Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 19th, 2012

[Clarence T. Jules]

Absolutely.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I think that will spur more economic development—

[Clarence T. Jules]

Whether it be in treaty land entitlement or designations around the country, it will make it easier for first nations to begin to contemplate the steps that are going to be required to get into economic development. That means greater independence for first nation communities and greater employment opportunities, and, obviously, greater tax revenue for the community governments.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I hear this phrase “moving at the speed of business” a lot. I'm not 100% sure what that means, but we talk about it a lot. Do you think this also is helpful in that respect? One official said they think it could take six months off the process, and another said it could take off even more. For designations, are we really getting close, then, to moving at the speed of business, do you think?

[Clarence T. Jules]

"At the speed of business" was coined by my dad in 1968 when he said that we elect our own chief and council; we don't elect bureaucrats in Ottawa to be our leaders. He said it takes us four to six years to be able to do a lease, and by that time those tenants or potential tenants are somewhere else.

We have to be able to move at the speed of business, meaning decisions have to be made at the local level.

This helps to do that.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

How much time do I have left?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

You have about two minutes and 15 seconds.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I'm quite content.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Then, Ms. Bennett, you have seven minutes.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

We as parliamentarians are having a terrible time with not rewarding bad behaviour. We think that omnibus legislation is bad behaviour, but we think that not consulting first nations about legislation that affects them is intolerable.

As you pointed out, it's not even a year since the crown first nations gathering, and we have this raining down of legislation on everything with virtually no consultation at all.

We need your help because we want all Canadians to understand how unacceptable this is. Even if the legislation were to triple a budget or whatever it is on education or health or anything, if first nations haven't been consulted, then I think we as parliamentarians feel it is an obligation of government and that we need to vote against anything for which first nations have not been appropriately consulted.

It's probably the more political witnesses rather than the associations, but is that something you would want Canadians to understand, Vice-Chief, or the legal counsel?

[Simon Bird]

Thank you very much for your question.

I stated that I come from an educational background. The way I would explain this to non-first nations and Canadians in general is that our treaties were made with two nations. Both sides had obligations. One side agreed to share the land and maintain peace. The reason this treaty relationship was held so sacred is that we firmly believed that the relationship was not only made between two nations but witnessed and consummated, I'll say, with a covenant with our Creator.

There is a very large steering out in a lot of first nations, a lot of frustration. If you want our first nations to continue to hold up their end of the bargain in terms of our treaty rights, it is very important that our Canadian government not make unilateral decisions, because the treaties were made nation to nation. As FSIN vice-chief, I don't even have the authority to speak on behalf of my first nations. They must give me the voice in terms of what I need to take forward.

Again, I firmly believe that our first nations should not be omnibused. Their rights should not be omnibused. A large portion of our first nations have the ability to understand a nation-to-nation.... They do have the leadership; you simply have to ask them.

My letter here from Chief Fox states the following:

On the 18th of October 18 2012, the government of Canada tabled another omnibus bill - this is called C-45. In the legislation, there are amendments to the Indian Act. These amendments make it easier for the “reserved lands” to be surrendered. As it presently stands, it needs a majority of the majority of electors to surrender the reserved lands. These amendments allow for a simple majority of the people who turn up to vote. If there are trhirty people and sixteen people vote to surrender, it is a legal surrender. Then, the Minister would deem that it was a vote of the majority of the electors and go to Cabinet for an order-in-council to remove those lands from 91(24).

Thank you

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Go ahead, Ms. Lickers.

[Kathleen Lickers]

Ms. Bennett, I want to address your concern, and it is a shared concern. Certainly the more political members of the organization may have an opportunity to speak to it on another occasion, but let me say this about the rewarding of bad behaviour.

The difficult position that this amendment represents is that while the technical nature of the amendments is largely positive, to wholly throw them away would be to take this organization in a direction that....

The current designation process is complex and is costly, and the amendments that alleviate and mitigate those measures are largely positive, but in the larger context of a collaborative relationship, which was set out at the beginning of the year, what we are foreclosed from knowing or from building on together is what other range of options might have been available.

What is the larger thinking? What would have been a much more expansive dialogue on the leasing of lands, of bringing lands into the economic arena on a more speedy basis, a more transparent basis? What would be a community's threshold vote that doesn't represent Indian Act regulation? What would be the language around the transfer of lands that removes the language of surrender, even on a conditional basis? We don't know. We were foreclosed from that dialogue. We don't know what other options would have been available. On the other hand, the nature of the amendments is largely positive, so we are equally in the same seat.

That said, the table that continues on in a relationship of collaboration and reform on additions to reserve policy, on which the Senate committee delivered its report at the beginning of this month, is going on with the same officials who are speaking to these amendments. That dialogue has been proceeding in a collaborative way, but what will be the outcome of this and its impact on that dialogue? The legislation is part of that dialogue and the options for legislation have been part of that dialogue, which runs completely at odds.... That collaboration runs completely at odds.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Ms. Lickers.

We'll turn now to Mr. Rickford for seven minutes.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses today.

I have a couple of questions. I'll go to Kathleen first, and then I'll be shifting gears to talk to Chief Jules.

Kathleen, first of all, I take Chief Sharon Stinson Henry's remarks about this whole process of referendum as something for consideration. Right now, as you know, there is this informed decision process that is regulated by the Indian referendum regulations. There is a process there that, importantly, has some critical elements: initial discussion, planning, and community information meetings.

As briefly as we can, would you agree that the proposed amendments speed up the process without changing the substantive requirements that, for now, are worth protecting with respect to designated provisions?

[Kathleen Lickers]

They do. It's important to state that the amendments, clauses 206 through 209, speak to one very specific component of designation which, as you say, is the voting required under the regulation. That change from a two-tiered voting threshold to a simple majority on one ballot is very significant but represents one element of the whole of the process.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Moving from there, the “majority of the majority” was problematic. I was reading a letter, which I think everyone on the committee has, from the Penticton Indian Band. They said, inter alia, that they “have been moving aggressively forward with a number of economic development initiatives” and that “the Indian Act simply does not match the pace of business”. We've heard about this speed of business concept.

As a committee, we've actually visited the Penticton Indian Band. They're geographically located for some huge economic opportunities and they are quite vested in this whole process, but notably, they have a problem with this “majority of the majority” idea.

I think you stated it earlier, but do you have any additional comments on how helpful it is to reduce the majority threshold?

[Kathleen Lickers]

It was spoken to earlier by the representatives of the department, in just the time factor alone. The information sessions go forward to the second vote as well. Certainly, this varies by the complexity of the case. The time, a four- to six-month lapse between the first vote and the second, is a significant factor when you are talking about potential lessees coming forward and wanting to maximize the opportunity under consideration.

The other aspect that does have some efficiency built into it doesn't necessarily represent the vote but does represent where the ministerial order would proceed over the Governor in Council. In my opening remarks, I spoke about having some experience or evidence of that. One of the benefits coming out of the Prairie settlement legislation is a process that allows for that to happen. Experience has been that it represents a savings in time of about six months, which in and of itself represents some cost-effectiveness.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Yes, that's fair. I appreciate that, Kathleen.

In your presentation, you also referred to this new requirement for the band council resolution. The new requirement for band council resolution is innovative in that it also gives the band an opportunity to recommend or to reject to the minister that they recommend or accept this. This is a new control mechanism we see taking place at the community level. You made a comment about its being somewhat problematic for you.

Isn't it also true that in these situations, this new requirement for the BCR could facilitate an appropriate decision by the minister?

[Kathleen Lickers]

I have to say that as benign as it appears on paper, this is one area where a dialogue with Canada is needed on the thinking behind the necessity of introducing a further stopgap after a community vote.

I'm curious. The community would have gone though that referendum process. Implied within that small section of the amendment is that the community would doubt the informed consent they have just given by a simple majority.

This is one aspect for which a collaborative process would give some insight on why that is a necessary amendment. If you have a referendum by simple majority and you have a review process set out in the referendum, it's not clear to me why a further measure from the community would be necessary. Why is it necessary to have the electoral office and a representative of the leadership sign off on the vote, and then you give them the further opportunity to say no?

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

It may be contrary to the outcome of the—

[Kathleen Lickers]

Not only is it presented in a way in which the community could choose not to recommend, but also the minister has the ultimate say. The minister himself or herself could decide to disregard the vote, even as a simple majority, so there are a lot of stopgap measures. It's not clear to me where it actually becomes definitive.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

There are 10 seconds left.

Thank you, Mr. Rickford.

Thank you to our witnesses in this round. We appreciate your testimony. We thank you not only for your brevity, but also for bringing forward points that were absolutely essential.

We will now suspend the meeting.

We will return to our next group of witnesses, Mr. John Gailus and Mr. Gordon Shanks.

We are running a little bit behind schedule, colleagues, but I think this last round was important.

Mr. Vice Chief, were you looking for a point of clarity?

[Simon Bird]

Yes. I have two quick questions. Can I make a submission?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

You can bring them over to the clerk, and we will have those circulated.

Again, thank you very much. We will now suspend and open up for our next witnesses to come forward.