[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, October 3, 1996
.1105 
[English]
The Chairman: Order. Welcome to you all.
We're here to deal with Bill C-39, an act respecting the York Factory First Nation and the settlement of matters arising from an agreement relating to the flooding of land, and Bill C-40, an act respecting the Nelson House First Nation and the settlement of matters arising from an agreement relating to the flooding of land.
Before we officially welcome our guests, I'd like to share with both you and the committee what we could be expecting from this meeting. I don't like surprises, so I'd like to put everything on the table.
It seems that you have indicated the possibility of a request for some amendments. If that's the case, there seems to be consensus...and this is all subject to change, based on what you have to present and what members wish. If there's a need to refer this to legal counsel, that will be done, in which case we would not deal with clause by clause today. I hope we then would do it on Tuesday.
None of what I've just said is decided, or etched in stone. This is just the direction in which we seem to be going, and it's subject to change.
I will say that we're so honoured to have Elijah here with us. He's so familiar with the issues. We won't pay him time and a half, but we will take time-and-a-half advantage of both his time and generosity.
Let's go on now with our witnesses. I welcome, from York Factory First Nation: Chief Eric Saunders; Gordon Wastasicoot, councillor; Valerie Matthews Lemieux, legal counsel; and any others I missed.
Did I miss anyone?
Chief Jerry Primrose (Nelson House First Nation): Yes. I'm with the Nelson House First Nation.
Mr. Marcel Moody (Manager, Northern Flood Implementation, Nelson House First Nation): I'm the lead negotiator for Nelson House on the flood agreement.
The Chairman: Thank you.
We have an hour together on Bill C-39. We'd appreciate your making a presentation before we open up for questions from members.
Chief Primrose: I guess I'll start first for Nelson House.
Good morning to everybody here. I'm very pleased to be here today on behalf of my community and all members of the Nelson House First Nation.
I have with me a quorum of my council: councillors Norm Linklater, Lewellyn Moodie, David Spence, and Henry Wood; Marcel Moody, a former councillor and our negotiator; and, of course, Valerie Matthews Lemieux, our legal counsel.
Our people have lived off the land in northern Manitoba for thousands of years. When the European settlers came to our land, we agreed to share its bounty with them. Prior to the establishment of our reserve, our people migrated to our traditional territories for sustenance and livelihood.
The Nelson House Indian Reserve was established in 1908 as a result of the adhesion by the Nelson House First Nation to Treaty No. 5. The current band population is approximately 3,300, but only 1,800 people actually live on the reserve. Approximately 800 people reside in South Indian Lake, and the rest of the band population is scattered throughout the country.
.1110
Nelson House First Nation has evolved over the years from an isolated community that depended fully upon the surrounding land and its resources for sustenance to a fixed settlement accessible by road and impacted immeasurably by a multiplicity of modern conveniences, values and structures.
Whereas as recently as the 1940s the Nelson House First Nation remained closely associated with a traditional lifestyle, dependent upon trapping, hunting, fishing, gathering and living on the land, requirements for schooling and health delivery significantly reduced the traditional lifestyle of our people. As a result, the Nelson House First Nation began to permanently locate to the reserve. During the 1940s some members relocated to another traditional activity area, South Indian Lake.
The Nelson House First Nation members who relocated to South Indian Lake are in the process of severing their ties with Nelson House and are currently negotiating with the federal government in an attempt to establish their own reserve.
Prior to 1977, the people of Nelson House continued to depend on a traditional economy, but the massive Churchill River diversion project displaced and disrupted the way of life for the people of Nelson House. The people could not hunt and fish the way they used to because of the massive flooding affecting their traditional territory. Social problems resulted, because a way of life was lost. Suicides in epidemic proportion were experienced, as well as an increase in alcohol consumption, which resulted in total social chaos.
Outside influences that modern-day society offered did not help either. In 1977 the Northern Flood Agreement was signed. It brought hope to the people of Nelson House. The governments and Manitoba Hydro promised us things that would be better for the people. But the promises made to the people were not satisfactorily implemented, as unemployment rates of 90% exist in Nelson House. The promises made in the Northern Flood Agreement have never been fulfilled. As a result, people are still frustrated and basically have nothing to look forward to except welfare.
From 1977 to 1992 our people negotiated several small agreements but never received the major benefits promised by the Northern Flood Agreement. Most of the money was going to lawyers and consultants, and our people received little or nothing. We had tried negotiating with the governments, Hydro and all the other first nations who were signatories to the NFA, but could not reach a successful agreement.
In the fall of 1992 we felt we had no other choice but to look for a new approach in order to try to bring benefits to our community. We entered into negotiations for a comprehensive implementation of the NFA for our community alone. There were many ups and downs and frustrations during the negotiations. We finally started making inroads when the community took charge and appointed a local negotiator and a negotiating team, hired locally, with local community consultants who worked with the people to find solutions.
There were numerous meetings with the community. Many newsletters were provided, along with other written and audio-visual material about the agreement. Copies of the draft agreement were provided to our people before the referendum so that they could ask questions. It is a complex agreement, and it is sometimes hard for most people to understand. This is why we wanted the legislation implementing our agreement to reflect the language used in the agreement.
It is hard to explain many of the concepts in the agreement in Cree, our traditional language. Therefore, we want to make sure our people see the connections between the agreement approved and the legislation passed by Parliament and the province. We want our people to know you have listened to us, even though Parliament is far from Nelson House.
While support for the agreement was not unanimous - 64% of our members, on and off the reserve, voted in the referendum on December 6, 1995 - of those voting, there was an approval rate of 77%, with an on-reserve approval rate of 80%.
While the agreement is not perfect - we did not get everything we wanted - we believe it is fair and will benefit our community. We want to move forward and become economically self-sufficient. We want our children and our children's children to live in prosperity and happiness. We must break the cycle of poverty. We believe this agreement will allow us to take steps towards self-sufficiency and self-respect.
.1115
Marcel Moody will now speak to you about the benefits of the agreement and how it has already started to make a difference in our community and in our people.
Valerie Matthews Lemieux will deal with the legal issues.
Thank you.
Mr. Moody: Good morning, hon. members. I am appearing before you to explain the importance of this agreement and the proposed legislation to my people.
When the negotiations first started in the fall of 1992, I was a member of council appointed to work with the negotiator we hired to help us achieve a comprehensive implementation of the Northern Flood Agreement. In the summer of 1994, I became the Nelson House negotiator. Following the signing of the agreement in March 1996, I was given the responsibility of establishing a trust office as part of the band's operation to oversee the implementation of the agreement.
The years from 1977 to 1995 were very frustrating for our community as we waited for the other parties to fulfil their obligations under the Northern Flood Agreement. We saw many lawyers and consultants come and go and receive the final benefits of the NFA, while our community remained mired in poverty and social problems, seemingly unable to recover from the massive social and economic changes forced upon us by the hydroelectric development project.
Our pristine lakes and beaches disappeared. Our food supply disappeared or was contaminated by mercury. Our water was bad. There was no hope for the people. Social problems were severe. We had no control over our own lives and no hope of moving our people into the 21st century.
Finally, after three long years of negotiations and many hours away from our community, family and friends, we concluded an agreement we can live with, one that we hope will help to break the cycle of poverty and social problems our people face every day. We know this agreement does not provide all the answers, but now we can start to take control of our own lives.
I thought the committee might like to know that since the agreement has been in place we have been able to build better roads in our community. We have built many houses and plan to continue building more. We have started a home ownership program so that people who want to can own their own homes and obtain loans from the banks. We have a training program started for log home building. We hope the building of log homes can be used to help eliminate the housing backlog and provide training and jobs for our people.
We are considering the purchase of a hotel and are looking at a casino operation to provide long-term economic development. Small businesses are starting to develop, and we hope to obtain a bank on the reserve as well as an RCMP detachment.
Each year we go through a process called the community approval process, which allows our people to decide how to spend $4 million a year. These funds are then administered locally, with investment and record-keeping assistance provided by a corporate trustee.
We have started developing some of our own laws incorporating our own traditions. Although this is difficult and time-consuming, it is also sometimes hard for our people to remove the yoke of the Indian Act from our necks. Slowly we are trying, and we are succeeding.
We are proud of our achievements in the short time that our agreement has been operating, and we want others to know that when all parties cooperate, agreements such as ours can be reached and we can successfully implement these agreements and govern ourselves.
While there are still some matters that must be dealt with under the NFA, such as obligations under article 6 in relation to potable water and to death and injury claims, we are hopeful that there is now a new spirit of cooperation that will allow these claims to be resolved in the future.
In addition, we now have a detailed process that must be followed before any future hydroelectric dams can be developed or built. Hopefully these provisions will be honoured and our people will not have to wait for over 18 years to obtain compensation or the benefits from any future development.
.1120
Thank you.
The Chairman: Ms Matthews Lemieux.
Ms Valerie Matthews Lemieux (Legal Counsel, Nelson House First Nation and York Factory First Nation): If it's acceptable, I will address both Bills C-39 and C-40 after Chief Saunders has spoken. The legal issues are the same.
The Chairman: Agreed. Just carry on. I suspect that during your presentation you will signal the need for possible amendments. Will you be doing that?
Ms Matthews Lemieux: Yes.
The Chairman: Will the amendments suggested apply to both bills?
Ms Matthews Lemieux: That's right.
The Chairman: Are they specific to one clause of the package?
Ms Matthews Lemieux: Yes.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Chief Eric Saunders (York Factory First Nation): Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, and guests. My name is Eric Saunders. I'm the chief of York Factory First Nation. I'm here today on behalf of my people.
Also with me is Gordon Wastasicoot, one of my councillors. Valerie Matthews Lemieux is our legal counsel.
Historical records show that native people in what is now northern Manitoba have interacted with the newcomers to our land who survived to reap the economic benefits of the vast resources of our land, waters and natural resources. Our forefathers offered to share the natural resources of our land and live in harmony with our environment.
Today it is ironic that we are here to seek redress for the devastation that the exploitation of the land's resources has caused. The culture, traditions of the land, and the way of life have been forever altered for my people in the past 350 or so years, and more so within the last 40 years during the economic development of the north. Only within the last quarter of this century have we sought redress for the exploitation and destruction of our lifestyle caused by modern progress.
As our elders and honoured ancestors have sought to protect our land and the aboriginal and treaty rights bestowed upon us by inherent rights and by treaty under Treaty No. 5 of 1910, we hope that we can continue to protect those aboriginal and treaty rights that our grandparents and parents sought to protect under the Northern Flood Agreement when they realized the extent of the damage caused to those rights by the flooding of land and natural resources and its disruption of our way of life, which is protected by treaty. The creation of the Northern Flood Agreement came as a direct result of the people seeking to protect those rights.
For the past ten years, York Factory First Nation has been involved in the efforts of northern first nations people to implement the NFA since it was signed in 1977 and ratified in March 1978.
From the outset, the purpose of the agreement was to provide compensation and remedial measures. At the time of the agreement, however, many of the damages and impacts were unforeseeable because the hydro projects were just nearing completion.
While the NFA described general and specific obligations accepted by the signatories in 1977, it did not detail the precise activities to be undertaken by each of the parties.
As the future unfolded, it became clear the agreement could not be implemented because it lacked a clearly defined operational definition on how this was to be done. It failed to establish appropriate responsibilities and implementation mechanisms.
During the early years of the agreement, our people saw very little evidence of any attempt at implementation. This period is notable for the lack of initiative shown by the parties in meeting their obligations. The people of our community waited in good faith for the other parties to honour their commitments. In the latter years, various attempts at global and comprehensive approaches to implement the NFA were unsuccessful.
.1125
In early 1993, following consultations with the members, York Factory indicated they wished to pursue comprehensive negotiations for the implementation agreement of the NFA. As chief and council wanted band members to be actively involved in the process, this was accomplished through various methods. For instance, members of the community were hired to work as community consultants and communicated the views and concerns of the general membership. A series of community workshops were conducted at York Landing as well as off reserve in Churchill, Thompson, and Winnipeg. Explanatory written material in Cree and English were provided to the various centres on and off reserve.
Community meetings focused on particular issues arising out of the negotiating process. In addition, the concerns of specific segments of the membership were specifically addressed through meetings organized for elders, resource users, women and students.
By October 1995, following two and a half years of negotiations and eighteen years of waiting, York Factory First Nation finally concluded an implementation agreement for promises contained under the NFA.
On November 2, 1996, a referendum on the agreement was held, which carried the acceptance of the agreement by the band members. Three criteria, as stated in the agreement, were required to be met. The overall turnout from our four centres and mail-in ballots was 76.1% of all band members eligible to vote. The combined overall yes vote on and off reserve was 88.9%, and the on-reserve yes vote was 97.1% in favour of accepting the agreement. Therefore the referendum met the requirements of article 14.2.1(h) and ratified the agreement.
Now that the implementation is in place, it has begun to show positive effects in that we are able to meet more needs of the community and more socio-economic development and employment creation for the near future.
While I will speak to the benefits of the legislation, Valerie Matthews Lemieux, our legal counsel, will speak on the legal issues and amendments to the bill so that's consistent with the wording and intent of the York Factory NFA implementation agreement.
I hope committee members have been able to review our amendments prior to today.
In order for the first nations to proceed and have more control over its affairs, we require that the enactment of Bill C-39 legislation be passed to enable York Factory to improve the standard of living conditions of our people. So it is critical that legislation be passed for that purpose.
Now that the agreement is fully executed after some undue delay by Canada and the Minister of Indian Affairs, this last portion of the agreement is legislation that would empower York Factory to continue to develop our community, lands, and resources.
The community approval process, which is incorporated in our trust, ensures the participation of all members, whether on or off the reserve, in the annual planning and budgeting process to determine all uses of trust monies and assets each year.
While no agreement is ever perfect, we believe this agreement fairly and accurately represents the many concerns and issues raised by our first nation members. Our people have grown tired of the process, which did not and could not work. They wanted change for the community and the members to move forward. As elders and members have told us, it is time to close this chapter and open a new one, a new chapter that looks forward toward the future and generations yet unborn.
Through the course of the negotiation process, our negotiators were guided by the vision and aspirations of the people. Through band meetings, workshops and informal meetings, members have made their views known and ensured the entire process remained community driven and guided by the wisdom of the elders to protect the future of our children and their children's children.
.1130
Let us be mindful of those that follow after us. That has always been our people's way. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Are there any other presentations? Did you wish to add? Please do.
Ms Matthews Lemieux: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and committee members. I have been asked by my clients, the York Factory First Nation and the Nelson House First Nation, to appear with them today to explain the importance of this legislation to each of their communities, and also to explain why we are seeking amendments to clause 6 of both bills.
It is my understanding - and I hope this is correct - that you have copies of a letter I sent toMr. Hanks yesterday, as well as copies of the Manitoba Split Lake implementation legislation and the proposed Manitoba legislation for implementing both the York Factory and Nelson House agreements. Is that correct?
The Chairman: Yes, we did receive the document yesterday. I want to be fair to all members; we get an awful lot of paper in this job. I understand you made the department, or someone, aware of your desire for amendments quite a while back.
Ms Matthews Lemieux: In April.
The Chairman: Where that went, we don't know. We'll find out. We're disappointed because of that. We came here with the intention of finalizing this today. I don't see that we will. We will give it due process and will respect the importance of the issue and come back next Tuesday and for as long as we need so that we do justice to your request.
In fairness to committee members, yes, they did get it yesterday, but there's a possibility that they may not have had a chance to go through it.
Ms Matthews Lemieux: So it would be appropriate for me to explain then exactly what it is that -
The Chairman: It would be very helpful. Thank you.
Ms Matthews Lemieux: What we have also done is brought with us copies of the three agreements: the Split Lake, the York Factory, and the Nelson House agreements. We will leave those with the committee so you can see those if you require them.
First, let me say that the legislation is intended to do four things. First, in the case of Nelson House, the legislation will ensure that the settlement proceeds they receive from Manitoba Hydro and the Province of Manitoba will be paid to their trust, which is called Nisichanusihk trust. That trust has local trustees and a corporate trustee that look after the trust fund. It's very important for them to be able to have control of their settlement proceeds as opposed to having the money paid to the minister under the Indian Act and then governed by the Indian Act. So as I'm sure you are aware, one of the things this does is create an exemption from the Indian moneys provision in the Indian Act.
In the case of York Factory, the legislation will do the same thing for their financial proceeds, those that are payable from the Province of Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro, so that their funds can be paid to Kitche-waskahigan trust, which is their local trust. Again, they have local trustees that govern the operations of that trust. It's the same thing; it's important to have local control over the funds in both cases so that the community will be deciding how to spend the money, in whatever way they think will meet their needs, as opposed to being governed by the provisions of the Indian Act.
Second, in both cases we are seeking an exemption to section 36 of the Indian Act. What that provision says is - and I'm paraphrasing here - essentially that any land that is held by a first nation that is not in the name of Her Majesty is deemed to be reserve land.
In the case of Nelson House, there is a parcel called the Notigi parcel. Rather than having it as reserve land, it may be that this land will be held in fee simple by their trust. If we did not have this exemption, it would mean it would be deemed to be reserve land.
In the case of York Factory, they have a parcel of land within the boundary of the town of Churchill in northern Manitoba. Again, it can be held in fee simple, which will allow further economic development to take place. The idea is that it would be held in fee simple by the trust as opposed to being deemed to be reserve land. That's why we are seeking that particular exemption.
.1135
Third, the Manitoba Arbitration Act is currently not binding on Canada, of course, because it's a provincial statute. In the future, what will happen with this legislation is that it will ensure that any future disputes that could arise under this agreement will be dealt with under Manitoba's arbitration legislation.
Last is something that's very important from the perspective of the community, and the part of the bill we're seeking an amendment to in both cases, that this legislation will provide each community with control over their individual claims process. In the past, when either persons or entities entitled to bring a claim under the Northern Flood Agreement wanted to bring a claim, they had to take those claims to Manitoba Hydro. Now what will happen is that those claims will be brought forward and handled under community processes.
In the case of Nelson House, any claim that is less than $2,000 will be dealt with by a claims officer. That person has been designated by the chief and council to be the assistant director of their trust office - as Mr. Moody indicated, they've recently established this - or in his absence, byMr. Moody, director of the trust office.
All claims over $2,000 in the case of Nelson House will be dealt with by the claims officer and two of their trustees, who will investigate and then make decisions on those claims. So again, it provides local control as opposed to having Manitoba Hydro, an outsider, dealing with these claims.
In the case of York Factory, it's similar, although in their case they chose a different administrative procedure. Their procedure is that in the case of claims under $1,000, it will be dealt with by one trustee. In the case of claims over $1,000, they will be dealt with by three trustees.
So we have different mechanisms being used to deal with individual claims that matched up with what the community wanted to have in terms of dealing with their own individual claims procedures.
In both communities there was a lot of discussion throughout the course of the negotiations about what would be the best procedure for dealing with the claims. These documents are difficult documents to understand. They're difficult for the lay person and they're difficult enough for lawyers to understand, let alone when it had to be translated into Cree. Unfortunately, by the way, I don't speak Cree or understand it.
So that had to be translated, which caused some difficulties. For some of the words, there is no word in Cree. For example, as I understand it, there is no word in Cree for the particular concept of ``corporate trustee''. It took a lot of work to make sure people understood what was in this agreement they were being asked to vote on. You've heard both communities indicate the high vote in favour of both agreements.
For that reason it's very important to the communities to be able to track the language in the agreement through the legislation that is intended to implement these particular agreements.
There was a lot of discussion about the claims procedure, who would be able to bring claims. Probably one of the most controversial areas was where people wanted to ensure that the rights they had as individuals were not being given up somehow through this new agreement. We were very careful to make sure we took the concept of the word ``person'', which was in the Northern Flood Agreement, and track that through into both of these new agreements.
In the case of both communities, Nelson House had started their negotiations a year earlier than York Factory. So York Factory said that as long as they had their own administrative procedures that met the concerns of their community, they were prepared to accept the language that worked for them from the Nelson House agreement. This is one area where we have the same definition of ``claimant'' in both agreements. It's intended to reflect, as I said, the definition of ``person'' from the Northern Flood Agreement.
Consequently, it is very important to the communities in both cases that the language be there, and that it match. As a result of that, in mid-April we had a meeting with the lawyers for all of the parties. We requested of the province and of the federal government that the language reflect what was in their agreement, not the Split Lake agreement, because that was the agreement you dealt with. I'm not sure if this committee did, but certainly it had been dealt with several years earlier by Parliament. It was very important that the language be tracked through.
.1140
What has happened is that the province has accepted the request we made. You will find by looking at the provincial legislation that the clauses put out in their clause 2 of both bills actually are the clauses that are found in the definition of ``claimant'' in the agreement. That is not what happened in the case of the federal government. Some communication problems arose there, and you have the material before you.
That having been said, at this point we still want to see the language from the agreements for Nelson House and York Factory incorporated into the legislation that's before you today. We're not asking for the language in the federal bills to be exactly the same as in the provincial bills, because we understand there may be some concerns about that. What we are asking for is that the relevant clauses found in the definition of ``claimant'' be included in clause 6 of the two bills.
So what I am essentially asking is that paragraphs (a) to (c) in clause 6 of both bills be replaced with paragraphs (a) to (g) of the definition of ``claimant'' from both agreements. If you have the letter, it shows the change exactly.
The Chairman: It is found on page 6 of the document you sent to our offices yesterday.
Ms Matthews Lemieux: Yes. You can see from that we're not asking that the preamble of clause 6 as it currently is found in Bills C-39 and C-40 be changed. We're prepared to accept that legislation.
I'll just go over it. It says:
6. A claim provided for by both the Flood Agreement and the agreement may be exercised by
That's fine, no problem there at all. We're not asking that you change that to the provincial legislation, which is different. What we are asking, though, is that paragraphs (a) to (c) be replaced with the language I've set out on page 6 of the letter.
There are obviously some differences that may occur in drafting. There are different styles as between parliamentary draftspersons, legislative draftspersons. We're prepared to look at that. That's not a major problem. For example, in the Manitoba legislation, instead of speaking of ``a non-share capital corporation'' they use ``a corporation without share capital'', because it's more consistent with the Manitoban corporation act. Fine, no problem with that, as long as what we're doing is reflecting these paragraphs (a) to (g) from the agreements.
That's essentially what we're asking, and the reason we're asking for that is so there will be clarity. I can't say to you every single person in the community is going to pick up the agreement and read the legislation, but anybody who can will be able to take the agreement and follow it through to the provincial legislation, follow it through to the federal legislation. Then they can realize that what has happened is that the agreement they voted on and approved and we discussed with them and for which we went through the wording with them is now found in the legislation that implements their agreements - not some other agreement but their agreements. That's essentially what we're asking for.
The Chairman: Thank you very much. That was very informative.
I'll just throw out a suggestion. If today we were to do clause-by-clause for everything except clause 6, do you agree that would be reasonable, or do you prefer that we wait until Tuesday for everything?
Ms Matthews Lemieux: I don't think we would have a problem with that, because we have no other changes we've asked for with anything else.
The Chairman: If we have the time and the committee wants to do that, the committee may decide to do that. I will ask the same of the next group.
Now I'll turn to the members. We have twenty minutes. While we want to be fair to the next witnesses, if you need more time we should be allowed to go beyond noon with our present witnesses. If it goes on too long, maybe we will ask you to come back after the next group. We'll play it by ear for now.
.1145
Ms Matthews Lemieux: Could I just -
The Chairman: You're a combined group, are you?
Ms Matthews Lemieux: Yes, that's what we were -
The Chairman: We anticipated having two groups, and I wanted to make sure I wasn't doing the second group out of.... So we're all here. It's one presentation.
Ms Matthews Lemieux: We're doing one presentation for two communities on two different bills, Bills C-39 and C-40.
The Chairman: Okay, we have lots of time.
Usually I start with
[Translation]
the official opposition. If you will allow me, I will ask Mr. Harper to express his views and to talk about his community.
[English]
Thank you, members of the opposition. Usually we start with the opposition in questioning. I've asked that we give the opportunity to Mr. Harper, who is very close to this issue, who is a member of the community, and who is really our legal counsel for the time being.
Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper (Churchill): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope the fact I'm sitting on the opposition side doesn't throw the people who are appearing before us as witnesses. I want to make it very clear I'm not a Reform member.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Harper: I would like to welcome the chiefs from the York Factory band and Nelson House, Chief Primrose and Chief Saunders, and their legal counsel, Valerie Matthews Lemieux, to this committee, as well as the other councillors, specifically David Spence. I think he wants it recorded in history that he was here before this committee so that his children and his great-grandchildren will be reading it in the history books, but I could be wrong. I don't whether he has any children....
It is certainly an honour to have you here. I must express the same sentiments as those that were expressed by the chairman in terms of dealing with this issue. I was hoping, as Chief Eric Saunders said, that we would have closed this chapter in our lives and would be implementing the agreements that the people have been waiting for. The people back at home are awaiting this, and hopefully it will be finalized as soon as possible.
I don't really want to dwell on this except to recommend to the committee that we should deal with this as soon as possible. I had hoped we would have this document earlier. Unfortunately we had some communications problems and some of the members got this draft amendment just yesterday. I hope we proceed on that basis. I don't want to tie up any more time except to say that we will proceed as soon as possible with the help of the other committee members.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Harper.
Monsieur Dumas.
[Translation]
M. Dumas (Argenteuil - Papineau): Welcome to this meeting.
My question will not deal with the bills as such. In the information you provided us this morning, I do not think you mentioned the education system. Since I have been a teacher all my life, for more than 40 years, I believe that education contributes to an increased standard of living.
What education system do you have in your nation and what is the level of school attendance in your community?
.1150
[English]
Chief Primrose: Maybe I can answer that, Mr. Chairman.
To answer your question, we have basically followed the standard curriculum of the province of Manitoba, K to 12. Our education system is run by the school board of Nelson House First Nation. The education authority implements whatever the school board authority implements, and the director of education has overall responsibility. It's basically the same concept as the school boards in the cities.
We do have, for example, a collective agreement with the teachers. In my case, I guess Nelson House First Nation is the overall authority, but we let the education authority and the school board do what they have to do to improve the educational aspects for our children. We don't interfere, and we don't implement things that are not necessary. We think the education authority in our case is doing a good job, and we follow basically the standards of Manitoba.
Mr. Moody: If I may add to that, as part of he program we've developed through the community approval process we've hired a cultural coordinator. Basically, we're trying to reinstil our culture and our language into our community. A lot of our children don't know how to speak Cree. they don't know how to make snowshoes, mukluks - stuff like that. It's part of the program we're trying to introduce, a curriculum whereby our children will be taught how to speak Cree again.
That may sound funny, but we are basically at a stage where our children are not speaking our language, and that's critical for us to maintain. Right now we're developing, as I said, a curriculum whereby we're trying to reinstil our language into our community. About 80% of our children don't speak Cree any more because of the media, and we have seen progress outside of our community.
The Chairman: I will make the comment that some of our questions to you do not relate to the bill and to possible amendments. I'm allowing them, because I feel that the more we know about your communities the better we are able to serve you as members of this committee. That's why we're allowing the latitude.
Carry on.
Chief Saunders: I just wanted to mention to the committee that I just came from a meeting with departmental officials regarding our school. We just had a new school built a couple of years ago, and one of the problems is the size of the school. We're overcrowded right now, and they're expecting us to take high school. We only have K to 9 right now, and we're expected to take in high school also.
We don't have the space for that. We don't even have a lab. Where are we going to put our computers? They're asking us to do away with some of the space we're using for other things, such as a resource room. They say we can turn that into a classroom, but we need a resource room also. Our principal works out of a storage room. That's a new school. Our gym is only three-quarters the size of a regular gym. That's something that's needed in the community also.
We're also having problems funding our high school students. That's one of the bigger issues we came to Ottawa for. We don't have enough money to fund all the students we want to get their education, to finish their schooling. There's a shortage of funds there.
The Chairman: You may want to acquire a copy of a study we did on the education of aboriginal children. We like to think the report is a valid one. It's quite popular. We went out of print, I understand, or are about to go out of print, so this committee will have to authorize printing more copies. It's a tool that could be of assistance.
.1155
Ms Bridgman.
Ms Bridgman (Surrey North): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree, it was an excellent presentation.
I would like a bit of expansion or clarification. Can you walk us through the process from 1977 to today in relation to the agreements and how they fell out? It's my understanding that in 1977 the Manitoba Northern Flood Agreement was signed, and that involved five bands negotiating. After that, somewhere between 1977 and 1992, that system broke down and a proposed basis of settlement agreement was achieved. I understand it was from there that we got into these individual agreements. Then in 1995, in November and December respectively, the bands voted on the Nelson House and York Factory agreements, and they were subsequently signed by the minister in 1996, I think.
My comment is this. From 1997 the definition of ``person'' was established, and I understand from your presentation, Valerie, that concept was brought forward into the 1995 agreement.
Ms Matthews Lemieux: Into the agreement, yes.
Ms Bridgman: Now we're trying to take that concept from the agreement and put it into the legislation. That's our intent here.
Ms Matthews Lemieux: Could I just clarify that?
The Chairman: Yes, but before you do, I'd like to clarify the record. I think I heard you say it was in 1997.
Ms Bridgman: I meant 1977.
The Chairman: Okay. So on the record it will be corrected.
Yes, if you would clarify that.
Ms Matthews Lemieux: I wasn't involved from 1977 all the way through. I like to think I'm not one of those ``other lawyers''. Maybe I shouldn't say that. In any event, I didn't start getting involved until 1991. I haven't been there that long.
The Chairman: I have to say there are lots of members of Parliament who are lawyers, and each one of them says ``I'm not like them''.
Ms Matthews Lemieux: So maybe that's not a good thing to say.
Anyway, I wasn't there from 1977 until 1991. I first started working with those first nations in 1991. Marcel and probably Eric have a lot of the history to respond to the first part of your question, and I'll leave that for them. The only part I can respond to is when you were asking what we're trying to do here. What we're saying is that if you could bring a claim under the Northern Flood Agreement, rather than bringing it under that agreement you will now bring it under this agreement. Primarily that is because the first nation was a signatory to the agreement but the individual members of the first nation were not.
Ms Bridgman: So basically it's a progression coming from that definition of ``person'' that we're talking about here.
Ms Matthews Lemieux: We want to make sure we've protected the rights of individual members. What they can do is still make a claim, but it should also be made under the new agreement, because as I said during the presentation, it gives local control to the communities. In other words, they received settlement proceeds from the other parties and they will administer them themselves, on their own in the community.
Ms Bridgman: Right. So this wording of ``claimant'' is actually achieving that, not just more clarity in the translation from English to Cree. It's also achieving these other four points you're talking about. It's part of the whole thing.
Ms Matthews Lemieux: Yes.
Ms Bridgman: The other question I have is about these four points. When you look through the critiquing of the agreement, several areas have to be addressed by the legislation so these four points are actually achieved. Have you pursued this legislation in detail to see if that is indeed reflected?
Ms Matthews Lemieux: Oh, absolutely.
.1200
Ms Bridgman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Dr. Patry.
Mr. Patry (Pierrefonds - Dollard): I have a question for Ms Matthews Lemieux.
You came here to ask us to make some amendments to clause 6, to change from paragraphs (a) to (c) and to have (a) to (g). You said this is for more clarification. If it's possible, I would like to ask for two clarifications from you.
First of all, you re-designated paragraph (b) as paragraph (a), which in your brief reads, ``the Council of the (NH/YF) First Nation''. Your paragraph (c) reads as ``any person who is a member of the (NH/YF) First Nation''. I am in total agreement with that, but why did you include a paragraph (b) that says ``the...First Nation''? To me, ``first nation'' is not the chief, it's not the council it's not a member. With (a) and (c) you already cover every member of the bands.
Ms Matthews Lemieux: No, part of it has to do with remembering that a lot of property is owned by the first nation as a whole; it's not owned by the council, it's not owned by an individual member. So in the case of both communities, for example, you would have programs that are run and owned by the community as a whole. You have boats, you have skidoos, you have fishing nets, and in the case of York Landing I guess you have canoes. These things are not owned by any individual member or by the council. It's therefore different because it's the collective. It's different from what we're used to with individual ownership.
Mr. Patry: The second question I have is about paragraph (e), in which you say: ``any unincorporated association established by the Council of the...First Nation''. Could you not have said, as stated in paragraph (d), ``whose membership or share holding is wholly or substantially comprised of members...of the First Nation''?
Ms Matthews Lemieux: I'm sorry, I missed that.
Mr. Patry: At that time, it's not marked that they are wholly or substantially members of the band. It just says ``any unincorporated association established by the Council of the...First Nation''. Do you think it should be worded as it is under (d), by adding the words ``whose membership or share holding is wholly or substantially comprised''?
Ms Matthews Lemieux: No, not on that one. For this one, what we're primarily looking at is the fact that we have things like the commercial fishing association in Nelson House. That's what we were really after there. But what we also wanted to prevent was, for example, a situation in which you'd have a corporation that would be established maybe with less than 50% of the members, who could then come forward and be able to make a claim under these claim procedures. That's why we got into paragraphs (f) and (g). We wanted to avoid that.
In terms of (e), we didn't see that there would be a problem with it because it has to be established by the council.
Mr. Patry: Okay. I just wanted to ask you that, because maybe -
Ms Matthews Lemieux: Does that respond to the question?
Mr. Patry: Yes, that answers the question. We'll see what the Department of Justice says about your amendments.
Ms Matthews Lemieux: Sure.
Mr. Patry: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: Thank you, Dr. Patry.
Mr. Bachand.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand (Saint-Jean): Such a legislation can appear complex at first sight. However, members who were on this committee previously have already had a chance to look at the Split Lake agreement before dealing with the bill arising out of it. We went through an awful lot of documents. Even the Auditor General has said that what happened in Manitoba was a total disaster for the environment.
One important factor, back then, was the Northern Flood Committee, which was a grouping of five communities, meaning Split Lake, York Factory, Nelson House, Cross Lake and Norway House. We will get an update on the status of negotiations with each of these nations. Obviously, negotiations have already led to an agreement with Split Lake, since the bill giving effect to this agreement has already been passed by the House of Commons.
My first question is on the amendments you are proposing today and the content of the bill before us. When I read the text of the bill before us and the bill on Split Lake, I do not see much difference.
I do not know if you will be able to answer my question, but will the amendment you are putting forward today have an impact on the Split Lake bill we have already passed? This is now an Act of Parliament and, as far as I can see, the Split Lake Bill did not have the amendment you are asking for today.
.1205
My second question relates to the Northern Flood Committee, which surely had the advantage of providing some coherence to the approach of the five communities. We feared at the time that if the Northern Flood Committee fell apart, and this is precisely what happened due to the lack of funding from the federal government, this would allow the governments to deal with the first nations one after the other and force them into negotiations, among other factors by creating a precedent with Split Lake.
Do you agree that the Northern Flood Committee had this advantage and that in its absence the five first nations now have to negotiate on an individual basis, which creates precedents?
[English]
The Chairman: Whoever wishes to address that question may do so.
Ms Matthews Lemieux: With respect to the first question, which I understand to be about whether or not the amendments we are requesting would have any impact on the Split Lake agreement, I have to respond by saying that you have to remember that the Nelson House and York Factory agreements have been signed by all parties, including the Government of Canada. Those agreements already have language in them that's different from the language in the Split Lake agreement. The legislation that you dealt with earlier on Split Lake reflected their agreement, which is fine.
You know how it is with lawyers. Any time you get more than one lawyer, you can have more than one way of saying things. That's what we have here. The Split Lake agreement implements the Northern Flood Agreement one way with certain language, but the Nelson House and York Factory agreements do it in a different way with different language.
So my view would be that it shouldn't have any impact. If it did have an impact, why would the Government of Canada have entered into the York Factory and Nelson House agreements, which have different language? It doesn't make sense to me that this would in fact be the case. That's how I see it, but I'm only one lawyer. There may be other views.
The second question, as I understand it, asked whether or not we share the view that the Northern Flood Committee provided consistency among the five first nations. Was that the question?
Again, as I said before, I wasn't involved with that throughout the entire earlier period. But I can say this - and I've just checked with both chiefs and with Mr. Moody on this point: the proposed basis of settlement back in 1990 was never agreed to by the five first nations. That was the problem. The negotiations broke off. They couldn't agree. And I can give you one very good case in point with York Factory.
York Factory is the smallest of the first nations. As I understand it, you had some of the largest first nations involved, and one of the ideas was to take a pool of money and split it on a per capita basis. To do it in that way would obviously not be fair to York Factory. That's one of the reasons why the whole thing fell apart.
To go on with that, if you take a sewer and water system, regardless of the size of the community, there are certain fixed costs that have to be taken into consideration. The idea didn't work on those issues, which is why Split Lake continued and did their thing with the proposed basis of settlement.
.1210
Nelson House tried to negotiate certain resource-based agreements from 1990-92, and actually did so successfully. But they then found that they were miles from the other parties when dealing over a culture claim. The parties came in and wanted to deal with it on the basis of several hundred thousand dollars, but when they were looking at destruction of the culture, they were talking in the millions. They were that far apart. They decided they had to look for some other way that made it important to their community, and that's what they did. They entered into a process to go for a comprehensive agreement for their own community, and a year later York Factory did the same thing.
So in terms of consistency, I don't know whether consistency necessarily is always the best thing.
Chief Primrose: Mr. Chairman, I want to make the point that the PBS was not people-driven at that time. By this, I mean that the people in the communities were not directly involved with these agreements that were recently signed with Nelson House. In this whole process with the two latest agreements, our community people were directly involved, whereas the PBS was mostly drafted by lawyers and was given to the people. There was no involvement on the part of the people.
I also wanted to make the point that the PBS was per capita within the five communities. For example, we raised a very serious point on that because we felt Nelson House was the most adversely affected, whereas in a community like Norway House it didn't really have a big impact. So I think that's where everything fell apart. That's where people went their different ways, and I just wanted to point that out.
The Chairman: It's important that you cleared that up. I can understand why you would bring it up.
Ms Matthews Lemieux: Following on what Chief Primrose said, I'd just like to make one other comment.
I think it is really important to note that what happened here was this. Instead of having outside negotiators and outside people dealing with a lot of these issues, the communities took control and had local people negotiating with a key person. Mr. Moody was the negotiator for Nelson House, and he had Mr. Spence and Llewellyn Moody on the negotiating team that he worked with. So that's how those negotiations were concluded.
It was the same in the case of York Factory. They had their own local people acting as negotiators, and I think that made the difference.
The Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Murphy is next.
Mr. Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for your very clear presentation this morning.
With regard to some of the changes that you're talking about with the trust fund, for instance, I just wondered if there is anything in the amendments that have recently come forward that reflect on the Indian Act. Is there something there that might help?
I'm sure you've obviously thought about this - and it's also an interest of mine - because you talked a good deal about economic development, which leads to self-sufficiency in many cases. Is the use of those funds in that area something that you are talking about? Could those funds be used to enhance the school problem that now exists? That's one question.
The other question I have is with regard to section 36. You want to take lands, but you don't want them to be put on the reserves lands. You want to make them fee simple in that kind of transaction. Do you have the agreement of all parties, all the bands involved, to do this? The reason I ask is that obviously bands are going to want to switch lands in this way because it may be a simpler way of doing things.
So those are my two broad areas.
.1215
Mr. Moody: When we talk about economic development in our communities, we think it's vital to growth in our community. Right now we're trying to purchase a hotel in Thompson. I don't know whether you guys know where Thompson is. It's about an hour from our community. We feel we have to invest outside our community for any projects to be viable. We're in the process of negotiating with some businesses in Thompson to obtain a hotel. We think economic development is important for our community and we're striving towards that goal.
As for using money to help out in the school, Mr. Saunders is from a different community. We don't have that problem in our community. But that having been said, we also expanded our school, because we had the same problem as York Landing. We didn't have any space for our school. So we had to get a loan, I believe, to expand our school. We don't necessarily agree to paying for a school addition, but that's something we had to do on our own instead of waiting for the government for years and years to address our problems.
As far as using money is concerned, it's strictly up to the people. If they want to do something like that, it's really up to them. They have that authority to do so.
Chief Saunders: I want to talk about whether the school problem can be addressed through that process.
When we were doing our negotiating, we talked a lot about normal funding, the funding Indian affairs provides to the communities. One of them is education. Through negotiation, this agreement is not supposed to affect normal funding; but that's not happening. There are already a lot of cutbacks in education. It's something we will have to look at.
We also look at treaties with the department, and one of the things is providing education for our students. The settlement is compensation money and the people will decide how they're going to spend it. If you talk about economic development, it's up to people how much they want to set aside for economic development in one year. We do that every year. We need a lot of things in York Landing that most communities don't have, such as a nice restaurant. We need other businesses. We have only have one store. That needs to be developed in York Landing. Or even starting businesses somewhere else such as Churchill, on the fee simple lands...I think that's one of the reasons we accessed fee simple land in Churchill. The land we took is situated right next to the town of Churchill, and they won't allow a reserve there; there's no way. So we'll take it in fee simple, establish businesses there, and generate some revenues through them. That's our vision.
The Chairman: I might add that economic development does complement your education system. If you buy a hotel and you have co-op education, you can train some hotel management. If you buy a welding shop and you have co-op education, you can train welders. The two complement each other.
Chief Primrose: I think that's the long-term vision. When you start buying into businesses off the reserve, that's our goal: so eventually our children and their children will have the opportunity to run businesses and get training. That's basically our long-term vision from the Nelson House perspective, and I'm sure it's the same with York Landing.
The Chairman: I wish you well and I suspect you will accomplish it.
Mr. Finlay.
Mr. Finlay (Oxford): I want to compliment the witnesses. It's been a very informative session so far.
.1220
I'm going back for a little clarification. I have a couple of questions.
Ms Matthews Lemieux, in explaining the difference with respect to the Northern Flood Agreement and these bills we're looking at, you said - and I want you to check me if I'm wrong - the need for having the word ``person'' is that under the Northern Flood Agreement it was signed by the first nation, but not approved by the individual members, whereas Bills C-39 and C-40, as both chiefs have told us, have been approved by a majority of the band members by referendum. Am I right about that distinction?
Ms Matthews Lemieux: No.
For the Northern Flood Agreement there was a referendum process that was not, as I understand it, the same as or as extensive as this one. This one was both on reserve and off reserve. I am saying it is important because the individual members did not sign that agreement. They went through a referendum process and approved it, but then it was signed on their behalf by the chief and council. Each member of the first nation didn't put his signature on the agreement. That's all I was saying.
Mr. Finlay: Are they going to put their signatures on Bill C-39?
Ms Matthews Lemieux: No. But the legislation will then say that if you could bring a claim under the NFA, you will now bring it under this agreement instead.
Mr. Finlay: Which specifically includes -
Ms Matthews Lemieux: All of the members of the first nations.
Mr. Finlay: It includes all of the members, which the NFA did not.
Ms Matthews Lemieux: No. The NFA, through the definition of ``person'', allowed for claims to be brought, but they were brought to Manitoba Hydro.
The best way to look at it is that under the NFA there was a certain set of procedures for bringing an individual claim. In this agreement we're replacing those procedures with different procedures that are controlled by the community. What we're saying in the legislation is that if you could bring a claim under the NFA, you will now bring it under this agreement.
Mr. Finlay: But not to Manitoba Hydro.
Ms Matthews Lemieux: It gets sort of complicated, because there are certain exceptions where we still will go to Manitoba Hydro, but generally speaking, no. For example, Manitoba Hydro is still responsible for things like death and injury.
Mr. Finlay: Okay. Clause 6 says - and this may just be lawyerly wording:
- A claim provided for by both the Flood Agreement and the agreement may be exercised by
- What is ``the agreement''?
Mr. Finlay: Yes.
Ms Matthews Lemieux: Under the definitions it says ``agreement'', then it says:
- ``agreement'' means the agreement concluded between
etc.,
- pursuant to negotiations relating to the comprehensive implementation of the Flood
Agreement.
- and then ``signed on'' whatever the date. The dates differ for Nelson House and York Factory.
The word ``agreement'' as it appears in clause 6 is a term defined by clause 2 of the bill. It means
the blue agreement and the red agreement.
Now we go to your proposed paragraphs 6(d), 6(f) and 6(g). Your 6(d) reads:
- any group or unincorporated association whose membership or shareholding is wholly or
substantially comprised of members of
- etc. ``Substantially'' is not a very well-defined word. What does it mean? Does it mean 51% or
does it mean 70%? In your 6(f) you say ``shares of which are wholly or substantially owned,
both legally and beneficially....''
.1225
There are cases on this, though, that indicate that it would have to be probably more than just that minimal amount, for the reason I indicated earlier - that is, we wanted to make sure you wouldn't end up with people who were outsiders to the first nation being able to come and join with members of the first nation and then make claims against their accounts.
But I can't give you a more precise definition than that.
Mr. Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Mr. Anawak.
Mr. Anawak (Nunatsiaq): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to proceed and to see when we're going to deal.... I have no problem with the amendments. Are we in the process of discussing the amendments and passing them and then going on to the passing of the bill?
The Chairman: If you're asking me what I would like to see happen today, I would like to have you discuss any article, particularly indicating if there's any desire to debate or to amend any clause in either bill, other than clause 6.
Mr. Anawak: I guess my point is, there doesn't seem to be any problem with the rest of the bill other than clause 6 - from either side.
The Chairman: My position will be to ask this committee if you're prepared to go clause by clause to deal with all clauses, except 6 in each bill, today. If this is agreeable, we will do it.
Mr. Anawak: Then we adopt the recommended amendment?
The Chairman: Are you talking about clause 6? I would suggest that clause 6 be deferred until Tuesday. Is it wise to amend it without legal counsel? I don't think so - but I'm one member. That will come back to you.
For the time being, I want to allow each and every one of you all the debate and all the questions you may have, and all the comments our witnesses might have.
Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper: I just want to say briefly that this agreement has been going on for I don't know how many years. As a matter of fact, when I was part of the Manitoba legislature, at one point I was the minister of northern affairs, directly responsible for trying to negotiate this agreement. We had a two-pronged approach. One was a global approach in which all the bands could try to agree. The other one was to proceed on a claim-by-claim basis, which is what we did. But I see this process has evolved to this point, which gives the committee members direct input.
I would just like to say that I think the communities have been waiting for a long time to get this resolved. I know they had difficulty addressing problems such as the loss of traditional lifestyle and culture, which cannot be measured by dollars and cents. That was part of the difficulty. You couldn't put a price on that kind of thing.
So they've gone a long way toward achieving this agreement. I think we should proceed to clause-by-clause on the bill, except clause 6. I want to see if there are any concerns from our legislative legal counsel.
Mr. Anawak: Yes, so do I.
Just for clarification, the amendments you're asking for arise out of the agreement you have, and the definitions there are part of the agreement signed between the three parties. Is that right?
Ms Matthews Lemieux: Four parties.
Mr. Anawak: Okay. This means the Government of Canada was involved. If, under the agreement, those agreements were agreed to by the Government of Canada, then I don't see any problem in.... I realize that you have to check with the justice department, but it's here from the Government of Canada. The Government of Canada has already agreed to that definition.
.1230
The Chairman: The reason I was elected chairman was to shut me up, you know. Perhaps I can impose on the committee and give a partial opinion.
There doesn't seem to be any problem with the request for amendments. I just put the question to this committee, is it wise to deal with it today, without legal counsel, when we're asking to do it by next Tuesday? That's all I'm suggesting.
I do agree that we should go on to clause-by-clause only after every member here has had an opportunity to complete comments and questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: I tend to agree with you, Mr. Chairman. I will tell my colleague, Mr. Anawak, that the fact that the four parties came to an agreement does not mean that this deal should not be subject to ratification by the committee and the House of Commons. We would be useless if our role was only to rubberstamp the agreement.
I think it is important for the committee to have a close look at everything that was done. Even if there are negotiators who are very knowledgeable on legal issues and legal language, it is our responsibility, as members of the committee and members of the House of Commons, to take a close look at this matter.
I know that these people have been waiting for a very long time and I agree that we should proceed without delay. I personally have no problem with any of the other clauses of the bill, excepting clause 6. You said yourself that there are many languages possible, especially when you are dealing with different lawyers.
We each have our lawyers. I would not want us to make a mistake and to repeat a mistake that might already be in an agreement and that would escape our attention just because we did not take a close look.
I agree that we should proceed rapidly. I would be entirely happy if we met Tuesday to deal with clause 6.
The Chairman: Agreed. Mr. Patry, did you want to say something?
[English]
Mr. Patry: Mr. Chair, I think I agree with Mr. Bachand. This agreement Mr. Anawak has referred to was signed on March 15 of this year, but it's an agreement, not a bill. Now we're going to a bill. It's the final stage. Four more days are not going to make any changes. I think we should go to clause-by-clause, with the exception of clause 6.
The Chairman: I should mention that this is a committee recommending amendments to the House of Commons. If we recommend amendments without a legal opinion, that causes problems. That's when you see a bill delayed in the House. We have to do it right here.
Mr. Anawak.
Mr. Anawak: I don't have a problem with seeking legal opinion, but this is an agreement with the same people, enhancing agreements that have already been made.
The Chairman: Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper: I don't think the committee is opposed to waiting until Tuesday, even though what is contained in the amendments is what is contained in the agreements. But I may add that it's also already in the legislation that's proceeding in the Manitoba legislature. They have no problems in accepting it there. The legal counsel here has also said it is consistent with the legislation that exists in Manitoba, which is where the communities are - in the province of Manitoba. So I think we should proceed.
The Chairman: The purpose of seeking legal counsel is to help us in accepting these amendments. There certainly is no intent to ask legal counsel to find reasons why we should be against this. We want to accommodate the request.
I would urge that legal counsel keep myself and every member of this committee posted, even through the weekend, or on Monday or tomorrow, on what is happening and what they are coming back to us with, and that a report be given to every member and to yourselves, so when we come on Tuesday to deal with clause 6, if that's the outcome of this meeting, everybody knows and understands and we're in a position to deal with it fairly.
.1235
Is that reasonable? Are we prepared to go to clause-by-clause, except for clause 6 on each agreement? You have no objection that we do clause-by-clause? There doesn't seem to be any need for amendments on any other clauses except 6. That does not cause problems for anyone? Everybody's happy?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: Thank you very much for an excellent presentation. Next one, education. Thank you.
Members, the order of the day now is Bill C-39, the proposed York Factory First Nation Flooded Land Act. The procedure we usually use, and one that seems to work, is that I call the clause, and if you wish it to stand or be pulled, use whatever word you want. Whatever word is shouted will tell me that we don't want to deal with this clause today, which is what I expect to hear when we get to clause 6.
If any of the members wish to stand any of the other clauses, tell me when I call it. For example, I will say, ``Clause 2'', and if you want it pulled, or to stand, tell me at that point.
I should mention that there will be no participation from witnesses at this point, but you're welcome to stay with us.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to
Clause 6 allowed to stand
Clause 7 agreed to
The Chairman: That's it for Bill C-39 until we deal with clause 6.
We now move on to Bill C-40, the proposed Nelson House First Nation Flooded Land Act.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to
Clause 6 allowed to stand
Clause 7 agreed to
The Chairman: Thank you very much. We are in a position now, with your agreement, members, to meet at 11 a.m. Tuesday to deal with clause 6, followed by consideration of the notice of motion from the Reform Party, which I have now accepted will be dealt by the committee on Tuesday, after we deal with these bills.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: Meanwhile, Mr. Chairman, you will forward to us the legal opinions on clause 6, hopefully?
.1240
[English]
The Chairman: D'accord. Legal opinions will be forwarded to you before Tuesday, and I would ask that they be forwarded to our guests. Thank you.
Is there anything else? Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper: I have a question on the Reform motion. What's doing with what?
The Chairman: The Reform Party presented a notice of motion two meetings ago, which I did not accept as chair but which I received in order to discuss with colleagues. I have decided to accept the motion.
When a chair accepts a motion on behalf of the committee, it then becomes a motion of the committee. So until I accept it, it's the motion of the mover. We've gone from it being a motion of the mover to a motion of the committee, which means we will debate it and vote on it. That will be done on Tuesday, after we do clause 6.
Mr. Harper: This is on the Quebec question?
The Chairman: That's right.
Mr. Harper: On this particular motion, is there maybe a legal counsel procedure? Is there opportunity for amendments?
The Chairman: There's always opportunity for amendments.
Mr. Harper: Okay, thank you.
The Chairman: But if I may add a few calculated words, there's also opportunity for strategy to prevent problems.
Mr. Anawak.
Mr. Anawak: Mr. Chairman, your accepting the motion doesn't necessarily mean accepting the premises of it.
The Chairman: It means -
An hon. member: It's debatable.
The Chairman: - that on behalf of the committee, I accept that we deal with it. That's all.
Mr. Anawak: It doesn't mean you're endorsing it.
The Chairman: No, absolutely not.
Thank you very much. The meeting is adjourned.