Evidence of meeting #71 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was métis.
A video is available from Parliament.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Yes. On the bottom of your screen, there is the interpretation button. It looks like a globe, I think.
You click that and then click “English”.
6:15 p.m.
Brokenhead Ojibway Nation, Treaty One Nation
Okay. I didn't hear any of that. I heard my name a few times.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
All right. That was a two-minute intro. I don't think I could sum it up as well as Madam Gill could.
Madam Gill, maybe you could do that really quickly.
6:15 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
If you're giving me a little more time, Mr. Chair, I'll gladly take it. I think that we always need to hear all the languages in committee.
Depending on whether you're Inuit, Métis or a member of a first nations community, the issue of land restitution is different. The configurations differ, depending on whether it's a numbered or modern treaty. Consequently, land restitution is an extremely complex issue.
Based on your own understanding, do you believe that it's possible to ensure fairness among each nation or community when it comes to land restitution? Do you believe, instead, that, once the land restitution treaties are signed, corrections will need to be made?
Mr. Chair, I didn't manage to keep it under two minutes, but that's the question I want to ask each of the witnesses.
Chief BlueSky, you may start. Thank you.
6:20 p.m.
Brokenhead Ojibway Nation, Treaty One Nation
Again, I'm sorry about that.
Number one, I'm uncertain about the strategy Canada has to address this issue. Currently when it comes to our land claim and our implementation of our land claim, it depends on the territory and on the value of those lands and who is involved. When it comes to other aboriginal groups or indigenous groups, my issue is that Canada hasn't been clear as to how they plan to deal with that.
I can only say for number one that our agreement was signed in 1997. We initiated those discussions in the 1970s. Prior to that—this is just a little fun fact for the group here—Brokenhead Ojibway Nation had their first additions to reserve—we signed the treaty in 1871—in 1874. It was a lot less complicated back then, but we still had it happen. There was no consultation of any group other than our own.
That being said, I think it's a challenging question for me to be asked directly, given the fact that the responsibility should be Canada's and Canada, quite frankly, should be asked whether it sees that as a fair process, seeing as we already had our agreements in place, and now these issues that are being brought forward today are not issues that we had brought forward; they're issues that Canada has created.
For us, the former Kapyong barracks is a very important piece of property, on which there was consultation with the other groups that took almost two years of our time. Again, it's very challenging. A lot of things happen in two years, especially development that has taken away from our time now.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Madam Gill, you still have about 20 seconds, but that's not including the time you lost, so you probably have a lot more than that.
6:20 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
I'd like to ask the other witnesses the same question, Mr. Chair.
Ms. Culbertson or Mr. Henderson may respond.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
6:20 p.m.
Treaty Commissioner, Office of the Treaty Commissioner
I did not hear any of the translation, no.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Oh, no. That's okay. Well, I guess it's not okay.
Madam Gill, do you want to quickly summarize?
6:20 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
I'll perform a miracle, Mr. Chair, and ask my question in under 10 seconds.
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Let's see if Ms. Culbertson can hear the question.
Can you hear Ms. Gill now, Ms. Culbertson?
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Do you see on your screen at the bottom there's a little globe that says interpretation or language, maybe?
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Click that and you should have another menu come up. It should have two options, maybe three options. Do you see that?
6:20 p.m.
Treaty Commissioner, Office of the Treaty Commissioner
I do, but what happens after you click on it?
6:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Then you should be able to hear. I'll get Ms. Gill to speak in French because mine is horrible. I doubt the interpreters will know what I'm saying. We'll see if it works.
6:20 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to know whether Ms. Culbertson can hear me now.
6:25 p.m.
Treaty Commissioner, Office of the Treaty Commissioner
Yes, I can hear it now.
6:25 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
My question will be brief, but not particularly easy.
Do you believe that it's a fair process for all indigenous groups and nations? If not, what needs to be done to ensure that it is?
6:25 p.m.
Treaty Commissioner, Office of the Treaty Commissioner
Thank you for the question. My apologies for missing the translation.
That's a very big question, but it is one that Canada should definitely be answering. I believe there are too many processes that have been put in place and the land restitution process right now is not equal.
Like Chief BlueSky had stated, they had an ATR in 1874 and it was quite easy. Now you have a process that was put in place that is so onerous. Many nations do not have capacity because of being inadequately funded, inadequate training and a lack of capacity of human resources.
You have this ATR process, where we have, in Saskatchewan in particular, first nations that bought treaty land entitlement 30 years ago and still that land is not reserve status.
I believe, as a treaty commissioner, that those processes were put in place to make it difficult for nations to be able to acquire land that they were entitled to by treaty and that is a continued breach of treaty. It's discriminatory. It was put in there on purpose. The land restitution is not equal when you have these processes in place to begin with.
When you have other treaties, modern agreements and other constructive arrangements being negotiated around all the indigenous people.... That's not to mention those things that a whole other standing committee should be looking at, which are the access to that land and resources being sold off in Crown land options, access to the land and resources that are underneath the existing land here, and the equity when it comes to resource extraction and who is benefiting from those resources.
No, the land restitution process currently is not fair. You're pitting indigenous people against indigenous people now with these agreements. Our Métis brothers and sisters and our first nations are going to be at each other's throats over land.
Canada is the one holding all the purse strings.
6:25 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Thank you very much, Ms. Culbertson.
Thank you, Ms. Gill. I'm sorry for all of that. This never happened when Ms. Atwin was here.
Ms. Idlout, you have six minutes.
6:25 p.m.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and to each of the witnesses for their presentations.
I have one question for each of you. I'll go to Mary first, and then Chief Gordon, and Chris Henderson being the last.
What would be your recommendation? As we all know, with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, these rights need to be recognized within Canada, so I have a question for you. Would you suggest a recommendation for how we can recognize indigenous rights even more?
Mary, you can start.
6:25 p.m.
Treaty Commissioner, Office of the Treaty Commissioner
Could you repeat the two last sentences of your question, please? I couldn't hear it over the translation.