CHER Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON CANADIAN HERITAGE

COMITÉ PERMANENT DU PATRIMOINE CANADIEN

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, April 22, 1998

• 1538

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier, Lib.)): Messieurs, mesdames, we need a quorum of three to hear witnesses. So long as there is one member of the opposition present, we have that quorum. Mark, thank you for being here to allow us to proceed.

Chief Dwayne Blackbird, I want to ask you if you would do us the honour of introducing the people you've brought with you, particularly the elder. If you would, please then proceed to your presentation, after which we will have a session of questions and answers so that we can engage in a dialogue. We will be starting with the opposition side of the table, and then we'll hear from the government side.

Chief Dwayne Blackbird (Keeseekoowenin Treaty No. 2 Ojibway First Nation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me here today are Councillors Barry Bone, Elder Walter Scott, James Bone, and James Plewak.

I guess we'll start with our slide presentation, and then we'll go into the presentation we have prepared.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I'll just mention something for the benefit of everyone here. We are now into the deliberations concerning the second reading of Bill C-29 at committee stage. I suspect everybody knows that, but that's just for the record.

• 1540

We'll proceed first with a technical presentation.

[Editor's Note: Slide presentation]

• 1545

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: Mr. Chairman, I'll go to our presentation.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): An oral presentation? By all means.

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am Chief Dwayne Blackbird. I have already introduced to you Councillors James Bone and Barry Bone. James Plewak, a member of our nation, serves as a technician.

I take special pleasure in introducing to you our elder, Walter Scott, the last living grandson of Chief Keeseekoowenin, who through the 92 years of his life has been a witness to the situation we wish to discuss with the committee. His uncle, Glen Campbell, the husband of his mother's sister, was a member of Parliament in the early years of the 1900s.

We thank you for agreeing to hear us. Our purpose in appearing before you is to urge you to recommend to the House, in your report on Bill C-29, an amendment to the bill that mandates the new park agencies to work closely with first nations with interests in the national parks, in uniting the interests of the people of Canada and the rights and interests of first nations. Our second purpose is to urge the committee to use its standing orders to look generally into the relationship of Parks Canada with first nations.

You may think such a mandate would be a matter of course, not really worth mentioning, that Parks Canada would of course act in this way. I believe that after hearing both our past and our present story, you will share our view that a very strong mandate is necessary.

The five of us before you are related as cousins, the great-grandsons and great-great-grandsons of a man known as Okanese, who from the early 19th century established us at Riding Mountain. We prospered there. We were guardians of the mountain and all its creatures. Through our stewardship, until the turn of the 20th century, this area was maintained as an ecological wonder that sustained our lives. The Hudson's Bay Company established a trading post known as Riding Mountain House for the express purpose of trading with our nation.

In 1871 we agreed with the request of Queen Victoria that we open up certain of our lands for “settlement”. We negotiated with her Commissioner Treaty No. 2, in which we agreed to do so. We agreed that these areas of good farmland would be reserved for us whenever we wished to go there, but we would not be required to go there until we wished. We were guaranteed free exercise of our rights on any lands that were not settled.

It was well known by all parties that our traditional area of Riding Mountain was not likely to be settled very much. It was a beautiful country for our traditional way of life, but it was not hospitable for farming because of the mountain climate. We all knew that, and we felt assured that except for a little settlement that might occur, we would continue to maintain our lifestyle. We did so for many years.

In 1895 the federal Parliament passed the forest preserves and parks act, incorporating a huge territory of over a thousand square miles on which we continued to have unsurrendered aboriginal rights. At that time, well over half our community resided in the territory mentioned in the act. We had every right to be there, using those unsettled lands.

The reports of the Queen's Superintendent-General of Indian Affairs to the Queen's representative, the Governor-General of Canada, show that even those of us who lived on our reserve relied heavily on the adjacent unsettled area to maintain a very adequate lifestyle as self-sustaining, independent people. We were, relatively speaking, prosperous. We have photographs of those times, so you can make your own judgment.

• 1550

The creation of the forest preserve was “to preserve and produce a perpetual supply of timber for the people of the prairie, considering first the needs of the homesteader”. No mention was made in the act of our first nation, neither its needs nor its rights. Neither did it express any will of Parliament that our rights should be abolished.

In December 1929, an agreement was signed between the Dominion of Canada and the Province of Manitoba on the subject of the transfer of the natural resources of Manitoba. The agreement provided for the establishment of Riding Mountain forest reserve as a dominion park.

In 1930 the National Parks Act was passed by Parliament. It stated as its purpose:

that the Parks be maintained as National recreational areas and pleasure grounds, and as natural museums for the benefit of all the people of Canada; that the scenery, the natural and historic objects and the wildlife shall be conserved, and the Parks enjoyed and made use of in such a manner as to leave them unimpaired for the benefit of future generations.

An explanation of the act said:

The main essential of the National Parks is their preservation, so far as possible, in their natural state. The closer these areas can be kept to their original condition, the greater attraction they will be on account of their natural beauty. The Parks are outstanding attractions to tourists, both Canadian and foreign, and as such are of great economic importance to the country.

No consideration was given to the fact that these objectives were very similar to our own long-established practices, and that the exercise of our aboriginal and treaty rights and our enjoyment of economic benefits from the parklands—our lands, on which we have aboriginal title to this day—in no way conflicted with the operations of the national park.

Some of our people resided on reserve land, set aside under provisions of the Indian Act, known as Indian Reserve 61A. This reserve was part of the area wanted for the new park.

Despite our treaty, despite the provisions of the Indian Act, in the 1930s Parks Canada carried out its own version of ethnic cleansing. Our people were forcibly ejected from homes they had occupied for generations. As they were carried away, their homes, barns, school, and community centre were torched. Burnt to the ground. This took place on Indian Reserve 61A. Our elder, Walter Scott, recalls these tragic days. He recalls driving leaders to meet with officials in the hope they would hear their pleas. No one did.

It is ironic to note that just a few years later, the same people who burnt our people out of the park imported an Englishman posing as an Indian, named Grey Owl, to come and live in the park and play the role of the Indian that visitors expected to see when they came to our homelands.

It is ironic to note that as our people were burnt out from the north end of Clear Lake, Parks Canada facilitated the development of a tourist community at the south end of the lake. How can it be that white people living at one end of the lake is not contrary to a park's purpose, but Indians living at the other end of the lake is incompatible with a park, or that a golf course is okay in a park, but an Indian family is not compatible?

Let me also add that the cemetery our people used on Reserve 61A at Clear Lake was fenced off by Parks Canada as a tourist attraction. We, the relatives of the people buried there, had to pay admission to the park in order to pay our respects to our parents, grandparents, children, and brothers.

You may find it interesting that the park takes pride in its sensitive handling of nature. In 1994 the visitor centre was closed when a flock of brown bats was found nesting in the attic. Until the bats had left the nest, humans were not allowed to enter the building and disturb their cycle. Our people were burnt out of their homes.

This was in the midst of the Depression. We were vigorously prosecuted for feeding our families as we had always done. At the same time, we saw park officials involved in operations with white settlers, carrying away truckloads of illegally killed game and selling it in Winnipeg as “Manitoba sausage”. We were blamed for the depletion of wildlife.

The tragedy of the 1930s has characterized our relationship with Parks Canada ever since. Although we continue to live virtually on the border of the park, we have played no part in its development. There is no consultation with us about park management or accommodations so we might exercise our rights. Our advice is not sought in any way. There are no invitations to use our knowledge and traditions to enhance the park and the realization of its noble purpose. Tourist accommodations built for visitors to the park are not Indian enterprises.

• 1555

The loss of economic benefits from these unsettled lands and the failure of the government to provide compensation of any kind whatsoever has affected the well-being of the Riding Mountain Band. Within a generation our people went from being a proud, prosperous, self-sustaining people to a community where dependency and social malice became the status quo, which we only recently were able to address.

You say that's all in the past, that these are different times, that there is a great consciousness of aboriginal rights. Let us look, then, at the current situation. Today, in 1998, our people are not employed in the park. There is no excuse for there not being one employed member of our community when we have a national park at our doorstep.

We filed a claim with regard to the lands that were illegally seized at Clear Lake. The claim was validated. Canada admitted it had an outstanding legal obligation. Part of that claim was settled and part of those lands are again Indian reserves. Negotiations are currently in progress for the remaining lands. We have tried to include Parks Canada in the negotiation process so no monetary issues could be included in the settlement, but it has not agreed to participate.

There is an opportunity here for open-minded, enlightened, and reasonable people to reach agreements that would provide very attractive benefits to the park, to Canada, and to our first nation.

There is no shortage of high-potential examples. An increasing degree of joint management, area by area, could make court action unnecessary. The aboriginal procurement policy could be used to contract for services. Training programs and career planning could prepare our young people for positions ranging from construction to game biologists.

Cooperative projects would be widely promoted internationally as an example of progressive park management with the maximum involvement of the indigenous population.

International tourists would make Riding Mountain a destination of choice, specifically because of our involvement.

An opportunity is offered Canada to demonstrate its leadership internationally, ensuring that its parks operate to the advantage of the first nations who are every bit a part of the natural environment. We would far rather praise Canada internationally than to inform international visitors of the cloud that covers our current relationship. We would much rather have the government's willingness to participate than to take steps to compel it.

So you might say, “Why don't you ask?” Well, we did ask and we got no response. We wrote to the Minister of Canadian Heritage last October along the lines of this presentation. We received an acknowledgement. We have pressed for a reply. There has been none.

Last December we wrote Thomas Lee, the assistant deputy minister. We did not even get an acknowledgement, much less a reply.

So much for cooperation. The attitudes of the 1930s still prevail. I can tell you that our elders still do not sleep well, worrying that Parks Canada once again will take away their lands.

The Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs, Scott Serson, did not respond to our invitation to assist us. Instead, he wrote only to encourage us to pursue discussions with Parks Canada away from the claims negotiation table. Yet the only forum available for us to meet with Parks Canada is at an interest group round table. We are not an interest group. We have rights, and we wish to have Parks Canada discuss with us how those rights can be accommodated. We are not unreasonable people.

Greg Fenton, the park superintendent, tells us that the law is the law and that he must respect the park legislation. He has not received any mandate to negotiate with us. Senior Parks Canada officials send park wardens to negotiate with us—the very people we are in serious confrontation with—without having any mandate to enforce anything but the status quo.

Parks Canada has not informed its superintendent that the Constitution was patriated in Canada in 1982 and that to the degree that any legislation is in conflict with aboriginal and treaty rights, it is invalid. Parks Canada has not informed its superintendent of the numerous Supreme Court of Canada decisions dealing with aboriginal title, fiduciary responsibility, and interpretation of treaties. Parks Canada has not informed its superintendent that he has the duty and obligation to act in our best interests, to take positive actions. That has left its superintendent in the untenable position of having no authority to apply the law of the land. He only enforces the narrow act in its literal sense.

• 1600

When our people enter the park to carry on their traditional activities, their tents and equipment may be seized. We are told that treaty Indians have the right to enter a park, but we have to buy a licence to drive our cars within the park. We had to pay $30,000 in legal fees for a court case regarding the gathering of elk antlers. Parks Canada lost the case in court, appealed and lost, appealed again, and then withdrew the case. One warden will look the other way; the next warden wants to go to court.

We have had discussions with other first nations who are near national parks. We find we are not alone in being disappointed in our “relationship”, if that is what you call it, with Parks Canada. We are in the process of forming a coalition of first nations on national parks issues. It's our hope that a coalition can be a productive asset to Canada rather than a group forced to engage in confrontation.

We have been encouraged to learn that the legislation for the Gwich'in and Sahtu first nations, Bill C-80, called for the first nations to participate in jointly developing a land use plan, which would include a national park. We only ask, if first nations are now to work closely with Parks Canada on new parks, what about us?

To close, we remind you of our objectives in being here: to ask the committee to report on Bill C-29 with the following amendment. It reads:

And whereas it is in the national interest...to operate national parks in a manner which respects aboriginal and treaty rights and aboriginal title, appropriately incorporating neighbouring aboriginal peoples in the operation of the national parks to the highest possible degree...

We also urge the committee to include in its agenda under its standing orders an inquiry into the relationship of first nations and Parks Canada.

We invite you to visit us when you are in Manitoba. You will always be welcome. This is our tradition and practice. Thank you for listening to our words.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you very much, Chief Blackbird. Does anyone else from your delegation wish to address the group?

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: Yes, I do have our elder with me.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): By all means.

Elder Walter Scott (Keeseekoowenin Treaty No. 2 Ojibway First Nation): I'm very grateful for the opportunity to speak to you people concerning Bill C-29, regarding national parks. This is a rare opportunity and I hope you'll listen to me.

Riding Mountain National Park was the home of my people for many generations. My great-grandfather, Michel Cardinal, had three wives, and he and his three wives came to this beautiful country, which had a wealth of moose, elk, beaver, otter, the very best.

Cardinal raised a family of splendid hunters and trappers and they became very popular with the Hudson's Bay Company. They got together, formed a band, and called it the Okanese Band. Michel Cardinal became Chief Okanese. This band was formed from his family and friends who lived in the area that Riding Mountain National Park occupies now.

I thought you might follow this and get an idea about why we're so involved with Riding Mountain National Park, for the reason I said: this has been our home for generation after generation.

• 1605

In 1974 my grandfather, Keeseekoowenin, became chief. In those days, the oldest son took over from the chief when the chief died or something happened. This tradition carried on until recently. They established the reserve. That was the first time they put Indians on reserves or formed reserves.

My grandfather must have had a lot of forethought because of the things he asked for at that time. One of the things he asked for when he got the reserve we now have was a fishing and hunting station on the shores of Lake Wasagaming in the national park today.

He was told that this was a good idea, and they would be able to farm on the reserve they got and carry on a new way of life. But they could still get their food the way they always had. They were granted this little parcel of land for their fishing station and hunting station to get their food.

Riding Mountain National Park was formed in 1930. Around 1929 they started talking about having a national park, with complete disregard for the natives who had lived there all their lives. They appropriated this land and the word was to get those Indians out of there. They refused, and through many trials they lost. They still refused to move. They were evicted and their houses and properties were burned. It was something like Hitler and the Gestapo would do.

The people had lived there all of their lives. A lot of them were seniors, and there wasn't time to take that back. There weren't a lot of them. There were only about six families, and most of them were seniors of the finest quality. Everybody thought a lot of them, and they were a source of advice and support. They weren't just trash.

They were evicted and their homes burned. Nothing was thought of where they should go and what they should do. They were just told to get out. Some of them went to different reserves where they had relatives.

This caused great drama and great distress to these old people. They had lived there all their lives. They trusted the white man. They looked to Queen Victoria for support, and this happened to them. These old people had no home—nothing.

However, we got this little parcel of land. These boys fought and we got it partly back in 1993. We didn't get it all back.

I'm concerned and fear Parks will take this reserve away from us again. I've heard rumours they are in the process of trying to take this back. They don't want us in there at all, and they won't deal with us.

• 1610

I've studied Bill 29. I can find nothing wrong with it, but what worries me is there's nothing in there in regard to my people. The Indians and Parks should be able to work together and agree, in dealing with issues concerning the Indians and the Parks.

So far, we can't seem to get together with Parks. They haven't been able to resolve any of these issues so we can meet on a friendly basis. I would like to see something in Bill 29 to help us relieve this situation.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you, Mr. Scott.

Chief Blackbird, do you wish to address the committee briefly? We're going to proceed to questions.

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: No, we can proceed with the questions.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Before we do so, I have two messages. In the half hour we've been sitting I've heard the phone ring three times. I hope we won't hear it too much more, please, so we don't disrupt the people as they speak.

I also want to point out that we've had a group of young people join our hearings today. They are, I believe, from all over Canada. They are attending the Forum for Young Canadians, le Forum pour jeunes canadiens. If you care to, please stand so we can acknowledge your presence and welcome you to our committee hearing.

Some hon. members: Hear, hear.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mrs. Tremblay, do you have any questions or which like us to move on to Mr. Muise?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): I simply want to apologize for being late. Please go ahead with Mark and I will put my questions later.

Mr. Mark Muise (West Nova, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mrs. Tremblay.

[English]

First, I'd like to thank the delegation today. I think it really sheds a different light on what we've had a chance to see to date, and I sincerely want to thank the group for coming in.

I'd also like to say, Mr. Scott, that when I'm 92 I hope I'll be able to make a presentation as well and as comfortably as you did. Your years of experience certainly show a lot, and I respect that. Thank you.

Interestingly enough, yesterday we had a presentation by the Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society and a presentation was made by Mary Granskou. She mentioned in her presentation that they would like to see something in there that brings the aboriginal people into play. She said they would like to see it say something similar to this: “to recognize Canada's rich and ongoing aboriginal traditions and aboriginal connection to place”.

I wonder if you think yesterday's presentation brings something similar to what you're giving in your presentation today. I'd just like a bit of clarification of what exactly you're saying in your amendment.

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: James Plewak is going to answer the question.

Mr. James Plewak (Member, Keeseekoowenin Treaty No. 2 Ojibway First Nation): In regard to that comment and also in regard to what we're asking for, we want to make it very clear that as first nations people we have rights within this country and we want our rights respected within this new legislation. Your suggestion that our traditions and so on be respected just doesn't go far enough.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you. I guess—

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Did he say that the law did not go far enough as far as the treaty was concerned? Is that what he said?

[English]

What was your answer exactly? Did you say the law wasn't going far enough, according to the treaty you have?

Mr. James Plewak: I said the suggestion that was put forward yesterday in regard to aboriginal involvement, that our cultures and traditions should be incorporated, doesn't go far enough, because we do, as first nations people, have rights. We have rights within Canada under the Constitution, and we should have those rights respected within the new agency. The agency should have the mandate to respect those rights.

• 1615

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Please continue, Mark.

[English]

Mr. Mark Muise: In the same light but maybe on a slightly different note, when the park you referred to in your presentation was negotiated, were your people part of the negotiation process?

Elder Walter Scott: Do you mean back in 1932?

Mr. Mark Muise: Correct.

Elder Walter Scott: No. The first inkling we got of it is that we were told they were taking away 61A, our fishing and hunting station, because it wouldn't fit with a national park. That's all. We didn't have any former notification that they were going to take this land away from us. We didn't worry, because my grandfather had stated, “As long as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, this will stand”. So you see, we didn't worry. But we lost.

Mr. Mark Muise: So you're saying there was no negotiation or no consultation, and once the park was put into place, you lost those treaty rights that you believe you had.

Elder Walter Scott: Yes. Some officials came and saw us and told us this. We said they couldn't do that, but it more or less didn't work.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Does anybody else wish to comment on that?

Chief Blackbird.

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: Can you clarify your question? What are you asking?

Mr. Mark Muise: With regard to the park you discussed in your brief, were your people consulted by the Government of Canada when the negotiations to form this park were going on?

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: No, we weren't.

Elder Walter Scott: There were no negotiations that I know of.

Mr. Mark Muise: Okay.

Can you describe to the committee what role you would like to see in what you're describing for the amendment to Bill C-29? Exactly what would you like to see your role as being?

Elder Walter Scott: We'd like to see a role where we could have meetings without hostilities on issues that have to do with us and the parks.

Mr. Mark Muise: Yes. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Anyone else care to comment?

Mr. James Plewak: The role we would like to see is one we have been advocating for years and years. We want to play a role within the management of these parks, which are really our traditional territories, our traditional lands. We're not asking for the moon, so to speak. We just want to be respected as the peoples who lived there prior.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Thank you.

Mrs. Tremblay.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: In your presentation, you urge the committee to look into the relationship between First Nations and Parks Canada. Could you elaborate on this for me? You have written to the Deputy Minister, Mr. Lee. Your letter has not been acknowledged and you have another meeting scheduled with a deputy minister. This is not very satisfactory and you are asking us to look into the relationship between First Nations and Parks Canada. Could you enlighten us further?

• 1620

[English]

Mr. James Plewak: In regard to our relationship with Parks Canada, we know it has not been a perfect one, and we feel there should be at least some documentation about the role the parks have played and the relationship Parks Canada has had with the first nations, from its inception up until today. I think this would go a long way towards identifying what the problems are and addressing those on a mutually agreeable basis.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: The committee will be considering another bill which deals with the creation of a park on land owned by First Nations in the Northwest Territories. Do you know whether First Nations are fully supportive of this plan to establish this park?

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Before you answer that,

[Translation]

Mrs. Tremblay, I would like us to try and get a clear picture of Bill C-29. The reason for this meeting...

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: All we have to do is meet again to discuss the other matter. We are not holding hearings.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Absolutely. We'll see then.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: We were told that there would be no hearings on the other bill.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): As far as I know, the committee has not decided that yet. I don't want to be too intransigent, but I would like us to confine ourselves as much as possible to Bill C-29.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I merely wanted to save some time because we were told that there would be no hearings on the other bill since it contained only one clause. Perhaps you were not at the meeting. Were you there?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Yes, I was present, and we didn't decide not hear from any witnesses.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: I see. Then I withdraw my question.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Do you have any further questions, Mrs. Tremblay?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: No, that's all.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Ms. Bulte.

[English]

Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Thank you for your presentation.

I'd like to go to your recommendation on page 8 of your report, where you talk about the amendment you are proposing. My understanding of what you're proposing is the amendment would be more of a preamble clause as opposed to a specific section of the act.

One of the issues that was raised yesterday at these hearings was the importance of taking certain words out of the preamble and actually incorporating them specifically into the act. My question would be, is it sufficient for your purposes just to put it in the preamble, as opposed to making it a purpose of the act?

Mr. James Plewak: We feel that to have this in the preamble is nice wording, but it doesn't provide the mandate. It's the text of the act itself, the clauses, that provides the mandate to the agency, rather than the preamble, and we feel it has to be within the act rather than the preamble.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Okay. I wanted to make sure that was what it was. Thank you.

The second question is, you've asked that we include in our agenda an inquiry into the relationship of first nations and Parks Canada. Has this same request been made to the standing committee on aboriginal issues, and also to the minister, Jane Stewart? Has she been apprised? You talked about contacting the Minister of Heritage on this matter and not having a response. Has the minister been approached? If not, why not? If so, what has been the outcome?

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: We have had discussions with Scott Serson. Isn't he the assistant to Jane Stewart? Shouldn't he have relayed our requests? We have written letters for years now, and no one has heard, so that's why we're here today.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Colleagues, I believe Chief Blackbird is referring to a letter that we have at the end of the presentation, a letter to the deputy minister of Indian affairs on September 8.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: There has been no response to that letter, then.

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: No.

Elder Walter Scott: As far as I know, this is the first opportunity we've had to discuss this issue, and this is something we wanted as a liaison between Parks and the people who occupied...before the park was created. All we want is to know what's going on regarding us with the park.

I think Bill C-29 is a good idea, but as I said before, what's not in it is what worries me, and that is to have something in there to make Parks know that there should be a friendly liaison between Parks and the Indians regarding mutual issues, whereas we've been ignored before when we asked to have a meeting. As the chief said, we don't even get the letter acknowledged.

• 1625

What I would like to see before I leave you all is something in there whereby these people can have a friendly relationship with the “aboriginals”, as the new word calls us. I'm just old-fashioned and I call us “Indians”. We should have a good liaison between the Indians... You took our home and made it into a national park, but we still have rights. We should be able to have a liaison and have friendly meetings and deal with issues regarding Indians and the park—nothing else.

Ms. Sarmite Bulte: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): If I may make an observation before asking a question, first of all, we're grateful that you've taken the time to come here and have made such a big trip to see us, because, I think, echoing what Mr. Muise has said, it's very important to hear this story.

Secondly, it seems to me that there are really three separate issues here that we need help with, and I don't think we're going to resolve those issues today.

The first is a fuller understanding of the history, which you've outlined to us, and I think it would be helpful for the committee, speaking on my own behalf, to have a better sense of that history from the Parks' perspective, as well as yours, so that we can have a fuller understanding of what was done.

The second issue is bringing us to the present day, to the current state of relations between your band and this park. I think it's certainly important that Parks Canada and the relevant ministers get back to you when you write letters. That would seem to me to be a very important point. I know there are representatives of both the minister's office and Parks Canada here, and I hope they will not only get back to you but will let us know in which form they get back to you and let us have a fuller sense of their perspective on how they might better work with you, whatever we do with this bill, which brings me to the third point, this particular bill, C-29.

Once again, I think the committee may be operating with imperfect information, which we would perhaps like to know more about when the parks officials come back to us.

My understanding is that this particular bill is quite narrow in its focus. It is designed simply to create this new agency. Even the preamble doesn't pretend to be a complete explanation of the national parks as they now exist, because it's only one of a series of pieces of legislation, including the National Parks Act, which remains in place.

What I guess the committee will want to know when we have the parks officials come back to us is whether in any other area of legislation, whether it's specifically parks legislation or whether it's some other domain of legislation, the issues you raise are dealt with in another form and in an appropriate manner. That is not so much a question as it is an observation of things that I think the committee needs to think about and that we need more information about.

I will simply echo the concerns of my colleagues in saying that we are impressed by the story you tell us and concerned by the issues you raise. I guess I really don't have a question beyond that simple observation.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Would anybody care to respond or react to that before I go to Monsieur Saada?

Mr. James Bone (Councillor, Keeseekoowenin Treaty No. 2 Ojibway First Nation): Going back to Madame Tremblay's question in regard to what the committee should investigate, just to briefly touch on that question, the investigation could focus on why Parks Canada is so hostile to Indians. Why doesn't it work cooperatively with Indians? What good things could result from all of this? Could a consultation body be established, etc.? Thank you.

• 1630

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I'm going to recognize Mr. Saada and then I'll come back to you.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

Mr. Scott, in the text you presented, I read that the band got this hunting and fishing station back in 1993, partly. On the other hand, I hear from the presentations that there was no contact whatsoever with Parks Canada and no reply from authorities within the department. Could you enlighten me as to how getting back the station happened? Depending on your answer, I might have a second question.

Elder Walter Scott: I think our chief could answer that question better.

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: It was an Indian reserve at one time. Is that what you're asking?

Mr. Jacques Saada: No. You have mentioned that your rights have been deprived and among a number of things was the station that was taken away from you. Then you got it back partly in 1993. Am I correct?

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: Right.

Elder Walter Scott: We got it back on account of the Dominion government taking it away from us illegally. That's why we got it back, because of the illegal—

Mr. Jacques Saada: Please, don't get me wrong. I'm not questioning whether you should or should not have gotten it back. That's not my point at all. My point is trying to establish if, when you got it back partly, there was a process that could indicate to us a future process to follow. That's the purpose of my question.

When this thing came back in 1993, partly, to you, what happened to make it come back? What action did you take? What was the process?

Mr. James Plewak: The process by which we got back the first parcels of the reserve in 1993 was started nearly two decades before. The band and the chief-in-council at the time pursued a land claim to get that reserve back. They did research, they expended money, they initially went to the department and our claim was rejected, but they didn't give up. And it's to their credit that they did not give up. They pursued it further and they did further research. They found documentation that proved it was taken illegally and they filed it with specific claims. That's how we got back the initial portion. But that process has been imperfect and—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Saada, was that with Parks Canada or with Indian Affairs, for instance? I think it may help to know that.

Mr. Jacques Saada: That's the whole point I was trying to get at, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. James Plewak: It was through Indian Affairs, but Parks Canada's involvement cannot be ignored, because in 1930 and prior, Parks Canada and Indian Affairs were both under the Department of the Interior. You basically had the same bureaucracy operating in these two areas.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Okay. Thank you.

As my colleague, Mark Muise, alluded to, yesterday we had a presentation made by some other people, and part of the recommendation had to do with the creation of an advisory body to the head of Parks Canada. Am I correct in understanding that it is not really what you would like to see in this case? Am I correct in my understanding that a consultative body is not what you're looking to be integrated into? What, concretely speaking, would you be seeking?

Mr. James Plewak: It's clear in our presentation that we want an amendment to the act itself, where our rights are respected and there is a mandate for the new agency to respect our rights as aboriginal peoples, as first nations, and our aboriginal title.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mrs. Tremblay.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Many parks have been created and in some areas, they border on your lands. If I understand correctly, you feel that your rights have not always been respected. That is why you are calling for changes to Bill C-29.

• 1635

Does this mean that the Constitution does not provide you with the necessary safeguards? Does the fact that this is not in the legislation mean that you are often required to take the matter to court? The government continues to file appeals and to lose. Is it because you feel that taking legal action against the government would prove to be too costly a process that you are asking us to guarantee your rights in Bill C-29? Have I understood correctly? Is that what you want?

[English]

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: Right now when we talk to the park superintendent he says he has to enforce park legislation. We're here today to try to get the government to give the parks agency a mandate so they can deal with us. Right now they say they don't have a mandate to deal with us.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Okay.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Okay?

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Muise.

[English]

Mr. Mark Muise: I think it was made clear by the response to my earlier questions that there wasn't very much, or wasn't any, consultation when Riding Mountain National Park was created, but since that time are relations getting better? Is there more consultation? Do you feel that relations are improving or not?

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: I don't even get a response, so is that improving our relationship?

Mr. Mark Muise: No.

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: This is why we're here, so that we can use the standing committee's orders to do something.

Elder Walter Scott: What we want is a friendly, common-sense right to have meetings with the park to discuss issues concerning the park and our people. That's all.

At present, I think it couldn't deteriorate, because it's always been hostile. It's been, “Get those Indians out of here”. Our big problem is, “Will you listen to us? Can we have a friendly liaison?”

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: I guess I should add that we are the victims here. Our homes were burnt, and our barns, our stables. Look at the photos. These were real people living there.

So we're the victims here, and we've tried to negotiate the way we're supposed to. What else do we have to do?

Mr. Mark Muise: Just for the record, I'd like to tell you that I'm extremely happy that you're here. It's a way for me, and I suppose the committee, to understand the other side of the story, because there are always two sides to a story. Sometimes we read documentation or have presentations made by one side. But if we're lacking that other side, the picture is not complete.

My questions today are not to put you on the spot but to understand better what has happened. I see what you're saying. You're right. You are people. These were real families who were moved away and their homes burnt. I understand that. Without your intervention today, I don't think I would have known that, and I thank you for that.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: Two questions. The first is a technical one. You've asked us to add an amendment. I am assuming—and I think you may have answered this before, but I'm still a little confused—you would add it to the preamble. Is that basically where you'd put this?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): No.

Mr. John Godfrey: But where would it be put instead?

Mr. Mark Muise: It would be installed, and it would be the legal department's problem.

Mr. John Godfrey: Because it's a “whereas” amendment, that's all.

Mr. Mark Muise: I think they're trying to make a point, John. Pardon me, but...

Mr. John Godfrey: You're pardoned.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: He's right. We can't put that in the preamble, because it's not an objective. The preamble does not specify what the mandate is.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You have the answer to your question.

Mr. John Godfrey: All right. I won't go there.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Next question.

Mr. John Godfrey: With regard to the band today, how many folks are in the band all told, and what is the general economic condition of people? What employment do people have if they can't get employment in the parks?

• 1640

Mr. James Bone: The population is 820 in total. It varies, but the on-reserve population is roughly 624 to 642, with a welfare rate of roughly 95% to 98%.

Mr. John Godfrey: All right. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: One moment. My microphone doesn't appear to be working.

[English]

I'm sorry. I'm not very good with my hands. Allow me to try to use my head instead to ask you a question.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Just a minute, Mr. Saada.

[English]

Mr. James Plewak: I would like to add further to the question. Our existing reserve is 5,000 acres with a population on reserve, as Councillor James Bone has noted, of over 600 people. We're right next to a 2,000 square mile piece of territory that was part of our traditional territory that we have been denied access to. It is providing employment for over 100 families in Riding Mountain National Park who are working there to date, and none of those people are our people.

We should be able to have a role in what has been our traditional territory. When we speak of conditions that the reserve has experienced today, the resources are there to provide for our people, but we don't have access to them. I think the amendment we're proposing in the bill will go a long way to address that question.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada: First of all, I would like to say that I do have a lot of respect for the proposal you're making. I do not know what it entails. I do not know this situation well enough. It's the first time I've heard about it per se, but I do welcome it with respect and I think it's very much worth looking into.

Let me go back to the question I raised a moment ago, if I may. What would be the potential influence by the Department of Indian Affairs regarding the parks issue? I'm going beyond Bill C-29 here.

Traditionally, what kind of relationship has there been between Indian Affairs and Parks in order to deal with the issues you have mentioned here?

Mr. James Plewak: I believe the issue is not one of relationships between federal departments, Indian Affairs or the Department of Canadian Heritage or the new parks agency, but the real issue is between the agency and the first nations people of this country. The relationship has to be built up, and there has to be a mandate for the new agency to build on that relationship.

[Translation]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Do you have another question?

Mr. Jacques Saada: No.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I would like to make a few comments, if I may, taking a bit from Mr. Godfrey's remarks. On behalf of the committee, I would like to ask for a number of things from the department officials who are here today. If we need to formalize that by putting it in writing, we shall.

It might be very useful to have in the next day or so—and I'm not talking about major research here—a brief history of the park as seen by Parks Canada, whatever they have on record or on file, just so that as members of the committee we have a better historical perspective of what's at play here. So that would be very useful.

Secondly, the committee would encourage that the correspondence be responded to perhaps in a more timely matter. If it has been, then fine, let's make sure it's made available. If it hasn't been, there's a definite encouragement—you heard it from the members of the committee—that we proceed.

Mr. Mark Muise: Correct.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Even if the answer is not perhaps what the proponents wish to hear, let's make sure that answers are offered.

• 1645

The third thing, which is perhaps a little more tricky, and we may come to a time crunch at some point, so I don't know exactly how and when the committee might deal with this... It could be when the minister appears as a wrap-up to our having heard witnesses or it could be in another format. I'm going to leave that open for the time being. The third thing is the notion of an amendment, either as proposed by our witnesses today in a format and in a place that might be appropriate in the bill, or perhaps in another way, if there's a need or a desire for perhaps what's called a clause non dérogatoire, a non-derogatory clause, I guess.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Notwithstanding.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): A notwithstanding clause—to make sure that whatever treaty and aboriginal rights exist by virtue of whatever, be it constitutional or enactments of another sort, that these not be affected.

Personally, I must express that the difficulty with what you're requesting, Mr. Scott, is that inasmuch as some of us would like to legislate friendliness and common sense in meetings, it's very difficult. We can only bring people together. We can't legislate how they then behave and conduct themselves and deal with each other. I wish we could at times. It might make things a little easier. But it's not a thing we can do. Your call for a more friendly and collaborative dialogue with Parks Canada is understood, is heard clearly, and we will try our best to accommodate it in a way that is legally possible.

Elder Walter Scott: That's all we ask. That's what I ask.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): That's all we can offer—to do our best.

Elder Walter Scott: Yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Chief Blackbird, last word.

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: Mr. Chairman, I don't think he was asking for draft legislation on friendliness.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I understand that.

Chief Dwayne Blackbird: A working relationship is what he was describing—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): The intent of your legislation is to try to bring people together, to perhaps cooperate a little better than we have in the past.

Oh, I see hands all of a sudden.

Barry Bone.

Mr. Barry Bone (Councillor, Keeseekoowenin Treaty No. 2 Ojibway First Nation): May I ask that the attachments to this presentation be attached to the minutes?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): You can, but as a rule we don't do that in committee. This document, having been tabled, is a public document; it can be obtained for anybody who wishes it through the office of the clerk of the committee. We don't attach all presentations that we receive to the minutes of the meeting.

Mr. Barry Bone: What I'm talking about is the letters to Scott Serson and—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): They're on the public record now that you have tabled them here.

By the way, your document will be translated into French and will be available in that language as well.

[Translation]

One last question, Mr. Muise, and then we'll adjourn the meeting.

[English]

Elder Walter Scott: How about Ojibway?

Voices: Oh, oh.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): I'll give you a straight answer. We won't be doing that, and I'm sorry to disappoint you.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression that we were going until 5.30 p.m. Maybe I'm wrong, but if we are going until 5.30 p.m. I would propose a motion that since we have people from the first nation here we could maybe touch a little on what Madame Tremblay was talking about earlier when she mentioned C-38 and Tuktut Nogait.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Muise, I'm going to be a stickler on this one. We have one bill in front of us. It's C-29. At some point, once we've done with this one—or at the will of the committee—we will deal with another one referred by the House to this committee, C-38. But that is not what we have in front of us today. I respect the agenda of the committee, established by the committee. If the committee wishes to change it, that's up to the committee.

Mr. Mark Muise: That is what I'm doing, then. I'm proposing a motion and I would like to know if there's consent. That's what I'm asking.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Muise, you and I know that I try to get along with... We don't have a quorum to change the will of the committee. We have a quorum to hear witnesses now, as you know.

Mr. John Godfrey: We also need advance notice.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): No, hold on here. We can do it without advance notice.

With respect to the quorum needed to establish the agenda of the committee, you know what it is. The quorum to hear witnesses is different. To change the agenda of the committee we would need that quorum, which we do not have.

Mr. Mark Muise: Mr. Chairman, I'm not going to debate the issue any further. I'm just making the point that we have people here who could shed light on something that will mean calling them back at some time. I was just trying to save time and money and get more information. That's all.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Point taken, Mr. Muise.

• 1650

[Translation]

Mrs. Tremblay.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chairman, I move that we adjourn the meeting and that we appoint someone to preside over an informal meeting where we could ask our invited guests some questions.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): That motion is not on our agenda.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Let's adjourn the meeting and continue on informally.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Let me adjourn the meeting. There is nothing to stop you from speaking to anyone you like any time you feel like it, not just today.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Fine.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): If you wish to talk to someone, you're free to do so at any time. Let's not exaggerate.

Mr. Jacques Saada: On an informal note, when we discuss a subject, I would like us at least to have the chance to prepare some intelligent questions. I have a great deal of difficulty debating a subject on the spot when we're dealing with something totally new.

I too would enjoy speaking with these individuals and I hope to do so, but not in a formal setting.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Fine.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): Mr. Muise.

Mr. Mark Muise: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In closing, I want to reiterate what I said earlier, on two occasions, and I want to close with these remarks.

I want to thank you for taking the time to be here. What you bring to this committee is very important. We've seen something that we haven't had a chance to see yet. Please be aware that we will be bringing your views up in further deliberations.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Mauril Bélanger): On behalf of the committee, Mr. Plewak, Councillors Barry and James Bone, Elder Scott, and Chief Blackbird, thank you very much. If you wish to add to your presentation, we're willing to receive it. It sounds like we might have an opportunity to talk, perhaps immediately, as soon as I declare this meeting adjourned.

Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.