Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 14th, 2023

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you.

Mr. Madden and Ms. Poitras, I'd like to hear more about the barriers. You mentioned what was unique to the Métis people, when it comes to self-government. You more or less answered both questions at once.

What other challenges are you facing?

What would you recommend that the committee do, and what should we look at to ensure change at the federal level?

What would be possible for us to do?

[Jason Madden]

One of the biggest challenges—the Supreme Court of Canada has said the Métis are living in what's called a legal lacuna, i.e., a legal gap—is a lack of policy. Many of the policies you're talking about in relation to dealing with first nations land or Inuit simply don't exist within the federal system for the Métis. We don't even have a self-government policy. What have been driving policy development are the self-government agreements negotiated between Métis governments and Canada as of late, and which are being implemented. However, that lack of clear articulation of the relationship is one of the most fundamental challenges being faced.

Now, we're hoping to fill in that legal gap by virtue of legislation and implementing those self-government agreements. What's also a real, fundamental issue for the Métis, when it comes to land, is that there isn't a Métis claims policy, whereas, for better or worse, there are specific and comprehensive claims available to first nations. For the Métis, in relation to dealing with scrip, that doesn't exist.

The case Madam Poitras spoke about, the Manitoba Métis Federation case, took 32 years to get to the Supreme Court of Canada, and they were successful there. Outside of litigation, Métis have no other way to advance their land-related claims with Canada, because there are no policies right now. That legal gap needs to be addressed. We're not just complaining about policies; we don't even have any policies in order to begin the conversation on those land-related issues.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Thank you, Madam Gill. That was six minutes.

We're now going to the NDP for six minutes. We have Lori Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for their presentations. Each of the presentations was a pleasure to listen to.

First of all, I have a question for Lauren.

I was very pleased to hear your presentation in regard to indigenous laws and how they need to be utilized more often. Regarding this subject, can you please explain further why that is so important, in particular, the topic of restitution of lands to first nations, Inuit and Métis?

[Lauren Terbasket]

Thank you.

The way that the Similkameen people have been implementing our own laws.... We have an oral tradition, and one of the barriers that we face is the recording of our oral tradition and documenting that.

I think one of the reasons it's so important in terms of land restitution is it is the cornerstone of governance and protection of our land bases. Where we sit now, we see through a number of cases—Blueberry and others—that the cumulative impacts that have degraded the land base, the treaty and indigenous rights and title that have come from this lack of management or mismanagement of both federal and provincial governments have resulted in extensive degradation.

The other issue we see related to the federal or provincial legal application of their law is there is a bias toward industry and toward development. There isn't the consideration of the cost of degradation in terms of biodiversity, but the health costs that come from that.

Indigenous law brings to the forefront, I believe, the concepts of sustainability. It doesn't throw out the concept of modern and historic economic models, but it allows us to bring those into some level of balance where today, we are.... A lot of times, when we're talking about protection and environmental restoration or protection, usually those concepts are thrown out in the interests of the public, whether those are housing or business. There's no clear balance between the management for biodiversity and the management for economic gain and benefit.

Indigenous law, I believe, brings that concept of sustainability and biodiversity to the forefront.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Thank you for your answer.

My second question is directed to Audrey.

Audrey, it's really great to see you.

With regard to Métis, when I was still in post-secondary education.... I would like to ask you about the subject of self-determination for the Métis people. You've had boundaries or obstacles.

How can we be more helpful as parliamentarians in regard to your self-determination?

[Audrey Poitras]

Thank you for that.

Yes, we certainly have had our struggles.

Our people have always tried to work very hard on relationships and figuring out how to work with all governments. For us, we believe that it is about relationships. It is about Canada and all indigenous people working together and figuring out how to support each other.

For us here as Métis, we're Métis. We're also Albertans. We're also Canadians. We believe we all need to do better. Recognition has been non-existent [Technical difficulty—Editor].

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

I think you might be on mute.

Ms. Idlout, do you want to continue? I've stopped your clock.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

Part of the answer from Audrey was inaudible. I would appreciate her concluding her answer.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Do you mind repeating the last few words of your answer?

[Audrey Poitras]

I clearly believe that, definitely, there have been a lot of struggles for the Métis, but it's all because of non-recognition. Recognition is one of the key pieces. Of course, that's what we've been pushing with our self-government agreements.

We believe that we all need to work together. This is our country, Canada, made up of all of us, but certainly all indigenous people have to be recognized and respected.

For us here in Alberta, we always say, “Yes, we're Métis, but we're Albertans and we're Canadians. When we do something that's right for Métis, it's also right for Albertans and Canadians.” It's really about the relationship, the working together and the recognition that will make us all move forward further together.

Thank you.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

You have about 25 seconds, Ms. Idlout.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

[Member spoke in Inuktitut, interpreted as follows:]

I just want to reiterate my gratitude for all of the witnesses' presentations.

We're not only talking about land back. We all know this. We're all aware that each of our customary practices, indigenous laws...we are trying to regain our traditional practices. If we're going to be making changes as first nations, Métis and Inuit we need to utilize our indigenous laws.

Thank you for your presentations.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Thank you very much to our witnesses.

Unfortunately, we don't have time for a second round. I do apologize, but if there's anything more you wish to share with us, you can do so in written form and we'll definitely consider that in our final report.

I am going to suspend for a few minutes. We'll do a sound test and return momentarily.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Welcome back. We're bringing the committee back to order.

I'm pleased to welcome our second panel of the day for the study on restitution of land for first nations, Inuit and Métis communities.

We have three guests today, who are from the Office of the Treaty Commissioner, the Treaty One Nation and the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba Inc.

We will start our five-minute round with our guests.

We have Chris Henderson here in person, with his sharp purple tie. He is here from the Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba Inc., and we will start with him.

You have five minutes.

[Grand Chief Chris Henderson, Executive Director, Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba Inc.]

Meegwetch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Boozhoo. Aaniin. Tansi.

Good afternoon and good evening to the committee members.

Chris Henderson nindizhinikaaz. My name is Chris Henderson. My father comes from a community in Manitoba known as the Black River First Nation. He's Anishinabe, or Ojibwe. My mother comes from a Swampy Cree community known as the Sapotaweyak Cree Nation, in midwestern Manitoba.

I am the executive director of the Treaty Land Entitlement Committee of Manitoba. We are a stand-alone rights-based organization dedicated to helping our member first nations try to get what they were first promised when the numbered treaties were signed in Manitoba.

We are a signatory to the big green book known as the Manitoba Framework Agreement on treaty land entitlement. This was signed 26 years ago. At that time, 26 years ago, the Prime Minister of Canada was the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien, and the Premier of Manitoba was Mr. Gary Filmon. I was but a young lad at the tender age of 25 years old. This framework agreement, while not a treaty, is an implementation agreement that tried to resolve the outstanding treaty land claims that our member first nations had against both Crown governments.

For your background information, some first nations, shortly after the signing of their numbered treaties—particularly treaty numbers 1, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10—with Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, between 1871 and 1910, which provided among other obligations, that Canada would lay aside and reserve tracts of land for the exclusive use and benefit for first nations.... It's important to acknowledge that some first nations received their full allotment of reserve land and others did not, as promised under the treaties with the Crown. For those first nations that did not receive their full allotment of reserve land, they started their research and negotiations in the 1970s, actually, and over the next 20 years they tried to negotiate to resolve these outstanding treaty land entitlement claims.

Finally, on May 29, 1997, this framework agreement was signed with the Government of Canada and the Province of Manitoba. Since that time, only 15 out of 21 entitlement first nations actually have signed on to this framework agreement. The other six unfortunately decided not to accept what was being offered by way of land and a financial payment being provided for under the framework agreement.

Twenty-six years after the signing of the framework agreement, Canada has set aside over 565,000 acres of land as reserve for these 15 first nations. However, I should also point out that, regrettably, Canada has breached its obligations under the framework agreement, and that was noted in a court decision that was also provided, I hope, to each member of the committee. Because of that, this breach continues. On what this breach is, it is that Canada unilaterally changed the original, agreed-to, step-by-step land transfer and reserve creation process without the written consent of our member first nations.

What I mean specifically by that is that before land was to be set apart as reserve under the framework agreement, Canada said, well, we now have to let other potentially affected aboriginal groups know about these lands that are about to be set apart as reserve—we have to consult with them. When this framework agreement was signed in 1997, that was not the focus. The focus was to try to give land back to the first nations, but now, since 2012, the focus has been on Canada ensuring that it meets its consultation obligation.

We weren't opposed to that when we were advised of this back in 2012 because there is a process to try to negotiate amendments to the framework agreement. Regrettably, Canada did not listen to us. As a result, we took Canada to court, and we were successful in those court proceedings.

Over the years, there have been numerous studies.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Mr. Henderson, I might have to get you to wrap it up. You're just a bit over time.

[Grand Chief Chris Henderson]

Yes, most definitely.

There have been numerous studies over the years commissioned by Parliament. I would also note that the late minister Jim Prentice actually made TLE implementation a priority back in 2004. He made a ministerial commitment to try to accelerate and expedite the process in Manitoba.

Unfortunately, over this past fiscal year, no lands were set apart as a reserve under the framework agreement. In this time of truth and reconciliation, the dispossession of first nations of treaty lands sadly continues, regrettably.

Meegwetch.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

We're going next to Brokenhead Ojibway Nation, where we have Chief Gordon BlueSky from Treaty One Nation.

[Chief Gordon BlueSky, Brokenhead Ojibway Nation, Treaty One Nation]

[Witness spoke in Ojibwa]

[English]

I have come to you from Winnipeg, Manitoba, which is Treaty 1 territory. I am really honoured to have the opportunity to speak here today to the parliamentary committee.

We have a situation here in our territory where our Treaty 1 community of seven first nations—and I'll speak more specifically on my community—live in a territory that has been essentially developed without any sort of consideration for my people, our rights or our right to hunt, fish or trap—ultimately, to fish in our territory—given the fact that there's been major development within Treaty 1.

I'm not sure if the committee members are aware of our territory. It stretches from the U.S. border into the Lake of the Woods, which is southeastern Manitoba, into Brandon in western Manitoba, and into the interlake region between Lake Winnipeg and Lake Manitoba.

These lands have been agreed upon since August 3, 1871. Currently, the majority of our first nations are also treaty land entitlement communities. We've come together to work on a parcel of land known as the former Kapyong barracks, which is now reserve and known as Naawi-Oodena. That property is approximately 109 acres and was a former barracks site. It was in dispute with our first nations for the past 19 years, going on 20 years. We just recently had that property turned to reserve.

I always like to describe my territory as being overly developed. To describe the situation that we're in, we are in a situation where our children are being taught where not to hunt versus how to hunt. It becomes a really challenging situation when we start to look at how we do accomplish things like getting our land back to our first nation in terms of restitution.

We have been through this process now for 25 years. We've actually seen the process of treaty land entitlement lapse in terms of the current agreement and the work that we've been doing.

For us, it's been a really challenging situation. We have the majority of the municipalities now situated within Treaty 1. The majority of Manitoba's population lives within our territory. We have industries like agriculture that have essentially left our land base...down to nil. Hydro transmission lines that come in to feed a metropolis like Winnipeg have occupied other properties as well. We have Crown lands, but they are very rare in our territory and even those Crown lands are being leased to farmers.

Essentially, for us, it's become a very critical state where we are. We get to watch all of these videos and all of these wonderful projects that are happening in other territories. I can't speak on behalf of the northern Cree, Inuit, Dene or anything like that, but I always see these nice projects about how they're restoring their environment and how they're taking care of the polar bear, caribou and whatnot. In our case, here in southern Manitoba, we have no lands left to even protect.

We are now in this process of reclamation of land that includes municipal property, municipal lands and private lands that we have to purchase and we have to go through a process, which is left for us to navigate on our own. Municipal officials really feel that the process itself that's been outlined is a bit of an intrusive one, which I can probably appreciate from their perspective, given the fact that we've lived through the opposite as well.

With that being said, our communities are left basically to navigate these disputes—whether it be with a third party interest or with a local municipality—without any sort of mechanism in place to help us settle disputes that are long standing. I actually just got off the phone this morning with the provincial government about a road right-of-way that was identified in 2009. They told us today that it's actually no longer required. It took 14 years for that to happen.

I'm also sitting with municipalities where we're still having municipal servicing discussions that have been going on now for about 16 years.

Again, this is unacceptable. I would assume that if the federal or provincial government required any of these lands for X or Y or Z, these things would have a process where we could actually go for a dispute.

In the case of the Kapyong barracks, we were successful. It wasn't until after lengthy court battles and after disputes with Canada that they finally sat down and signed a comprehensive settlement agreement with our communities. We now have our reserve. Now we own it. Of course, having that land back is a significant step forward for our communities. It provides an excellent opportunity for us to really explore the economic opportunities that should have been there from day one.

This dispute started in 2002. I came to the table in 2004, as a young person at that time, but now we're—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Chief, I'm sorry to interrupt. You're quite a bit over time. Is there any way you can wrap it up? I'm sure we'll get to more of what you have to say in questions.

[Chief Gordon BlueSky]

Yup. We'll leave it there.

I guess that's my wrap-up.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Well, thank you. That was good. Thank you very much. I appreciate that. I don't like cutting people off.

Next up is the Office of the Treaty Commissioner and Ms. Culbertson.

We had a few issues with your sound. Hopefully, we have that solved and are able to hear you nice and clear.

Please proceed for five minutes.

[Mary Culbertson, Treaty Commissioner, Office of the Treaty Commissioner]

Thank you. I'll try not to take all of the five minutes.

Aaniin. My name is Mary Culbertson, and I am the treaty commissioner for Saskatchewan.

I have a juris doctor of law from the University of Saskatchewan. I thank you for inviting me here to give testimony today on lands and restitution.

I acknowledge the land I am currently living on as Treaty 6 land and my home territory of Treaty 4, Keeseekoose First Nation.

I'm the first indigenous woman treaty commissioner. I say that because I look at the land in a much different way than my predecessors. I hold the juris doctor of law from the U of S, but at treaty, my ancestors, the non-first nations and first nations, wanted a better future for their future generations to live here. They wanted the cunning of the white man, to be able to have doctorates, to be lawyers, to have all the levels of education that the newcomers would be having.

I look at things differently, from an indigenous perspective, and I also have to sit in the middle of my people and the Crown, being a treaty commissioner. I'm giving this from an equitable point of view. I'm not going to be neutral here because being neutral means you're not taking a side. In terms of equity, the side that I am taking is that of the treaty nations. I have a lot to say about land, restitution, the access to land and the limitation of land in order to exercise treaty and inherent rights.

Restitution of land is vital to reconciliation efforts and the future of treaty and inherent rights in these territories. It includes and is not limited to food security, economic participation, and land stewardship. In the province that we are currently sitting in.... Even though treaties were here before these provinces were created—Saskatchewan, in particular, in 1905—the federal government has, through division of powers, of course, delegated certain authorities, as you may say, to the provinces.

One of those authorities that was delegated in 1930 was the NRTAs, the natural resources transfer acts, that affect Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Alberta. In Saskatchewan, we have further legislation with regard to lands, such as the Saskatchewan trespass act that was amended in 2022. We also have the Saskatchewan First Act that was introduced by the Saskatchewan government and came into effect this year, in 2023. It was passed by readings in the House. Then we have other policies that limit the ability to access lands, such as additions to reserve policy that currently sits in Indigenous Services Canada.

All of these processes, this legislation and these policies limit the ability to exercise rights. They limit access to the land, and they limit living and making a living from the land.

I will be answering any questions that the committee members may have when it comes to these particular acts and how they limit land and access to it and the exercising of rights.

In this province, as well, we have the online sale of Crown lands. When you're selling off Crown lands, I believe that it's not just treaty first nations and people who use the land to sustain themselves who should be concerned. All people should be concerned because we shouldn't be selling off Crown lands. We shouldn't be selling off any lands when we still have outstanding treaty obligations that need to be made.

The speaker before me mentioned the treaty land entitlements. The Office of the Treaty Commissioner in Saskatchewan was actually created to settle the outstanding treaty land entitlement issues. The first commissioner was Cliff Wright. His task was to create a framework and come to an understanding between all the parties involved.

Since that time, the Office of the Treaty Commissioner has been written out of any matters to do with treaty land entitlements. In our current mandate, which is currently being updated and worked on by a chiefs committee through the FSIN, they have identified where those gaps are that the commission needs to be able to be part of again.

We have many first nations that still do not have their treaty land entitlement lands that they bought to make up their shortfall acres turn into reserve status. The barrier there is the additions to reserve.

We have first nations that have put in an interest when it comes to sale of Crown lands, but yet have—

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, Jamie Schmale]

Ms. Culbertson, I'm sorry. I know your goal was to not hit the five minutes, but you've gone a bit over.

Is there any chance you can wrap it up? We'll probably get to you in questions.