AAND Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Wednesday, March 10, 1999

• 1543

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—James Bay—Nunavik, Lib.)): Today, Wednesday March 10, 1999, the committee is meeting pursuant to Standing Order 106(3) to examine a request by four committee members.

I would ask our clerk, Ms. Fisher, to read the letter she received.

Ms. Fisher.

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: I received this letter on March 2, at my office, to Ms. Christine Fisher, clerk of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development:

Dear Ms. Fisher:

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(3), a meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs shall be convened within ten sitting days for the purpose of examining the concerns raised by the Musqueam controversy at Musqueam Park in Vancouver, British Columbia.

Mike Scott, Derrek Konrad, Myron Thompson, Claude Bachand.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Scott.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to members of the committee who took the time to come here today. It's very much appreciated.

The reason for writing the letter and the reason the members signed it is in response to a serious controversy that has erupted in British Columbia regarding the Musqueam Band, the Musqueam Reserve, and the non-Musqueam leaseholders on that reserve.

I should add that about 75 leaseholders are directly affected, but there's another 125 who live in a community called Salish Park, which is immediately adjacent to Musqueam. They are the spillover from what has taken place at Musqueam, which is also affecting Salish Park, although not to the same extent at this time.

• 1545

I would like to apologize to any francophone colleagues here today for not having a French translation, but as you can see by the date on the letter, we have just received it ourselves from Kerry-Lynne Findlay, who is the spokesperson for the Musqueam Leaseholders Association, who I think lays out the concerns of the leaseholders very well. With the letter is a summary of the events leading up to the controversy that has unfolded on the Musqueam Reserve.

The purpose in asking for this meeting is to ask the committee to consider whether we can act as parliamentarians and act as a facilitator to try to bring some resolution to the problems that exist on that reserve by, at the very least, providing some advice and maybe even some recommendations to the department and to the minister with regard to this very serious situation.

I'm aware, Mr. Chairman, and I think you would concur, that many of the members of this committee have received literally hundreds of letters on this issue, not just from the Musqueam residents but from people in British Columbia who are concerned about the issue. I'm not sure whether all members have received those letters, but I'm certainly aware that you, as the chairman, have received many. I know I have, and I continue to receive them on a daily basis—e-mails, letters, faxes, and so on.

What we would like to propose is, first of all, to try to delineate the problem for the members of the committee so that they can understand as best as possible what the crux of the problem is, and to try to do it in a way that doesn't point fingers at anybody but just lays out the problem that the leaseholders are facing. Then we would like to ask the committee whether or not we could have, in the spirit of trying to help these people, some agreement to proceed in some fashion to try to address this issue.

I would conclude by saying that for those members of the committee who don't reside in British Columbia or who may reside a long way from British Columbia, make no mistake, this is seen as a very serious issue in British Columbia by many citizens, and it is seriously impeding the government's ability to deal with aboriginal issues and to further aboriginal policy in British Columbia, since many people have reacted with a great deal of concern.

I think it would be in everyone's interest to try to resolve this. It would be in the government's interest, because they want to proceed with a number of initiatives in terms of aboriginal policy in British Columbia and in other parts of Canada. It is also our responsibility as parliamentarians to see what we might be able to do. Maybe at the end of the day we may not be able to achieve what we would like, but it's certainly a very worthy cause.

We're talking about 75 families immediately, whose family homes are certainly in question, to the extent that the banks have refused to provide any additional mortgages. They are also refusing to renew mortgages, and we have opinion letters from some real estate agents saying that until the situation is resolved and clarified in a satisfactory manner, the homes on that reserve and on the adjacent reserve at Salish Park are virtually unmarketable.

I think that's an extremely serious situation to leave these people in, and again, without pointing fingers, I'm looking at ways that we can provide advice to the minister to see that resolved as opposed to letting it continue to fester as it is right now.

Again, I think Kerry-Lynne Findlay's letter of March 10 outlines the problem quite well, and that, taken together with the summary, which is a three-page document that everybody should have, basically provides a very good background as to how the situation evolved to where it is today.

• 1550

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Scott.

Mr. Wilfert.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have listened with interest to Mr. Scott's comments. I don't disagree that there is an issue that certainly needs to be looked at. I would suggest to Mr. Scott that maybe this could be one of the examples, but clearly the whole issue of the administration of leases under the Indian Act and maybe looking at best practices would be very helpful.

As you know, Mr. Scott, not just this particular case but certainly other cases may be very instructive if we were to look at some best practices approaches, to look at this whole issue in maybe a wider context, but still, obviously, as part of that discussion.

I know there's a motion on the floor at the moment, Mr. Chairman, but I invite my colleague to maybe look at broadening it in that context so we can evaluate this issue on a broader scale, because I believe there are consequences, not just in British Columbia, but I can think of some cases in Ontario.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.

Before I turn the floor over to Mr. Perron, I have to mention that the documents we received are in English only and that it would be a good idea to have them translated. I'm referring to the summary and to the letter from Ms. Findlay. Mr. Perron.

Mr. Gilles-A. Perron (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I think we need to sit down and try to settle this problem. I fully agree with Mike Scott that we must settle this. It's critically important that we do.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Mr. Nault.

[English]

Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora—Rainy River, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, with your indulgence I would like to get some information from Mr. Scott before we get too far down the road with this whole affair. Perhaps he could give us an update on the leaseholders' leave to appeal to the Supreme Court.

He is basically asking us to seek advice on the leaseholders and those involved in this particular file at the same time there are ongoing court proceedings, and we have no knowledge of what the end result will be. It's very unusual, quite frankly, for members of Parliament to enter into a very specific study without knowing what those results will be.

If it's intended to give some broad sense of the issue to the general public and the concerns that leasing on reserve lands might cause, that's one issue or process we can look at. But if it's looking specifically at this particular file at the same time as it's proceeding through the courts, not knowing what the end result will be, would we not be somewhat premature in judging the fact that the courts might rule in favour of the leaseholders in the end, and what Mr. Scott and his colleagues are looking for would be given to him by the courts? So I'd like some clarification on what his sense of that particular issue would be.

Quite frankly, I am very uncomfortable dealing with it at the same time it's in front of the Supreme Court of Canada. We bring it very much to Mr. Scott's attention that the government side would like to consider entering into a broader debate to look at the whole issue of leasing and what it does. There are many examples across the nation we can use.

It's a broader issue, and at the same time we can also talk about the Musqueam leaseholders' situation in that context. We'd be willing to do that. But if you want to restrict it to this particular issue, considering the fact that this is in front of the courts, I think the government side would be forced to vote it down and put an end to this debate fairly quickly.

• 1555

We understand the controversy in British Columbia and we also recognize that maybe there is a need for more dialogue and openness to bring it to a point where people will understand what reserves are, what leases are on reserve lands, how they work, what their legal capacity is, and what the Indian Act does or doesn't do. I think it would be good for all of us, and we on the government side would certainly be willing to entertain that.

I brought a motion you might want to pursue, Mr. Chairman. It is in both languages, but I don't have copies of it, so the clerk might want to copy it. I will give this to you just for your information, because I know there's a motion on the floor now. I just want to lay it out for you. You can think about it and tell us which way you want to go.

It basically says:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2)

That the committee undertake to review the administration of leases under the Indian Act and examine best practice approaches.

That would allow us to talk about this particular file, but not in such a narrow sense that we would have the problem of having to deal with the Supreme Court at the same time and what's going on there.

So I throw that in, Mr. Chairman, for your consideration and the opposition's consideration. I know B.C. in particular is not accustomed to these kinds of issues, and they are not going to go away. It's not new to those of us in Ontario who live under treaty now. I have Treaty 3, Treaty 9, and Treaty 5 in my backyard, so this isn't new to me, nor is it all that confusing to understand, but maybe it is for people who have never seen this so close to their backyards. It would probably be beneficial to all of us, Mr. Chairman.

So I use this opportunity to give you that input on where the government side is going on this affair.

I asked Mr. Scott a couple of questions, and I certainly would like some feedback as to what the opposition have on their minds. I know Mr. Scott can't speak for the other parties, but I would certainly like to get their views.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Ms. Hardy and Mr. Bryden wish to address the committee. Does anyone have a problem with our hearing right away from Mr. Scott?

Mr. Scott.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott: Thank you. I'll be brief.

First of all, I appreciate Mr. Nault's comments. While I would like to hear from other members of the committee, I personally am not opposed to the idea of broadening the debate, provided we have an opportunity as part of that debate to hear what happens from these people when things go wrong. Out of that can come some recommendations and advice for the department, and possibly even for the minister.

Mr. Nault, I may be wrong, but I'm under the clear impression from the Musqueam residents' association that the litigation you referred to has not been taken to the Supreme Court. They are holding off. The Musqueam residents have spent in excess of $750,000 in litigation fees already, and it's my understanding they would have preferred to avoid litigation.

In litigation you always have winners and losers. In negotiation, or in some kind of a compromise, you can end up with all parties feeling somewhat satisfied rather than having one party feeling as if they've won or lost. I think that would be much more helpful in this situation.

I'm sure it's not what Mr. Nault was referring to, but I'm certain the members of this committee would not want to see people litigating unnecessarily if there were another way of resolving the problem.

Provided the committee is agreeable to having, as part of the wider inquiry into this issue, the Musqueam residents' association dealt with under that rubric, I'm very open to that idea myself. I'd certainly like to hear from some of my colleagues around the table on it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Scott.

Mr. Nault.

• 1600

[English]

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, before I pass it on, I just wanted to give Mr. Scott an update. My understanding is that in fact the band council has been communicating through their lawyers with the tenants and their lawyers vis-à-vis the whole issue of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. In fact, the lawyers are now cooperating in gathering and giving information as it relates to that leave. I'm very much under the impression that this will occur. Whether or not we do this study, they will follow through, so there will be a parallel process going on here. We will not be saving the tenants any money by starting this process, because, quite frankly, if I were their lawyer, I wouldn't recommend that they stop the leave simply because the committee on Indian and northern affairs is going to do a study on their behalf. I want to make that very clear.

Just to clarify where the government is going, we certainly would like to look at the Indian Taxation Advisory Board and have them come forward. We certainly would like to ask people to come on behalf of the tenants to tell us the legalities of their particular issue and get some experts to come and talk about how this is all functioning on reserve, or off reserve for that matter.

We give you the undertaking that we will be interested in doing that. That would be a matter of talking about the work plan at the next meeting and who we call forward and whether or not we will be allowed to travel. As you know, that's always an issue for the House leaders, not necessarily for those of us sitting here. We are very much interested in entertaining a thorough investigation of the new regimes that are being created as we move toward a more self-government type of regime for first nations people, including in British Columbia.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Nault.

Ms. Hardy.

[English]

Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): I think we need to hear the leaseholders, just because they don't feel they have been heard at all, but I don't know what difference it will make in this particular case if we do hear them. I don't think it would be right to bring them forward with them assuming we would be able to make dramatic changes in their particular case. Unless we are willing to be open to making changes or compensating them or doing whatever was in our power to help them in their particular situation, I don't think it's right to kind of play a game and say we'll hear them but we can't do anything in the long run. I do think it's important for us to make every attempt to make a difference for them, not just in this particular case, but also because of the impact this whole situation has had on other first nations in the country.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Hardy.

Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): I essentially agree with Ms. Hardy's comments.

My concern about the original motion is that it may raise expectations that we are never going to be able to meet officially. We're not a solution to the problem here. On the other hand, I'm very sympathetic to the need to give people an opportunity to be heard.

Mr. Nault was mentioning that this situation has become one where lawyers are talking to lawyers. In my view that's very unfortunate, because often a dialogue occurs but communication breaks down when it becomes just a matter of lawyers.

As long as they understand that this is not a forum for a solution, I think it would be constructive to hear from the actual two sides, the tenants and the band, on this issue. Perhaps by some lucky chance as a result of them speaking to us, there could be a resolution. But that would be up to them, not this committee. This committee can't make a ruling.

As far as where we sit with regard to a Supreme Court challenge, again, any resolution or anything we may say or decide is going to be set aside for the future, presumably not before this case is heard by the Supreme Court and decided upon. If it is a case of it still being before the courts, then this committee would not, I don't think, be in a position to say anything as long as it's pending a decision.

Mr. Robert Nault: That day might not come.

Mr. John Bryden: That may be too.

• 1605

Anyway, my feeling is that it does need to be a broader mandate just in order to lower expectations if we focus on just this one band. But I'm very much in favour of giving these people on both sides a real forum before this committee as soon as we can reasonably arrange it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

Mr. White.

[English]

Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm also quite supportive of broadening the mandate. I don't have a problem with that at all.

But I think it's important to note that we wouldn't be setting a precedent if we made specific recommendations in the case of the Musqueam even while the situation is before the courts. The Joint Standing Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations, while I was sitting as a member, determined that regulations concerning members of the police force who were running for political office needed to be changed. The case was before the court at the time, but the committee still said to the minister, you need to change these regulations. We brought the issue to the House, and the minister responded by changing the regulations even while the case was before the court. It made continuation of the court case unnecessary. It resolved the problem. It fixed it.

So I would implore members of the committee to keep an open mind, that if in studying the broader issue and listening to the Musqueam we find there is something we can recommend that fixes the problem, we shouldn't be put off by the fact that it's before the courts, because we may be able to save a lot of money, time, and resources for a lot of people. So just to repeat, we wouldn't be setting a precedent if it turned out that way. I'm not saying it will, but if it turned out that way, we shouldn't be afraid to address it.

Just in closing, to quote from one of the many e-mails I got, the person who wrote this letter said:

We are honourable and hard working taxpayers of Canada, and your job is to help clear the compensated issues facing the leaseholders in Musqueam and to serve our best interests and the stability of the country.

I think, clearly, we have a role in trying to deliver on that request.

So I would support the broader mandate and hope we could find some way of helping to resolve this specific problem.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. White.

Mr. Nault.

[English]

Mr. Robert Nault: We were wondering whether the opposition would be willing to pull their motion and we could move right to.... Do they not have a motion? I thought we were debating a motion.

Mr. Mike Scott: We have a motion prepared, but we haven't put it on the table yet.

Mr. Robert Nault: Oh, you haven't put it. So would the opposition be in favour of us putting our motion forward, the one we are suggesting, and to then just get on with it? Then we can have a discussion amongst ourselves as to what kind of work plan we would get into, and we could get on with doing the job, Mr. Chair. If that would be the case, we would so move the motion I tabled through the chair a few minutes ago, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Nault.

The motion reads as follows:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2)

That the committee undertake to review the administration of leases under the Indian Act and examine best practice approaches.

Mr. Scott.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott: For the benefit of the members of the committee, I'll just read the motion we were intending to put forward:

That the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development immediately undertake an investigation into the situation faced by the leaseholders at Musqueam Park in Vancouver and report its findings to the House.

Aside from the fact that this is a broad issue and ours was very specific, the key difference between these is the use of “immediately”. We have other work ongoing, and I appreciate that. I don't want to be so presumptuous as to believe we should consider this as a 911 call, but there is some sense of urgency to deal with this. So I would like to have an amendment that the committee urgently undertake or immediately undertake, something to that effect, so that we're not putting this off until next fall and we deal with it within a reasonable timeframe. Maybe I can even add that as an amendment, within a reasonable timeframe, so that we're not shuffling it off to one side, that we do actually take it seriously and get on with it. So I would maybe make the amendment that the committee urgently undertake, so we'd just add the word “urgently” between “committee” and “undertake”.

Do I have a seconder?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Konrad seconds the motion.

• 1610

Mr. Nault.

[English]

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I want to inform Mr. Scott that we will be voting against this amendment, but at the same time make it very clear that we give him our undertaking that we will do this as soon as we possibly can. But we have to keep in mind that the government members are always aware that the business of the House will take precedence, meaning if we have legislation before us, we will not put it aside to get on to other matters. These kinds of urgent-type words that are put into motions are always a bad precedent, because we will be the individuals who will decide on our destiny.

We are giving the opposition an undertaking today, but we do not feel comfortable with changing the amendment to make it sound like we're putting everything aside, because that's a matter for discussion and we'll have that discussion.

I never know what “urgent” means. It depends on whose definition you're talking about. To me, it means as soon as we practically can, but I think we need to sit down now and talk about a work plan and how broad this will be. It all depends on our House leaders. It all depends on the workload of the individual members themselves.

If Mr. Scott is like I am and is willing to put aside a week, I'll go and spend some time with him in B.C. and we'll talk about these issues thoroughly, but there may be other members who have very different views.

So I'm always a little uncomfortable with that word. But we are giving him our undertaking and the opposition an undertaking that we will look at this very seriously as soon as we can get a work plan put together and get approval from the House to go where we want to go.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Perron.

Mr. Gilles Perron: Mr. Chairman, I feel somewhat caught in the middle. I agree somewhat with Mr. Nault's motion, and I also support Mike Scott's motion, but we don't really have any kind of timetable. I think we need more information to go on. We could hold six or seven meetings if we don't have a set agenda.

I agree with Mr. Nault that we need to move on this as quickly as possible, because our friends in Vancouver appear to be desperate.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Perron.

Mr. Wilfert.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, to use Mr. Scott's own words, I would think a friendly amendment would be “within a reasonable timeframe”, and then we would ask representatives from the parties to get together and work out a reasonable work plan that we could present.

Given the undertaking of the government to pursue this issue, “urgent” does give a certain connotation that may not be as possible, but I think, in Mr. Scott's own words, “reasonable” is appropriate. If that amendment were withdrawn, I think a friendly amendment certainly could be incorporated into the original motion, having a “reasonable timeframe,” and then asking representatives of the various parties to strike a work plan would solve all of our concerns. Since we are all reasonable people around the table, I'm sure we can come to an accommodation; otherwise we're going to continue to go around the circle on this one.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I don't have any difficulty with the amendment at all, because I bear in mind the fact that the reason this committee is discussing this very issue is because Mr. Scott has brought it forward to the committee, and he has raised the awareness of the committee on this issue. I think there is an element of fairness in the way in which people may perceive what this committee is doing.

• 1615

We now have a motion that's going to be moved by the government, and I have no difficulty with the amendment moved by the opposition, which is a way of saying we're both on side on this subject.

Whether the words are “urgent” or “reasonable timeframe” is immaterial to me. I think there is something to be said for this motion going forward as a motion from the government, amended by the opposition and voted on by all members, both amendment and main motion. That way we have all shared in what should be something that is of great interest to a very small group out in the community right now but has very large implications across the country.

I don't know what to suggest, Mr. Chairman. I'd support the amendment as it is. However, if Mr. Scott would like to modify the amendment to make it a little bit more friendly, as my colleague here suggests, that's okay too.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

I'd like to inform committee members that in a few minutes, we will have the work plan drawn up by our clerk in both official languages. Each member will receive a copy of it in English and in French.

Mr. Scott.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In the interests of speeding up the meeting, and also because we seem to be all on the same page here today, which is very good to hear, I would propose that I withdraw the word “urgent” and substitute a comma after the word “undertake” so that it reads:

...within a reasonable timeframe, to review the administration of the leases under the Indian Act and examine best practice approaches.

If that makes my friend more comfortable and we have the government's commitment, Mr. Nault's commitment, that we will in fact deal with this as somewhat of a priority issue, that we're not going to just put it onto a shelf somewhere and not deal with it, and I'm satisfied with that, if the other members of the committee are satisfied, then I think we probably can move on from here.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, I think it's a friendly amendment, and it proves that we're all reasonable and that we want to get on with it.

Mr. John Bryden: Let's go.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I think I'll wait until we have copies of the work plan. It's important to find out what the plan contains. We can proceed immediately to Mr. Scott's amendment.

I'm sorry, Madam.

Mr. Finlay.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Are you saying, Mr. Chairman, that we have approved this motion as amended by Mr. Scott? Before we do anything else, that's what we need to do.

Mr. Robert Nault: That's “within a reasonable timeframe”. Right?

[Translation]

The Chairman: It says “within a reasonable timeframe”. I'll read it back so that everyone understands clearly.

[English]

The Clerk: The amendment is to add, after the word “undertake,” the words “within a reasonable timeframe”.

[Translation]

(Amendment agreed to)

[English]

The Clerk: The motion as amended reads:

That the committee undertake, within a reasonable timeframe, to review the administration of leases under the Indian Act and examine best practice approaches.

[Translation]

(Motion agreed to)

[English]

Mr. Robert Nault: I understand we also have before us—and I'm not sure whether all the committees do—another request by Mr. Scott pursuant to Standing Order 106(3) on the Caldwell controversy in Ontario.

• 1620

Is that intended to be dealt with today or some other time soon?

Mr. Mike Scott: I believe the clerk told me prior to the meeting today that we're going to be dealing with that motion next Wednesday, as I understand it, Mr. Nault.

Mr. Robert Nault: Okay.

The Chairman: No more votes.

[Translation]

You have the work plan. Are there any other questions?

Mr. Nault.

[English]

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to return to the dialogue with the opposition. From March 2 to March 25 we are going to enter into eight meetings for Bill C-56. I would be willing to have a conversation with the members to see if we could shorten this and then get on with some other work. I don't know whether it's in the interests of the opposition to spend eight meetings discussing C-56 when quite frankly it's not a difficult bill to understand. There obviously are some differences of opinion relating to the bill. But I don't think you have to hear the same person tell the same story 20 times if you want to get to some other work, which is what we just discussed previously.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to see us postpone passing this work plan in front of us until we have a discussion. Maybe we could shorten some of this and get on with some of this other work. Otherwise, we're going to be spending a whole month on Bill C-56, which quite frankly, in my personal opinion—I obviously haven't canvassed my colleagues on the government side—seems to be a lot of time and effort hearing the same people say the same thing about a subject matter that isn't all that difficult to understand, at least from my perspective. We could get the message in two or three meetings and then we could send this bill, either amended or not, back to the House for whatever they want to do with it, and we can get on with other work. I'd like some input from the members.

Otherwise, based on this work plan I don't know when we're going to start with this particular motion that we just passed until possibly sometime in late April. We also have a need to commit ourselves to the main estimates, and one of our main priorities as a committee is to do estimates. The way this is being put together now, we'll never get to the motion we just passed, and everyone seemed to think it was quite urgent. So I'd like some input from my colleagues on the other side.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Nault.

I believe Ms. Fisher can explain to us about the eight meetings scheduled from March 2 to March 25.

Ms. Fisher.

[English]

The Clerk: Eight meetings represents the maximum number of meetings available if the committee meets at its regular meeting times during March. Some of those meetings were to be set aside for consideration of the draft report. We have had one meeting on that and there will be another one shortly. We've had two meetings so far on Bill C-56 and we'll have another tomorrow, and there are two meetings scheduled for next week, on March 16 and 18. On Wednesday, March 17, we have a meeting scheduled under 106(3) to discuss the Caldwell request from the four members.

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I very much appreciate this input, but what I'm basically asking the opposition is whether we can delay this, have a discussion amongst ourselves, and come back with our view of how we want this to work. I think we can shorten this dramatically. That doesn't mean we're not going to talk about the draft interim report, because we're already 99% through that, and we will finish it. I'm talking specifically about Bill C-56 and the long list of witnesses we have who are put in front of us. I'm attempting to try to reduce that so we can get on to some other work.

• 1625

The Clerk: From what I can see, the witnesses should have all been heard by the end of the day on Thursday, March 18.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Nault, Ms. Fisher has indicated that by 9 p.m. on March 18, we will have heard from all of the witnesses scheduled so far. There will still be the March 23 and March 25 meetings. We are waiting to see if there would be other witnesses. It will all depend on the opposition and on your members. At the moment, there are no witnesses scheduled for March 23 and March 25.

[English]

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I've been around here long enough to know how it works. I don't have to have people explaining it to me over and over again. I understand what the clerk is doing. I know what her job is—

[Translation]

The Chairman: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Robert Nault: —and I know what the opposition's job is, and I'm certain I know what mine is. What I'm trying to find out is if the opposition want to get into this motion, we need to have a discussion, unless we're going to sit as a committee every day of the week to do other work. I doubt very much you're going to get every one of these members to want to sit four or five days a week.

Mr. John Bryden: Oh, yes.

Mr. Robert Nault: So I'm trying to find out what the interest of the opposition is. With all due respect, I don't want to hear from the clerk any more. I want to find out what the opposition think. Do they want to change this a little bit? If everybody is happy with the work plan, then don't talk to us about this motion until June, because that's how long it's going to take to get this motion even talked about based on the work plan I'm looking at, unless you want to take your recess, your week off, and then we'll head out into this particular motion. I've found in past practice, Mr. Chairman, that nobody wants to give up their week of recess.

The Chairman: Mr. Konrad or Mr. Scott.

Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): I'd like a little clarification from Christine first. How many witnesses pro and con do we have for Bill C-56 so far? Is it possible to figure that out?

The Clerk: Six groups in favour of the bill and two individuals who are opposed have been heard so far. The remainder to be heard on the 16th and the 18th will be opposed. They are Norway House Band members and...I wouldn't say Cross Lake was opposed. I'm not quite sure what Cross Lake are going to say, but it will be Cross Lake and the Grand Council of the Crees.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you.

The Chairman: Monsieur Scott.

Mr. Mike Scott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Nault suggested that maybe we should go away from here and try to have a discussion. I think that's a reasonable proposition. I'm certainly interested in doing that.

Mr. Nault, when you say we would have a reasonable discussion, how do you see that happening?

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, let me put it in very simple terms for everyone.

The government, quite frankly, is interested in seeing Bill C-56 move to the House. Why would we want to sit here for months and listen to witnesses? It's our bill, isn't it? We do know that there is some controversy in it, but we are also aware of the good parts of the bill. So if the opposition intends to sit here for the whole month of March to hear people and in the end, if I can be blunt, we more than likely will pass that bill and it will be sent to the House as is, we will have used up the whole month of March.

I'm quite prepared to listen to witnesses such as Mr. Allmand, who we heard from the other day, and others. That's fine. We'll hear a certain amount of people. But do I have to hear every single person from Manitoba? I don't think so. We could hear this in two or three meetings and then we could move on and get some of this stuff off our plate and get on to some of these things that are important.

I want to bring you back to what John Duncan said the other day. He hit the nail right on the head. In the next few years we are going to set the agenda for aboriginal affairs and our relationship with first nations as governments in Canada for the next 100 years. That's what's happening all over the place. This committee can play a very important role in that. But if you're going to keep us in the House dealing with issues like Bill C-56, which I don't think is all that complicated, then we're stuck here.

Our mandate is to get legislation as a first priority. The second priority obviously is the estimates. It is our role to look at taxpayers' money that is spent, so we will look at the estimates and the plan of the department. Those are our two major initiatives as a committee. The third one is to do the kind of work we're talking about now, which is of course the draft interim report you did before I came, and then this motion and other work.

• 1630

The Caldwell issue is upon us and people want to look at how we do land claims negotiations and things like that. That's important work. I would love to have a conversation about how we do land claims, whether it be specific or comprehensive. We haven't had that discussion for a number of years in this committee, that I'm aware of.

Those things can be done, but it all depends on the opposition. We are trying to signal that we will be cooperative, but if you want to keep us here all day every day for the next month talking about C-56 and having the same people but different faces tell us the same stories, then I'll be here to listen to them. I think we can do that in a much shorter time.

That's why I would like to have an informal discussion with the opposition outside of this place about what our goals are. Hopefully we would come back with a plan of our own and tell the chairman, the clerk, and the researchers where we're going to go—and that's where we would go. That's my point, Mr. Chairman. I think that's pretty clear.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Nault.

Mr. Wilfert.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I concur with my colleague. I don't know if I would have been quite as—

Mr. Robert Nault: Straightforward?

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: —demonstrative in my approach.

But I want to make something clear. I hear talk about next Wednesday, but this is not my primary committee. I am the vice-chair for the Standing Committee on Human Resources, and that is when we meet. We have enough on our plate. I cannot be here on Wednesdays, and if you're going to go to four or five days, you'll have to do it without me.

Our job is obviously to pass legislation out of committee to the House. It's important that we listen to varied opinions, but I would agree with Mr. Nault that obviously we are trying to.... We've added something today that I think is very important. Again, since we're all reasonable individuals we can go away from here, look at an approach, hammer something out, and come back.

But I would also point out to you that the whips of all parties have indicated that we as committees and committee chairs should not be intruding on the timeframes of other standing committees. If you're going to be doing that, send me a note and let me know how you're making out.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.

Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Scott's original question was not in disagreement; it was on how we should do it. I would suggest after we adjourn either this committee or the next committee we have a free-for-all discussion on what we want to do. There are other members of the opposition who might like to have a say in what's going on. It's not just the Reform opposition.

The only way to do it is for you, Mr. Chairman, to hit that gavel on the desk and adjourn the meeting either this time or the next time—maybe the next time when we're all better prepared—so we can just talk about it and make a decision. Then we'll tell you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

Mr. Scott.

[English]

Mr. Mike Scott: I certainly take Mr. Nault's point. I'm the last person who likes to have meetings for the sake of having meetings.

My colleague, Mr. Konrad, has been closer to this than me, but it seems to me, on C-56, the main area of concern or contention between the conflicting parties is whether or not a referendum that was held to ratify this agreement was valid. We could avoid a lot of the committee's work by going to Elections Canada, or somebody like that, asking them if they could tell us how this was conducted and having them report back to the committee to tell us if it was fair or not.

I don't know, and I don't think anybody on this committee knows, if it was fair. We weren't there—unless one of you was there. That seems to be the crux of the issue. Am I wrong? If it was done fair and above board, all is fine and well. If it wasn't, I don't know what we would do about it. That's the crux of the matter right there.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Scott.

Mr. Bryden.

[English]

Mr. John Bryden: That's one of the problems with the whole discussion on Bill C-56. It's being derailed on the question of whether the referendum was right or wrong. That has nothing to do with the legislation. We have to consider whether the legislation is what we as Parliament want to see happen.

• 1635

I found the last meeting we had, which dealt with a referendum, was a total waste of time. I don't why we had that meeting.

Going to Mr. Nault's point, we deprive the public of our services if we allow the committee to be deflected into a debate that is irrelevant to the legislation. We can ask Elections Canada to give an opinion that we'll put on the record, but what we really need to decide is what it will take for us to get the witnesses we need to hear from in order to get Bill C-56 moving so that we can go on to other issues that demand our attention, like the motion we just passed, which I think really is a worthy use of this committee's efforts and should be dealt with expeditiously.

I repeat, I think what we really need to do is adjourn the committee and come to some sort of informal decision, either this time or the next time, and get on with it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: Mr. Chairman, I want to support what Mr. Bryden has said. This bill is supported by four or five of the six nations who are involved with it right now through this management agreement, and some people of Nelson House have some concern. There is still a band and council, and they apparently want to go on with it.

The Cross Lake people who spoke to me, and I presume to other members of the committee, said “This bill will go through; it must go through because our brothers have agreed to it, but we will not go along with it.” They're not forced to go along with it, as far as I understand the legislation. It doesn't say the Cross Lake Band are included. They're included if they want to be included.

Mr. Robert Nault: They can opt in or out.

Mr. John Finlay: They can opt in or opt out. That's their choice.

Let's deal with what's on the table. It is not whether the referendum was right or not. The people from the department told us the money was to be paid on those dates regardless. That was in the original agreement, and they were fulfilling that agreement. Some people look upon them as a bribe.

Mr. Robert Nault: Could we have this debate another time?

Mr. John Finlay: I don't know, but we don't need to—

Mr. Mike Scott: It sounds to me like we should sit down and have an informal discussion. Unfortunately, I can't. I don't know if the other members of the committee can, but I'm going to have to catch a plane here pretty quick, so I won't be able to do that today. But I certainly would be prepared to do it the next time we meet.

The other thing I would say is according to the clerk there are already meetings scheduled next week where people have already booked their plane tickets and everything. I think it's pretty difficult for us to—

[Translation]

The Chairman: I'm sorry, but as you well know, this meeting is public and the full record of the proceedings will be posted on the Internet. Everything that is said is public, as this is not an in camera meeting. If you want to sit in camera, we can do that.

As far as a referendum is concerned, according to procedure, it's not a committee or the House, but rather the groups concerned, that must file a complaint with Elections Canada. Isn't that right? As a rule, it's the groups concerned, not a committee, who ask that a complain be referred.

[English]

Mr. Robert Nault: No.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Robert Nault: The Department of Indian Affairs monitors their own elections. They put somebody on the ground to do it. Elections Canada has nothing to do with it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I'm sorry, Mr. Scott.

Mr. Nault.

[English]

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, if I could, the government members will have a meeting on their own and we'll come to some sense of what we'd like to see done in the next two, three or four months. Then we will send a representative over to the opposition—that means everybody on the opposition side—and communicate and we'll have a discussion.

Then, hopefully, we'll come up with some sort of plan and we'll come and direct the committee as to where we'd like to go. We can do that. It doesn't matter if it's Derrek, or Mike, or Gilles, or whoever, we can get that done, and we can do it informally just by crossing the House and sitting down and having a conversation. We'd like to do that.

Mr. Mike Scott: Let's try to get it done by the middle of next week.

Mr. Robert Nault: No problem; we can do that.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.