a minimum, for every dollar invested, there can be a 1:2.5 return on that investment with a potential to go as high as 1:4, and in fact research out of coastal B.C. showcases that this return on investment can be as high as 1:20.

The returns on investment are directly linked to the transformative potential of these programs to have positive, rippling impacts across wide-ranging socio-economic sectors of our communities, such as health, education, governance and reconciliation. I have witnessed and experienced these benefits first-hand.

Critical to moving forward is how indigenous communities are being funded to ensure their leadership in this work in a manner that ensures sustainable outcomes. The innovative financing opportunity under way in the NWT is one example of a new partnership-based tool that can offer part of the solution, but investments by the Government of Canada are essential to success. Addressing ongoing funding in a meaningful way would transform our country.

There is a growing movement of IPCAs and guardians in Canada. In fact, indigenous nations from across the country are gathered here in Ottawa this week to learn and share experiences at the First Nations National Guardians Gathering, co-hosted by ILI and the newly established national network. The energy and excitement are growing and they are evident in that room.

This energy is needed now. It's early May, and we have unprecedented wildfires raging across Alberta. It is evident that nothing less than the future of our communities, the health of our planet and the future viability of our grandchildren are at stake. We need to do better, and that starts by broadening our dialogue to find solutions that benefit all. Indigenous communities and indigenous leadership are key.

The restitution of lands and the indigenous relationship to that land through indigenous-led stewardship offer hope. Canada needs to grow investments to indigenous nations to meet our vision, because, if we value indigenous knowledge and our knowledge systems as a way to sustain the lands and waters we all depend on, then we need to resource them.

Masì.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

Thank you, Ms. Tsetso.

We'll now go to Dr. McIvor for five minutes.

[Dr. Bruce McIvor, Partner, First Peoples Law]

Thank you very much, committee, for inviting me here today.

On my flight here yesterday from Vancouver, I was listening to a podcast of somebody you might listen to: “Empire”. I would recommend it. They have started a new series on slavery, and one of things they were talking about was that it's a day of reckoning in Britain. It is a day of reckoning about how the wealth and the power of Britain is built on slavery and colonization.

In some ways, I was thinking— at about 35,000 feet flying over Treaty 4, I think, at the time—about how it's a day of reckoning here in Canada. It needs to be a day of reckoning with regard to the power and wealth that this nation is built on, and it's built on indigenous lands. It's built on the wealth of indigenous lands. It's built on displacing indigenous people from their lands and taking that wealth.

I think it's important to understand that there is no lawful authority for that. Canada likes to talk of itself as a nation of the rule of law, but where is the law that says that colonizers can show up and usurp someone else's land, can take that wealth and make the decisions about that land? That is not the rule of law.

We talk about it in Canada as “assertion of Crown sovereignty”. This is a favourite phrase if you do a search on CanLII for court decisions. From my view, that's a Canadian euphemism for the doctrine of discovery, the principle that colonizers can show up and take someone else's land. You've heard from those people here today, and you'll hear from more of them.

I think what needs to happen is that we need to unpack that. If we're going to talk about reconciliation, what is that about? It can't be reconciliation based on a lie. The beginning has to be truth-telling. Truth-telling is vital.

We heard last month from the Vatican, renouncing that doctrine. From my perspective, there wasn't a lot of truth-telling there. I hope that Canada can do better. I hope that Parliament can do better at having a real, open conversation about whose land it is.

How did the federal and provincial governments get the right to extract the wealth from that land? I am not just talking about non-treaty situations. I work for treaty nations all across the country in similar situations. I had the good fortune last week to be invited out to the Mi’kmaq community of Listuguj, and we talked about this: Whose land is this?

With hundreds of years of colonization, let's move on to some truth-telling. I think, to start, that means really getting at this issue. If we're going to give land back, if we're going to move in that direction, it can't be from these old styles of comprehensive claims, which is what the federal government currently has.

For indigenous people who have entered into those, I can understand why, but at the end of the day, is there really a significant difference between that and what John A. Macdonald was doing with the national policy? It's about removing indigenous people from their lands so that non-indigenous people can exploit them. That's what it's about.

We need to move in a different direction, and the direction is that we need to recognize indigenous title. You don't need to go to court for that. The courts have been saying for years that you can figure this out among yourselves. The federal government needs to move in the direction of recognizing title.

Then how are you going to implement that? It's not through comprehensive claims with exchanges rights. It is through actually recognizing and implementing.

Thank you for your time.

I'm sorry. I'm 10 seconds over my five minutes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Jenica Atwin]

Thank you, Dr. McIvor.

We'll now proceed to our first round of questioning beginning with the Conservatives and Mr. Vidal for six minutes.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to both our witnesses today for your contributions.

I'm going to start with you, Dr. McIvor.

Mr. McIvor, on your website, there's something that says that Canadians are brave enough to be confronting the reality of the country's colonial past and present, and insist that politicians replace empty promises with concrete, meaningful change. There's a realistic path forward based on respect, recognition and implementation of indigenous rights.

I think that's where you're coming from, even in your comments now. My question for you might be this: What are the next steps? What does that path forward look like? We talk a lot about trying to find outcomes. There's been a lot of spinning our wheels on a lot of this over history. What are the next steps forward in the context of making progress towards outcomes that are good for everyone?

[Dr. Bruce McIvor]

It's good to hear that at least one person goes to our website. Thank you for that.

I'll say two things. There are a lot of ways to deal with this, but two things come to mind for me to begin with.

I think truth-telling is important. Since the Vatican made its statement, I've been saying that there should be a national gathering on the issue of whose land it is. The doctrine of discovery, the assertion of Crown sovereignty—let's tell the truth about that, because a lot of Canadians don't understand it. They'll walk around with their certificates of indefeasible title. They'll be very excited about how their property values have increased. They don't know what that's based on. I think it should be truth-telling to start.

Second, and I've been talking to the minister's office about this, the federal government should move ahead and recognize title over specific parcels of land. It can do that. It doesn't need a comprehensive claim. You don't need to force indigenous people into court for 10, 15 or 20 years for aboriginal title. They can reach agreement, recognizing indigenous title over land and then implement that. That is a doable thing, and we should move in that direction.

I think it would be very important. You want indigenous people from across the country, not just the Tŝilhqot’in, who can stand on title lands. I think every indigenous people in Canada has a right to the same thing.

[Gary Vidal, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you.

I'm going to switch gears a little bit, because I know your background as a lawyer. You were talking about looking up legal cases and whatnot.

I want to talk a little bit about the addition-to-reserve process that exists now. I know when I was first appointed as the critic for one of the files, I had a presentation or a briefing from the department. What I was astonished by was how long the expected process was for the different types of things: specific claims, etc.

On the addition-to-reserve process, if I understand it right, there are three main reasons why an addition to reserve is moved forward. There's a legal obligation, there's a community addition or growth, and there's a tribunal. There are reasons for this, but the process is taking so long. Even though the process has been changed over the last few years, it still takes such a long time.

Do you have any thoughts on how we could accelerate some of these processes? Maybe you don't agree with exactly what's already going on, but we have some processes in place. How could we accelerate those processes to accommodate some of the solutions that we need for these communities, where land is about being able to build houses and land is about being able to build an economy to provide for their communities? Land is really critical to a lot of the issues faced by the community, so how do we speed up some of these processes?

[Dr. Bruce McIvor]

There will be a lot more people who have better ideas on how to speed it up, but I do have a couple of thoughts on this.

First of all, how do you even get in the door on additions to reserves? It's very difficult for indigenous people across the country to make the argument to have an application for additions to reserve accepted. There is a barrier there.

Second, when we're talking about land back and land restitution, additions to reserve aren't that. That's not what land back is about, because reserves end up being reserve lands under the Indian Act. They're actually held by the King now. For most indigenous people, at least my clients, they don't see that as land back. It can be an important step, but it's not land back.

Just going to a point on a question asked before this about who gets to decide, there was a question from your colleague about the Wet'suwet'en, suggesting that this is democracy at play. No, it's not. It's not democracy at play, because who gets the right? It's the people on the Indian Act band list, not the sum total of the members of the nation.

When you're looking at band list members voting for something, you're looking at a small portion of the members of the nation. That's not democracy at play. It's important to understand that there's a wider collective, a wider nation, and they aren't the ones who are going to be taking advantage or be able to capitalize on reserve lands because those were Indian Act bands.

Thank you.