Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 10th, 2020

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

Bob—

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Just hold on. It's my time.

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

Bob, it's a B.C. project, right?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

The problem with it, though, is that if you're going out under the circumstances where you're supposed to be bringing the blockades down and having this cessation...because it's all around the project, right? It's all around this Coastal GasLink project. If you're going to go out there and help to somehow bring peace to the situation and you're not even talking about the very issue that's got the roadblocks up, I think that's more problematic.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Okay. We need a brief answer.

A brief answer, please, Minister.

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

The brief answer is that the rights and title.... The reason I'm there is for a durable solution, so this never happens again. The rights holders will be at the table with lots of choices at the beginning of a project. That's what Bill C-69 is about. It's what UNDRIP is—

[A voice]

Hardly.

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

—and it's the way we will go when we have settled the rights and title of the Wet'suwet'en people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

That's the final question in this round. We've gone over the time that we agreed to. We have our next witnesses waiting.

I will thank the ministers and their staff for being with us today.

We'll just take a brief moment to allow me to get a cup of coffee and then we'll continue.

We are suspended briefly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Please come back to order.

We're running short on time. We've got lots of business and some very important witnesses. Once again, we will reconvene for this meeting of the indigenous and northern affairs committee.

For those who are watching by webcast, we have a guest here with us and also two guests by video conference. With the vicissitudes of technology, I think Ms. Tait Day will allow our speakers at a distance to go first.

We have John Borrows, the Canada research chair on indigenous law at the University of Victoria, and Éric Cardinal by video conference from Sept-Îles, Quebec.

Mr. Borrows, you're farthest away. Please go ahead.

[John Borrows, Canada Research Chair in Indigenous Law, University of Victoria, As an Individual]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you.

The issues I want to raise have to do with the application of indigenous law. I'm grateful for understanding that aboriginal title is the issue that lies at the heart of our current disputes out here in British Columbia and that the recognition of title belongs with the rights-entitled holders, who are the hereditary chiefs. What's required, of course, is the recognition of that title and then the jurisdiction to be able to implement what's involved in the content of that title.

When that jurisdiction is recognized, that includes Wet'suwet'en law and the internal dispute resolution structures that they can bring to bear to deal with the challenges they face between the elected and the hereditary councils. I'm sure you'll hear more about that as we go along.

This is to make the point that this is law, and this law is recognized in the Constitution.

The other things we need are, of course, the inter-societal recognition mechanisms, things like section 35 and the sui generis approach that's there; UNDRIP and the statutory action that the government can take to recognize rights and title as an economic development and sustainability issue; needing to reform the way injunctions are done; and thinking about rule of law in the broad way.

However, my main contribution is to try to bring to bear a law from the Anishinabe. I'm from Cape Croker, which is a reserve on the south shores of Georgian Bay on the Bruce Peninsula. The Wiikwemkoong reserve, for instance, has a constitution, and in that constitution they talk about how their laws should be applied to deal with the questions that come before them. These laws are organized as the Seven Grandmother and Grandfather Teachings. I just want to read them to you for your consideration, so you can think about using these kinds of approaches in resolving the disputes that we're all so concerned about.

The first law is the law of respect, which is to “accept people for who they are”. It says in the constitution, “listen openly to other opinions and be sensitive towards people's feelings. Also respect all living creatures, and Mother Earth.” Imagine that law as a standard, principle, criteria, authority, precedent, tradition, guidepost and signpost for regulating our affairs and resolving our disputes.

There's humility. “Strive to become a modest person.”

There's truth. “Be a trustworthy individual. Discuss only factual information, and in turn, seek out knowledge that is accurate.”

These are constitutional principles.

There's bravery and courage. The constitution says, “Take responsibility for your mistakes, and meet unknown circumstances head on. Be a risk taker, and do not let short falls discourage you.”

There's love. “Show affection and fondness for those around you.” Imagine that being a part of the way we go about resolving our disputes, constitutionally speaking. “Allow your friends and family to know you adore them unconditionally. Most importantly, love yourself.”

There's honesty. “Be upfront about everything that you say and do. Your words and your actions should not have a hidden agenda or motive.”

Then the seventh grandfather/grandmother rule here is wisdom, which is: “Be wise and gain knowledge through life experiences. Furthermore, learn from your mistakes. Expand your wisdom to include teachings from elders and children.”

These are principles that are akin to life, liberty and security, peace, order and good government. They are, of course, general. They are aspirational, as are hopes for equality and mobility and freedom in Canada's Constitution.

What I suggest is that, as a part of the law of Canada, we draw upon these kinds of principles and make them the standards by which we conduct our business. These can be given meaning in specific terms and in statutes—as with this constitution—and in court judgments. They can also be the way we comport ourselves.

Here at the University of Victoria, we're teaching indigenous law alongside the common law. We have a “JD” and a “JID” degree—a juris doctor and juris indigenarum doctorate. Also, the students here are learning transsystemically. When I teach constitutional law, they're learning about federalism, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and aboriginal and treaty rights, but at the same time they're also learning about Anishinabe law all along the way.

The same thing happens when they learn criminal law; they learn Cree law in relation to that. When they learn about property law, they learn about Gitxsan law. Tsilhqot'in law is combined with contract law. Hul'q'umi'num or Cowichan Law is combined with tort law.

We are a multi-juridical country. We have many legal traditions to draw upon that can be authoritative in guiding our actions, and these principles of respect and humility, truth, bravery, love, honesty and wisdom contain guidance in the etymology of the words. For instance, the word “love”, zaagidiwin, comes from a river mouth. We learn about how to live in love by looking at what happens at a river mouth that is enriching the earth, and the standards by which we should live are honesty, gwayakwaadiziwin, which is having a clear path between us, no obstruction when we're talking with one another, or humility, dibaadendiziwin, which is to measure our thoughts in a precise way. The idea of respect, manaaj'idiwin, is to go easy on one another. The notion of wisdom is nanagadawenda/nibwaakaawin, which is to bend toward or study things.

These are Canadian laws. These are laws of the land, and the Wet'suwet'en have laws they could express that have similar sorts of principles attached to them. So do the Blackfoot and the Salish, the Mi'kmaq, the Inuit, the Métis and the Haida, any group you look at have these laws written and unwritten, so it is important to talk about title and jurisdiction and internal dispute resolutions and inter-societal dispute resolution mechanisms, but understand that a part of what will give those life is indigenous understanding of law.

I look forward to further questions or comments that you might have about that.

There is lots to say, but I hope I have made the point about indigenous law being a part of a resource for reasoning and action in our country.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

You did very well. Thank you.

Mr. Cardinal, would you please go ahead now.

[Éric Cardinal, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for allowing me to testify, even though I couldn't appear in person. I am currently in the community of the Uashat mak Mani-Utenam Nation on the North Shore of Quebec. Long live technology!

I'm not going to go back over the facts of the indigenous crisis. You know them well enough. As an expert in indigenous law and policy, I will focus primarily on what I understand about the causes of the crisis and what I see as lessons we can learn from it.

First of all, the crisis is the culmination of several issues related to first nations territories and political governance. There are, of course, issues specific to the Wet'suwet'en Nation and those related to the Coastal GasLink project in particular. The crisis has become so acute because the issues go well beyond hereditary chiefs' opposition to a pipeline project. Moreover, it is not by chance that the crisis has had such resonance in Quebec and that there have been such important gestures of support from first nations in Quebec, particularly from the Mohawks and Micmacs, but also from the Atikamekw, Innu, Algonquins and many others.

The situation in Quebec is very similar to that in British Columbia. These are two regions where there is no, or at least few, historic surrender treaties. So there are large areas of what are referred to as unceded indigenous territories over which first nations have rights, but rights that are not fully recognized by governments or the courts. These are what I call invisible rights: indigenous rights, indigenous title, the inherent right of self-government, the right to be consulted and accommodated, the right to fiduciary protection by the Crown, and so on.

It's not because they are invisible that they don't exist, but because they are invisible, they are often ignored. In the course I teach at the Faculty of Law of the Université de Montréal, "Canadian Law and Indigenous Peoples", I always begin my first class with a drawing of my own, which is a pictorial representation of Canadian indigenous law. Here is my drawing.

You see a rectangle that symbolizes Canadian law and a circle that identifies the normative orders of indigenous peoples. This circle overlaps in part, but not completely, with positive Canadian law: there are rights that are sometimes recognized and others that are not. That's what Mr. Borrows was talking about in terms of indigenous rights, the normative orders of indigenous peoples that existed and have continued to exist in Canada.

The chart explains what is known as legal pluralism, which is present in indigenous law in Canada, and it also explains some of the issues related to the crisis and the complexity of the solutions. Indigenous peoples, because they have not been conquered, because they have not given up their inherent rights, despite the considerable efforts made during generations of colonial policy, still possess, to different degrees, depending on the nation, parts of their legal order that existed before the creation of Canada. This is true for those who have entered into treaties and even more so for those who have not, as is the case in Quebec and British Columbia in particular.

These rights have been recognized in part by the courts, which are trying, as best they can, to reconcile the pre-existing sovereignty of indigenous nations with the current sovereignty of the Crown. However, the concepts created remain vague and imprecise. In short, they often remain invisible to the current political system. This is the fundamental problem. Faced with the difficulty of resolving problems through political means, first nations are forced to turn to the courts or blockade railroads.

You have to realize that the courts are not a panacea. It is often very long, very expensive and very risky. Even when the first nation wins its case in court, it does not necessarily represent a victory. Take the case of the Wet'suwet'en Nation, one of the two nations involved in the famous 1997 Delgamuukw decision.

The decision was heralded as a great victory for indigenous people, as the court recognized the existence and scope of indigenous title to unceded indigenous lands. However, the court refused to decide the case, inviting governments to negotiate or first nations to return to the trial court to prove title again.

You'd certainly think we wouldn't be here today if the negotiation route had worked better. We can't blame the courts. The recognition and definition of these invisible rights was left to the Supreme Court, if not clarified at the political level, as the federal government had promised to do when the Constitution was patriated in 1982 and section 35 was included, which recognizes indigenous rights without defining them.

In fact, there are several people these days who are proposing new constitutional amendments to correct this situation. There have indeed been a few so-called modern treaties that have been concluded since the Supreme Court reminded the government in 1973, in the Calder case, that indigenous rights were not inert fossils.

Yes, there have been some treaties, but not many. The Wet'suwet'en situation is hardly unique. There are a number of similar situations, especially in British Columbia, Quebec and the Maritimes, involving unceded traditional territories in which these invisible rights exist.

Admittedly, as things stand, treaty making is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for many nations. The current framework for negotiations is inadequate and ineffective. First, the current policy on the settlement of comprehensive claims has an enormous disadvantage: the federal government is both judge and jury. The process is also very long and fraught with pitfalls. To give you an idea of the situation, some nations have been in negotiations for over 40 years.

Meanwhile, the territories continue to be developed. The duty to negotiate and accommodate does indeed exist. The duty was established by the Supreme Court in 2004 in a case involving the Haida Nation. However, this duty is yet another vague and unclear concept that causes a great deal of frustration, among both indigenous people and proponents, by the way. They complain about being caught between a rock and a hard place.

Admittedly, the governments don't have much motivation to negotiate for the recognition of rights. We can't rely too much on pressure from the courts, contrary to what we might think. While the courts recognize indigenous rights, and despite the constitutional protection granted in 1982, they've also ensured that these rights aren't absolute and that governments could violate them. The Supreme Court established criteria to justify the infringement of rights, even formally recognized aboriginal title. This gives governments a way to keep denying these invisible rights.

While recognizing the existence of aboriginal title, the Supreme Court also gave indigenous communities the burden of proving their previous occupation of their traditional territories. This proof is extraordinarily difficult and costly to produce. Only one indigenous nation has been able to provide this type of proof. That was in 2014, and the case concluded before the Supreme Court with the confirmation of the Tsilhqot'in Nation's aboriginal title to approximately 5% of its traditional territory.

What action can be taken by first nations that have invisible rights, but that can't have these rights recognized by the courts or participate in treaty negotiations? For now, they can only require that they be consulted. Again, they're reminded that they don't have a veto. If they aren't satisfied with the consultation, they can go to court. However, if they aren't satisfied with the courts, what's left? This is our impasse.

In my view, the indigenous crisis is the direct result of the governments' failure to recognize invisible rights, which are nonetheless real, and to address the historic grievances of first nations that have never surrendered or given up their land rights.

These land claims can't be resolved until the negotiation mechanisms have been fundamentally changed. After many years of frustrating negotiation experiences, I believe that the solution to the current impasse lies in a mechanism that remains separate from governments. The issue is systemic. In other words, the current system can't resolve these issues, which are so complex that they even go beyond the capacity of governments. These types of issues can't be resolved by public servants, who must comply with policies, directives and administrative procedures. I believe that a new institution, separate from governments, should be responsible for clarifying and implementing the rights of first nations. This independent body should be composed of individuals who have the necessary expertise and legitimacy to accomplish this sensitive and very important task.

One of the first things to change is probably the vocabulary used. We don't refer to claims, a confusing term that suggests that indigenous groups want new rights. As I said, these rights are existing rights for which they're seeking formal recognition. We should instead be talking about a rights recognition policy. This solution would also be a concrete step towards implementing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which Canada officially supported.

In conclusion, I'll say a few words about the uncertainty that the crisis has caused among project proponents, particularly with regard to the authorities that have the jurisdiction to negotiate development agreements. Of course, companies and the government are turning to elected band councils. We must remember that these councils are currently trying to do everything they can with the means at their disposal to improve the lives of their communities. That said, this issue is another debate.

As I said earlier, a number of nations still have traditional authorities. In a few cases, the courts have also recognized the legitimacy of these traditional authorities, such as in the case of the Wet'suwet'en in 1997. The federal government's responsibility is useful, even fundamental, in this area. The federal government must ensure that the process respects the rights of the indigenous group concerned.

Rather than encouraging the division of indigenous communities, we should be giving the communities the necessary resources to create institutions designed according to their own legal perspective. This will enable them to make legitimate decisions that are more likely to be respected by everyone.

To do this, the political route must also be taken. It's not necessary to enter into an agreement, because the right to self-government is an inherent right. However, it's more useful to enter into self-government agreements. Otherwise, situations arise such as the one involving the Mohawks of Kahnawake. They've implemented a form of de facto sovereignty over their territory. That's one reason why the blockade couldn't be cleared through a simple court injunction.

Again, the current system makes it very difficult to enter into agreements and recognize self-government.

In short, creativity and courage are now needed in order to take concrete steps towards putting words into action. Otherwise, reconciliation will remain wishful thinking. The words “nation-to-nation relationship” will become meaningless, and these types of crises will happen again.

On that positive note, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you. The technology worked very well.

Now we'll go to our guest who is here with us in committee. From the Wet'suwet'en Matrilineal Coalition, we have Theresa Tait Day, president.

Welcome.

[Theresa Tait Day]

Thank you very much.

First, I would like to thank the Algonquin for allowing us to do business on their territory. Also, thank you to the committee for having me here today.

My name is Theresa Tait Day. My hereditary name is Wi'hali'yte. I'm the fourth generation in my family to hold this name. As a hereditary sub-chief of the House Beside the Fire, Kun Beghyukh, of the Laksilyu or Small Frog Clan, I have been involved in the governance of the Wet'suwet'en for many years. I sat at the OW table.

My training comes from my grandparents, who were active in the political system for governance rights and title. They were involved in the Calder case and the Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa case, as well as the formation of the Native Brotherhood of B.C. I served as a director of native programs at the Legal Services Society for almost a decade, and I think that's where I met John Borrows a long time ago.

I am the co-founder of the Wet'suwet'en Matrilineal Coalition, with five hereditary chiefs representing the five clans. The Wet'suwet'en Matrilineal Coalition was asked by hereditary chiefs and the community at large to come up with a solution to facilitate decision-making within our nation. We have been working particularly with LNG and Coastal GasLink. Our people wanted a benefit, and they wanted to be able to make a decision on a positive note. However, we've experienced lateral violence and coercion since then by the five chiefs who claim to represent the nation.

I speak on behalf of the WMC—as a hereditary female leader—my fellow hereditary chiefs, band members, our elected band councils, and members of my house group as an appointed sub-chief and designated spokesperson.

With regard to Coastal GasLink and the protesters, our communities came to the world's attention when members of our hereditary chiefs loudly broadcasted their opposition to Coastal GasLink, despite the fact that it has strong community support. These chiefs' voices have been amplified by the skills and the resources of outside environmental activists who say that they support Wet'suwet'en, but whose primary interest is to stop the pipeline.

The protest organizers are conveniently hiding behind our blanket as indigenous people while forcing their policy goals at our expense. This compromises our nation's social well-being and our people's economic future.

They have held up the hereditary chiefs who oppose the pipeline as defenders of traditional governance, leaving the impression that the chief and council are running roughshod over the wishes of the community. It's not that simple. Hereditary chiefs in our communities do not rule alone. They make decisions collectively. They gather in community halls. In these meetings, people are allowed to speak. An effort is made to work toward consensus. At the end of the process, the community and band-elected chiefs inform the hereditary chiefs of the community's message to be shared with the public. This project has been hijacked by the five chiefs.

The hereditary chiefs are representative decision-makers. They are not autocrats. They are told by the community what the decisions are, and that's how we move forward. This is not happening. The band and the community have been left out.

Based on a survey of Witset, the largest community, first nation, in our territory, over 80% of our community say they want LNG to proceed. There is a gap between what people say and what the hereditary chiefs are claiming.

You are being told that these men speak for our nation, but they often fail to understand even the basic traditions. The improper wearing of regalia in protest offends the most progressive traditional leaders. It shows a fundamental disrespect for our customary laws. How can we be governed by these people who don't understand them?

As for the Office of the Wet'suwet'en, it is structured and controlled by its own benefactors, who draw a salary from the operations and manage spending decisions. They are not accountable to our community.

By negotiating directly with the office, Canada and British Columbia legitimize a group of bullies and abusers of women.

Moreover, by refusing to hear from elected councils, these governments have, without merit, prevented the most credible current voices from being heard. The Indian Act system must be reformed, but that does not invalidate the role of the elected councils. While imperfect, they continue to speak for our people until a better model is implemented. That's why I'm here today to appeal to you to create a better model for decision-making.

The women's voices have been suppressed by dissent. As female Wet'suwet'en members and community leaders, we want to be heard and involved in the decision-making. That is our way. But our voices have not been heard. Many of the male hereditary chiefs are acting out of internalized historical oppression. We face patriarchal domination. In a very sick way, the voices of the privileged and non-indigenous protesters are taking precedence over indigenous women. They assert their agenda in solidarity to avoid facing the scrutiny of their policies.

This is both about a pipeline and not about a pipeline. What is happening here determines our process as a nation. A people's wishes have not been heard. I agree with John Borrows that there are beliefs, but in our nation we have been oppressed for 150 years, and we continue to be oppressed under the current regime.

At the draft agreement consultation on February 28, a number of hereditary chiefs attended a meeting prior to the male hereditary chiefs' meeting with the province and the federal cabinet ministers. We met until it was promised that the chiefs would have a community meeting open to the public. Instead, they decided to have these small clan meetings, where 20 people or five people come and make decisions about this. This is not what a democratic system looks like.

The two major issues at hand—the Wet'suwet'en's position on Coastal GasLink, and the role of hereditary chiefs in our governance—are properly left with the Wet'suwet'en. Our communities have been working on these matters for years, and we'll resolve them in our way. As a community, we need to implement a process in which the Wet'suwet'en create a decision-making model, a process for major projects. We need a system that will allow us to work together toward economic reconciliation, job creation and the rebuilding of our nation as well. We need a new model.

The Indian Act targeted us as women, and continued violence targets us as women, both within and outside our communities. While supporting decolonization as part of reconciliation, supporters of indigenous people must also support efforts to combat sexism and the continued oppression of Indian women.

We respectfully demand accountability and procedural fairness from the hereditary chiefs representing the Office of the Wet'suwet'en. We ask the government to help us to provide the resources necessary for our nation to co-develop a path forward for economic reconciliation that is inclusive, democratic, open and fair, as you can see in your government's system. You have this system; we do not have a system of fairness.

We have a way forward. We call for a community-wide meeting and for the protesters to stop misrepresenting the Wet'suwet'en. We are ready for a new system of governance that is inclusive of our nation.

I realize that you've heard a lot of things here today. I agree with John Borrows on the principles, but those principles must be part of our nation's dialogue, and we haven't had the ability to really dialogue with our nation. We don't have a mechanism in place where everybody has a say, and when everybody knows what the topic being discussed is. It has been decided by a group of people without the community and without the nation's input.

We've come to the eleventh hour, when all of a sudden the minister has come to the table and talked to the five groups of people who have not actually had our permission to do so.

It's the communities that say what should happen, and hereditary chiefs do not act alone. They take direction from the membership. What we are facing, as Wet'suwet'en, is a lack of a mechanism in place whereby everybody would have a say in a democratic, open and fair way.

Currently, under the system of having clan meetings, when you have 20 people at a meeting.... Currently Likhts’amisyu is under Warner Naziel's leadership—who took the name from the rightful owner, Gloria George. He has a meeting, and 20 people say, “Yes, go ahead”. These small meetings do not make a decision for our nation, so I am here to talk to Minister Bennett and ministers to try to create a mechanism where we are all informed and all involved in whatever decision has to be made with respect to our communities. Title and rights exist within Wet'suwet'en. They haven't gone away. These agreements will not change the fact that today my clan and my house can go and protest.

I think the best way forward is for the government to think of how these governance models fit in today's world. We cannot go back 100 years—and, in fact, these meetings are oppressive to our nation. We feel like we are stuck in the 1800s. We need to move forward economically. We need to have the benefits from our land. We need to be able to have equity stakes in our projects that come forward. We need to benefit from them, and we don't have a mechanism in our community to address that particular problem. Title and rights, yes, we need to address that, but we also need a mechanism to make decisions today about these projects that are coming down the pike.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bob Bratina]

Thank you so much, Ms. Tait Day, and to all of our guests.

We will go to Mr. Zimmer to a six-minute round of questioning.

Please go ahead.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Yes, Chief, we are more than honoured to have you sitting at the end of our table today. It was quite a while ago when we first met, and here we are again.

I just want to clarify something. You talked about the number of.... I think what we in Ottawa don't have is an eye into what the Wet'suwet'en community actually is, what it supports and what it doesn't.

From your perspective again, what would you say is the percentage of community support for the Coastal GasLink project in the Wet'suwet'en community itself?

[Theresa Tait Day]

Well, we have six bands, and there are two systems in place. There is the band elected system, and then we have the hereditary chief system. The bands have done their work, their due diligence. Many of them have signed on to Coastal GasLink project. They have asked their communities. Communities are working on it. Then we have the hereditary chiefs who have the agenda of title and rights. We agree with that. Title and rights must be resolved. We must get a benefit from our land from the past wrongs and we must move forward to together as a nation, as Canadian, as Wet'suwet'en people, but we must have a mechanism in place to do that.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

What would you say roughly is the percentage in the community, Chief?

[Theresa Tait Day]

I would say about 80% of our people, based on a survey that was done within the largest community, the Witset community. The rest of the six communities have had agreements. Well, all of the communities have agreements with Coastal GasLink, so we feel like we've been hijacked by the protestors who have own agenda on this. This was not driven by the hereditary chiefs, as I heard earlier. The protestors have their own agenda, and they have used our people to advance their agenda and really, I think, to land-lock gas and oil in this country.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Chief, I have another question.

We heard from the minister. As you were in the room, you heard some of the comments and some of my questions to her, too. Honestly, I have spoken with elected chiefs and with hereditary chiefs. I think, at the end of the day, we're debating whether what is said or not is correct—from the minister. At the end of the day, we want to hear from the community what they want going forward. I think that is what the goal is, and if she is going out there to be a unifying voice to the community of Wet'suwet'en, to me it's problematic when I hear that some members.... I don't know if you were there, Chief. When these meetings happened, were you kept out of those meetings?

[Theresa Tait Day]

Yes. In fact, a few of our hereditary chiefs met with the male chiefs that morning, on February 28th, and we asked them what their intention was. They did not share that with us, and they would not share that with us. Instead, they went into saying things like, well, we've been here for a hundred years and we're doing this and that—the same old story again.

So there were no answers, and we said, okay, we don't want to embarrass the nation, so go ahead and meet with Minister Bennett on the condition that you would have a public open meeting with the nation on what your intentions were, and we never had that. Instead, they went into clan meetings as a way to control the information.

We do have clan meetings, but that's not the end-all, because our nation does not exist in a little community here and there. Our nation is everywhere, in Ottawa, Vancouver and all parts of the country, and every one of our nation members has a voice and has a say on their future, and this has not been the case. We have not had that ability.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Have you seen this document that was made—again—supposedly by the Wet'suwet'en community?

[Theresa Tait Day]

No, I haven't.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

That was the agreement between the minister and the Wet'suwet'en. Have you seen the document?