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 p.m.
Treaty Commissioner, Office of the Treaty Commissioner
That's no problem.
If there are any questions, I'll be looking forward to them.
Meegwetch.
6 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Thank you.
For six minutes, we kick it off with the Conservatives and Bob Zimmer.
June 14th, 2023 / 6 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Gordon BlueSky, you mentioned something of concern to me. I am the co-chair of the parliamentary outdoor caucus, and what we do in this place in Ottawa is represent people who hunt, fish, sports shoot and trap.
You said that you are being taught not to hunt. Can you please explain that?
6 p.m.
Brokenhead Ojibway Nation, Treaty One Nation
I am not necessarily stating that we're being taught not to hunt. What we are challenged with is where to hunt.
The issue we have in our territory of Brokenhead is that it's surrounded. I would say that all of our first nations are completely surrounded by farming, agriculture, municipalities, private lands, the city of Winnipeg and the city of Selkirk. There really is no place for us to exercise the ability to hunt, trap or anything.
We have always reminded some of our communities up north to be really grateful for what they do still have. Even though there are impacts up there, they have a lot more than we do.
As you all know possibly—and maybe some of you don't—it's a really hostile environment out there with our people when it comes to interactions with settler populations and with agricultural populations when it comes to hunting. We're met with aggression.
In our particular case in Treaty 1, the areas that are considered Crown are now being leased out again for further agricultural practices, so our communities really are challenged with teaching our children even how to hunt.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
Thanks, Gordon.
It's interesting that you mentioned that. Losing access to hunting sounds like it's a concern to you.
We were up in Cambridge Bay not that long ago, where we talked to the Kitikmeot Inuit Association. They brought a concern to us, and a member across the way in the Liberal Party, Mr. Weiler, mentioned 25 by 25. Well, there is a new initiative called 30 by 30, and it talks about protecting 30% of lands and 30% of oceans.
What they brought up is a concern that these areas were being segregated without consultation of local Inuit and first nations.
When I hear you say something like that, it rings true about being concerned about 30 by 30 and its implications, not just to non-first nations but for first nations as well. Are you concerned? Are you being consulted on the 30 by 30?
6:05 p.m.
Brokenhead Ojibway Nation, Treaty One Nation
No, and honestly, I'm sorry, but I don't know exactly what you're referencing, but I do know a couple of things.
Whenever we have Canadian initiatives and projects going on where they're talking about protecting 10%, 20% or 17% of Canada lands for Canadians, I've followed up with a lot of them, and I started to follow what projects Canada is focusing in on. These are projects that are happening in territories my people would never be in, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and places like that.
We need to have things that are protected here in Treaty 1 that we and our children can benefit from into the future. What I am concerned about is that we've never been consulted, ever, in the development of our territory.
Natural resources transfer agreements were mentioned earlier. The natural resources transfer agreements outline the obligations to make sure that first nations have lands to sustain themselves, and that's never happened in my territory. There has never been any consideration of that.
6:05 p.m.
Conservative
Bob Zimmer Conservative Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC
I appreciate that, and I would challenge the government.
We can reach out and even chat about what 30 by 30 is and what the plans of the.... It's in the ministers' mandate letter for Environment and Climate Change and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans very clearly. The first paragraph really is the implementation of 30 by 30.
We're already in 2023, and there are seven years left when all this stuff is going to start to roll in, and I am concerned to hear that you haven't even been consulted or heard about 30 by 30. That's something we can inform you about, Gordon, and I am happy to do so.
My colleague Mr. Vidal was going to ask questions, but he is not available.
Let me go to Mr. Henderson briefly.
I have a niece and a nephew who are Métis. They live in British Columbia. I know that one of the challenges in Manitoba, especially.... I'll ask it as a question. Are competing claims between Métis and first nations an issue, and if they are an issue, how do you intend to resolve those issues?
6:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba Inc.
Thank you for the question. It's a good one. That speaks to the heart of the dispute we currently find ourselves involved in.
Like I said earlier, the initial focus for all parties in the framework agreement was to try to permit first nations to acquire choice lands. However, the federal Crown determined that, prior to 2012, they did not have this constitutional duty to consult other aboriginal communities about lands that would be set apart as reserve lands.
This issue is currently one of many issues we're trying to resolve through negotiations with a negotiator appointed by Minister Marc Miller. We are trying to resolve it. Certainly, we, too, as first nations, want other concessions brought up at the negotiating table. We hope that, within the coming months, we'll be able to resolve, as you said, this clash of claims we're dealing with in Manitoba.
6:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Thank you very much. That's the end of that round.
Next, we'll go to the Liberals.
Marcus Powlowski looks like he's ready to go.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Thank you for coming, Mr. Henderson.
I'm interested in the Manitoba treaty land entitlement agreement and how that's worked. You mentioned you represent some Treaty 3 communities, which I found interesting. I think Eric Melillo finds it interesting, because there are Treaty 3 communities in our ridings, as well, on the Ontario side.
How does it complicate the negotiation process when you have two provinces involved with the same treaty area?
6:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba Inc.
Sure. To respond to that point, we only have one member first nation that is a signatory to Treaty No. 3. That would be the Buffalo Point First Nation.
On the matter of the involvement of other jurisdictions outside the borders of Manitoba, there is a clause in the framework agreement where first nations that have ancestral lands outside the borders of Manitoba, whether it be in the province of Ontario or the province of Saskatchewan, can identify those lands.
However—and here's where it gets tricky and sticky—those neighbouring provinces have to agree that the lands that were identified could be set apart as reserve by Canada. Unfortunately, to date, both jurisdictions have refused to engage in those types of discussions.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
Which two jurisdictions were those that refused?
6:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba Inc.
They were the Province of Saskatchewan and the Province of Ontario.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
6:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba Inc.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Marcus Powlowski Liberal Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON
That's interesting.
Maybe you can comment on the fact that, in northwestern Ontario, there have been a number of recent land settlement agreements. I went to one in Lac La Croix. There are others in the works. They seem quite successful at coming up with land settlement agreements there. It sounds like you haven't had the same level of success under the Manitoba treaty land entitlement agreement.
In the end, do you think this agreement has been a beneficial process, or has it been detrimental to the communities involved?
6:10 p.m.
Executive Director, Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba Inc.
Certainly, expectations were high 26 years ago.
Some of our member first nations have put to good use their land entitlements, particularly those that have the ability to buy land in urban centres, such as the Sapotaweyak Cree Nation. They have purchased or acquired three parcels of land in the town of Swan River. Two of those parcels are urban reserves. They host two economic development ventures, one being a video lottery terminal club and one being a gas station. They more recently purchased a third parcel, so they have plans there. Some first nations have taken advantage of the opportunity under treaty land entitlement, no doubt.
I guess another point to consider is that our more northern first nations in Manitoba were not given the opportunity to buy land in urban centres. They weren't given land acquisition payments. They were restricted to selecting available Crown land.
I'd also point out that the one major difference between the Saskatchewan framework agreement and Manitoba's framework agreement is this: In Saskatchewan, the first nations were given money to buy all their land, whether it was Crown land or private land. Under the Manitoba framework agreement, only six of our first nations were given land acquisition payments. The northern communities were left out.
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
6:10 p.m.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Sydney—Victoria, NS
Thank you.
I thank you for your time.
I'm hearing from the numbered treaties, a lot of the misconceptions are, or the view in Canada is, that the numbered treaties ceded away land during these treaty negotiations. Can you give me a sense of whether that's an accurate description of your understanding of the numbered treaties?
I'd like to start off with Ms. Culbertson and then go to Mr. BlueSky.
6:15 p.m.
Treaty Commissioner, Office of the Treaty Commissioner
Thank you, MP Battiste.
My understanding as a treaty commissioner, and from the research that we have in our office, publications and oral history—the other side of the treaties—is that treaties were not cede and surrender. The land was never meant to be surrendered. The cede and surrender clause was inserted into Treaty No. 3 after.
If you look at any records from the treaty negotiations, which includes diaries, journal inserts and translations that were meticulously kept by translators such as clergy, the North-West Mounted Police, etc., there is the absence of the translation of cede and surrender. What you will find is cede and surrender inserted into text on the parchment that makes up the text of the treaties that Canada relies very heavily on for justification of taking up land and resource development.
6:15 p.m.
Liberal
6:15 p.m.
Brokenhead Ojibway Nation, Treaty One Nation
Yes. Of course, we're in agreement with that.
From our perspective, in Treaty No. 1, which we're situated in here, we believe the actions that you currently see within our territory and some of the things that Chris identified in terms of the interactions, consultations and accommodations that are currently happening with the Métis population within our territory...we feel that should have been the same process from the time of treaty, whenever they started to develop our territory and our lands. That's why it's become so important for us to have lands returned to our communities and have the ability to economically develop them.
Also, with the systems that are in place right now, I think if we had had this step and the process had been happening from the time of treaty until now, we probably wouldn't be in the situation that we are in right now in terms of being desperate not only for economic opportunities, but also for the ability to feed our families.
6:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Thank you very much, Chief BlueSky.
That is six minutes.
We go now to the Bloc Québécois and Madame Gill.
6:15 p.m.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Manicouagan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank all the witnesses, too, for coming today and enlightening us on the issue of land restitution.
My questions are for all the witnesses here today.
Since we started this study, we have seen how restitution is governed based on the different configurations for each nation, be it Métis, Inuit or first nations, or whether it's a modern or a numbered treaty. It depends, too, on where you're located. For example, Chief BlueSky said earlier that his lands were surrounded by lands that weren't Ojibwa.
Do you believe that, despite these different configurations, it's possible to ensure fairness among nations, be they Métis, Inuit or each of the first nations? With the passage of time, it's clear that no discussion is simple. Do you think that it's possible to be fair? Would any changes or corrections need to be made later, given how complex restitution is?
I mentioned you in my question, Chief BlueSky, so you can be the first to respond, if you'd like.
6:15 p.m.
Brokenhead Ojibway Nation, Treaty One Nation
I'm not sure if I was supposed to get a translation.