Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 4 - Evidence - February 26, 2014
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 26, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, to which was referred Bill C-16, An Act to give effect to the Governance Agreement with Sioux Valley Dakota Nation and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, met this day at 6:53 p.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Dennis Glen Patterson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. I welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples either here in the room or via CPAC or the web.
I'm Dennis Patterson, chair of the committee, from Nunavut. Our mandate is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada generally. This evening we will continue consideration of Bill C-16, An Act to give effect to the Governance Agreement with Sioux Valley Dakota Nation and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.
Yesterday we heard from the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. Three of the five individuals who testified before us yesterday were able to arrange their schedules to be here again today. I would like to thank them, on behalf of the committee, for accommodating our request that they appear again, especially on such short notice.
Before proceeding to the witnesses, I'd like to go around the table and ask members of the committee to please introduce themselves.
Senator Dyck: Lillian Dyck, deputy chair of the committee, from Saskatchewan.
Senator Watt: Charlie Watt from Nunavik.
Senator Sibbeston: Nick Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories.
Senator Ngo: Senator Ngo from Ontario.
Senator Meredith: Senator Don Meredith, Ontario.
Senator Boisvenu: Senator Boisvenu from Quebec, replacing Senator Tannas.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace from New Brunswick.
Senator Martin: Yonah Martin from British Columbia.
Senator Raine: Nancy Greene Raine from British Columbia.
Senator Beyak: Senator Lynn Beyak from Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues. We have with us tonight Mr. Stephen Peltz, Senior Negotiator, Negotiations — Central, from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada; and Mr. Lee Webber, Legal Counsel, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada Legal Services; and Mr. Bruce Slusar, Tribal Attorney, Sioux Valley Dakota Nation.
Gentlemen, the committee has asked me to ask some questions on their behalf to aid in our consideration of this bill, and it flows somewhat from our discussions yesterday.
The first question, which I'd like to direct to Mr. Slusar, has to do with consultation with the community. I understand that the consultation was largely undertaken by the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation. The chief mentioned in his testimony yesterday that there were some dissidents. I think that was the word he used. There was some discussion with the committee about whether we should be concerned about hearing from those who might not be in favour of the agreement.
I wonder if you could explain to us how the consultation worked, what kind of support there was for the agreement, and how significant were the so-called dissidents, please.
Bruce Slusar, Tribal Attorney, Sioux Valley Dakota Nation: Certainly. Thank you.
Good evening, honourable senators. It's good to be back here this evening to answer further questions.
In terms of the process by which the agreements were approved by Sioux Valley Dakota Nation, the process was very formal. In a sense, it was an all-party process. Early on, it was certainly understood that this process would be very, very important. This is a significant step for any First Nation to take in terms of becoming self-governing. As a result, the process was a negotiated understanding or agreement that preceded the conclusion of the agreement, and this process is ultimately described — I believe it's Schedule J of the governance agreement — so it's there to be reviewed.
The process was, again, undertaken by all three parties, so that all three parties had a hand, first of all, in developing the process. A lot of thought went into that process, and in fact the process was largely begun based on other processes that had been undertaken in other parts of the country with respect to other agreements of a similar nature. This wasn't anything that was, in a sense, reinvented from the beginning; there was already an established process by which the agreements largely — and mostly, I would suggest probably — relating to settlements of a large scale involving land with a self-government component were established and community approval gained in those processes.
This process basically followed that, with the exception, of course, that there was an opportunity — again, because it's a process with respect to another First Nation, autonomous First Nation — to have input. In terms of that process, where other processes were about three months in length, Sioux Valley Dakota Nation had decided that they wanted to have an extra month. They felt that three months was probably doable, but four months would be better. Again, that was an all-party decision to have an extra month, so there was that extra period of time.
That facilitated extra meetings. Meetings took place both within the community of Sioux Valley Dakota Nation, as well as in communities outside of Sioux Valley Dakota Nation, where it had been determined that there was a significant number of members who had resided, or were residing, or capable of attending. Those meetings took place within Manitoba, in larger centres outside of Sioux Valley Dakota Nation, in Saskatchewan, and in Alberta as well. A significant component of energy was spent on being inclusive with respect to those members who not only resided on but particularly off or outside of Sioux Valley Dakota Nation.
Ultimately, the process was guided by an all-party communications committee that met from time to time and oversaw compliance with the process that was outlined in Schedule J. Those processes were formalized in terms of any decision making. They were recorded, and ultimately there was a lot of planning to assure that in fact the process was complied with to the letter, as I understand it. So it was a very formal process, ultimately resulting in a significant approval rate within the community.
In terms of the numbers, I can certainly get those to be absolutely accurate, but roughly speaking, I believe that in terms of the numbers in favour — and I can again access those numbers — something like 458 votes were in favour and something like 200, 211, I believe, were not in favour.
There were a number of spoiled ballots — not necessarily the ballots spoiled, but as I understand it there was a very technical requirement with respect to the actual submission of mail-in ballots. I believe those referenced a mail-in ballot, because there was a mail-in component as well. I think there was a little tab or something that potentially needed to be part of the process and it was not, or something to that effect, which unfortunately resulted in the spoilage of those ballots. Otherwise, therein lies the overwhelming support and, as well, the ultimate approval, which again was in compliance with the process that was set out. Again, that process is Schedule J, I believe, of the agreement.
The Chair: What did the process require for approval of the agreement? Did the process require a certain percentage of votes in favour?
Mr. Slusar: Yes. Typically under the Indian Act and in other processes, there was a time — and my colleagues can probably speak to this better than I. As I understand it, there was a process at one point in time whereby the required threshold with respect to voting was 50 per cent plus 1 of eligible voters. I think we can all appreciate that, whether it is nationally, provincially or municipally, an eligible voter turnout neither meets nor exceeds 50 per cent. We know that within Canada, oftentimes elections are held and that doesn't take place. Likewise, I believe south of the border, in the United States, they don't necessarily achieve 50 per cent plus 1.
There are processes within the Indian Act — designation, for example — that still require that 50 per cent plus 1 threshold. In my experience, it's very often not met. It's a significant threshold to meet.
Of course, of the 50 per cent plus 1, you can appreciate a majority of that is 25 per cent plus 1 in order to pass something. So 25 per cent plus 1, being a majority of 50 per cent plus 1, would typically pass something by way of a majority vote.
In this case, there was an agreement that instead of being concerned with the threshold of eligible voters at 50 per cent plus 1, what was really of significance was that there potentially be a majority of those, which would be 25 per cent plus 1, to pass. There was no requirement with respect to the eligible voters turning out to be in excess of 50 per cent or more. The threshold was in excess of 25 per cent plus 1 of the voters to pass, and of course that was exceeded by a significant number. That was the threshold required in order to pass this vote.
That, again, is not unique to this table. As we understand it, that's been the standard for some time.
The Chair: My rough math — and I hope I've got this right — is about 68 per cent.
Mr. Slusar: That's what I recall, yes.
The Chair: Flowing from that, is there a dissident group that is organized? When the chief was talking about dissidents, was he just referring to some individuals?
Mr. Slusar: He was referring to some individuals. I know from time to time the number that has come up — again, if one were to do the math, it is something like less than half of 1 per cent. I think what's significant is that some of these individuals are not members of Sioux Valley Dakota Nation. It's very important to stress that. There are some individuals within the region. I invite you to read the local newspapers. These people are involved in activities not relating to self-government. They've been in the news of late, largely in proceedings within provincial court. Those are the individuals he is speaking of. Again, I think many of them are not members. Some of them certainly are not members, some of the particularly vocal ones.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Peltz, did you want to elaborate on that or add to that?
Stephen Peltz, Senior Negotiator, Negotiations — Central, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: Yes, if you don't mind, please, chair. Thank you.
This is an area where there's significant federal policy interest as well. Obviously, we want to know when a vote like this takes place that the result is legitimate. When Mr. Slusar talks about Schedule J that sets out the process by which this community approval process will play out — and it was a negotiated process — the federal interest there is to make sure at the end of the day we have a valid result. We're certainly satisfied that we achieved that.
In terms of the voting threshold, we've given some thought about the threshold for different kinds of agreements. We still do, in some cases, require that there be 50 per cent plus 1 of eligible voters who vote in favour. That would be in the case of agreements that modify or make changes to Aboriginal rights, which of course are particularly significant. We believe there should be a higher threshold if you're dealing with a treaty that's going to modify or surrender some of their Aboriginal rights; we would need a very strong mandate for that change to take place.
The self-government agreement is certainly a significant step, as Mr. Slusar indicated. But on the other hand, as the committee is aware, this particular agreement does not modify or there's no surrender of Aboriginal rights associated with it, so the Government of Canada is comfortable with a lower threshold.
The threshold we used for this particular agreement is kind of a two-part threshold, and it's always a little difficult to explain. I find it's easiest if we use concrete numbers by way of illustration.
Let's assume there are 400 eligible voters. With Sioux Valley, the numbers are higher than that, but I want to make the math easy. We require that there be a minimum of 25 per cent of eligible voters who vote in favour. If there are 400 eligible voters, we would require a minimum of 100 who have to vote in favour of the agreement.
Then the second part of the threshold is there has to be more ``yes'' votes than ``no'' votes. Obviously, if you had 105 ``yes'' votes but 110 ``no'' votes, that would not be approval of the agreement. On the other hand, using the 400 number for illustrative purposes, if you had 90 people who voted ``yes'' and you had no ``no'' votes, it would still not pass because it didn't meet that threshold of a minimum of 25 per cent voting in favour of the agreement.
In this case, I think the overall turnout was much higher than that 25 per cent threshold. As mentioned, the vote was about 2 to 1 ``yes'' compared to the ``no'' vote. It was quite a strong mandate.
There was also a period of time after the vote for an appeal period. If somebody in the community felt there was something irregular about the process, they had an opportunity to come forward and say as much, and then there would be some analysis done as to whether the process was regular or irregular.
At the end of the day, from the perspective of the Government of Canada, the threshold was met. It was not a narrow majority; it was a 2 to 1 vote in favour. No one challenged the legitimacy of the process, so at the end of the day we're comfortable that it was an appropriate threshold for this kind of agreement and that the process and result were legitimate.
Mr. Slusar: Just to add to that, Mr. Chair, as my friend pointed out, there was also an appeal period that was allowed as part of the process. To my knowledge, I don't believe there were any appeals.
Mr. Peltz: No, there were none.
Mr. Slusar: There were no appeals.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.
Now, on behalf of the committee, I'd like to ask you another question that perhaps needs some clarification. I think I'll start again by directing this at Mr. Slusar as counsel for the Sioux Valley Dakota, and that is with respect to section 35 of the Constitution of Canada. This did come up in the evidence and questions yesterday, and the committee is still in need of clarification.
There is reference in the preamble of the bill to the governance agreement that was negotiated and the government- to-government relationship that it envisions within the framework of the Constitution of Canada. I think some members of the committee are concerned about the Aboriginal rights of the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation members. The simple question would be: What is the relationship between this self-government agreement, as legislated in Bill C- 16, and section 35 of the Constitution Act? Is there a relationship? Could you explain how they connect?
There was some reference to a process. A memorandum of understanding was drafted that would allow for further negotiation relating to, as we understand it, these constitutionally protected rights. It has been fairly clearly said to us that Bill C-16 does not implicate those rights. It is not a treaty. It does not surrender Aboriginal rights, and there will be another process. Some members of the committee, in our discussions, were wondering where that other process will lead. Will there possibly be future legislation? Is this the end or the beginning?
I don't know if I'm making myself clear, but it's that relationship between this bill and Aboriginal rights as protected under section 35 of the Constitution of Canada. Can you help us to understand that, please, Mr. Slusar?
Mr. Slusar: I will try. Obviously, sometimes one underestimates the complexity, potentially, of some of these things, particularly when we're talking about section 35. I think one of the things we need to understand, and that's what we've been trying to stress here, is that the self-government process, or this process by which the self-government agreements and arrangements began, this process of negotiating self-government, began before the concept of dealing with the off-reserve Dakota claim or claim for rights to be recognized off reserve.
First and foremost, this self-government agreement ultimately builds upon the foundation, if we want to call it that, that section 35 of the Constitution Act provides. We can think of section 35 of the Constitution Act as a foundation for self-government, which again applies to Sioux Valley lands that are defined as the reserve lands of Sioux Valley Dakota Nation, or potentially those lands that Sioux Valley may acquire and add to its reserve. Subsection 35(1) recognizes, in a sense, the Aboriginal rights, and potentially treaty rights. So this negotiation is built upon that foundation for the purpose of recognizing Sioux Valley Dakota Nation as having that opportunity to be self-governing. We're talking about self-government.
What happened during the course of the negotiation, and later on, certainly towards the end of negotiating this self- government agreement, was that some letters were ultimately written by Canada. This had nothing to do with self- government. This had to do with the recognition of the Dakota people within Canada. The Dakota people have a significant history of being in Canada, and that history predates Confederation. The question becomes: To what extent, ultimately, do the Dakota people have these rights recognized within Canada? Those would be indigenous or Aboriginal rights. Not only do they predate Confederation, but from the perspective of the Dakota they go back to time immemorial. That's very separate from this self-government initiative. There have been letters written based on history that is actually post-Confederation, relating to events in history in which some Dakota were involved in matters that took place post the boundary between the United States and Canada, hence having come north following these events. That doesn't mean, of course, that from the Dakota's perspective this wasn't territory in southwestern Manitoba that they had always used and occupied over time, but therein lies the question.
Because of the position that Canada was taking, and because of some of the labels that Canada was placing on these people, and because of the processes, largely based on laws that have been adopted from Europe and then ultimately evolved here in North America, and because of limitations of actions, statutes, and because of doctrines that have their foundation in British law, ones called laches, et cetera, and because of Canada starting to actually avail themselves of these in matters pertaining to claims by indigenous groups and First Nations, and in some cases with some success, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation decided, in spite of the fact it was negotiating self-government, which again was in a rights-neutral atmosphere, that in order that they would not be prejudiced potentially because of some of the letters that had come forth from the minister's office, they had no choice but in fact to commence an action. So they did so. That, therefore, began this process of considering their rights within Canada apart from the self-government process, which applies on reserve.
It's in that context that ultimately Canada has become willing to consider an opportunity to discuss potentially a path, as we had indicated, towards an enduring reconciliation, and that process is, again, separate and apart from this process and this bill.
You asked whether this is the end or the beginning. It's a question of what is ``this.'' If we're talking about self- government, pretty much self-government is already codified. It's codified within the agreements. We don't need to define a self-governing First Nation any more than stating it's a First Nation that has a self-government agreement. Sioux Valley has that, bilateral with Canada and trilateral with the Province of Manitoba.
At the same time, it has legislation that will give life to this agreement because Canada will recognize this agreement and Sioux Valley's status. Likewise, Manitoba will recognize Sioux Valley's status pursuant to legislation that Sioux Valley is a government, a legal entity, and it can now create laws and operate through Sioux Valley Dakota Oyate government, something that is very important, significant and different from what is now under the Indian Act. In a sense, I'm not so sure we will necessarily need to be back with respect to that part of the equation, but that's Sioux Valley self-government on reserve.
Is this the beginning? With respect to the off-reserve issues that have been daunting for decades and decades — and again, it's only recently that Sioux Valley Dakota Nation decided, because of that potential for being prejudiced or having its claim jeopardized, having launched its action — the answer is that it's just the beginning. We've just entered into a memorandum of understanding to discuss the development of a process and hopefully a framework within which a negotiation can take place to settle these outstanding issues. Hopefully one day that will result in a settlement. It will result in an enduring settlement, which again, if we use the test of reconciliation, will in fact be enduring. That's, of course, a significant challenge. We don't know how long that will take, but the important thing is the opportunity is there.
The other thing that's really exciting about this is that Sioux Valley Dakota Nation, being self-governing, having that recognition of working together with Canada, working together with the Province of Manitoba, developing those good relationships, has every opportunity to succeed where others have not. That's largely through the hard work, as we heard from Chief Tacan yesterday, of building those good relationships.
Getting back to section 35, it provides the foundation upon which to build relationships. Some might argue that section 35 is a parameter within which to define relationships. We opted for building on the foundation rather than defining of parameter, and therein lies the difference, potentially, in terms of the approach.
The Chair: I think that was a very helpful explanation. There may be some questions.
Mr. Webber, I understand you wanted to add to that.
Just for clarification, this agreement, this nascent MOU, is between Canada and the Sioux Valley Dakota only, right? Shall I hear from Mr. Webber?
Senator Sibbeston: On a point of order, I think all of this is very interesting. It's historical, but I think the question that we had today dealing with this bill, and it's been said, is that it's not a modern land claims agreement. It's not a treaty. It doesn't have the protection of section 35. That's what we wanted to know. If you could elaborate on that point we will be satisfied, I think.
Mr. Slusar: Thank you. That was considered, Senator Sibbeston.
As I think I alluded to yesterday, there was a point during the negotiation, going back a number of years, where it was raised at the table: Do we want — and when I say ``we,'' the question was posed to Sioux Valley Dakota Nation, and it was considered by Canada, and we discussed it at length. The question was: Do we, as all parties, want this to be a treaty? For the very reason that you've already pointed out, which is, of course, under section 35, it would then have the protection, whatever that means, of section 35. In a sense, what it means is that it would be very difficult to change. It would be pretty much codified as constitutionally protected and difficult to change.
In order to achieve that, all parties discussed it — Manitoba, of course, was part of that discussion — and determined that we would then have to embark on very specific definitions and defining the jurisdictions, and that that was going to be an onerous task, obviously, but perhaps unnecessary. If we were to determine a broad statement of jurisdiction and then descriptors as to what that might entail — ultimately the standards that might have to be applied and agreed to and then a way to resolve any inconsistencies — if that was all that was required to facilitate the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation becoming self-governing, we didn't necessarily need to have this achieve treaty status.
The second thing, though, and this was very important to the people of Sioux Valley Dakota Nation, is that their understanding of ``treaty'' was that they would have to give up something with respect to achieving treaty status. That, to them, is something they're not prepared to do. One of the reasons they're not prepared to do that is because of these other outstanding issues off reserve.
Really, Sioux Valley Dakota Nation is not prepared, and they're fully aware that this is not a treaty. That's why the agreement states specifically that this is not a treaty. It does not create; it certainly doesn't abrogate, derogate; it doesn't have anything to do, in a sense, with Aboriginal rights, other than perhaps the right to be self-governing. But it's certainly something that has been discussed at length, and the decision was made that this would not be a treaty.
Having said that, the opportunity potentially was there, but I dare say we would probably still be negotiating with probably no end in sight. That's why it's important that these two processes be kept separate and apart.
Senator Sibbeston: I think what I wanted to hear, and I think what we want to hear, is that this agreement and this legislation won't have the force of section 35 of the Constitution. The difference is that the agreement and this bill can be amended by Parliament. In this case, Parliament is supreme in terms of changing it.
But in a different one, where section 35 is involved, where the agreement is protected and recognized under section 35 of the Constitution, Parliament is not supreme. Section 35 of the Constitution is supreme and would protect the agreement, so there's a difference. It's not as weighty or enforceable as a treaty or a modern land claim that has the protection of section 35. There's a real difference, and this is lighter, in a sense.
Mr. Slusar: Absolutely; there's no question. Sioux Valley Dakota Nation is certainly cognizant of that.
One of the things that had been raised was that as we move forward with respect to the off-reserve issues, for example, if an agreement is made and becomes enduring and people are all satisfied and comfortable with it, there's still an opportunity that it could potentially be a treaty, and this could then be a part of that.
I say that because, again, Sioux Valley Dakota Nation, as my colleague Mr. Peltz referred to yesterday, is one of about eight Dakota, and there's a Lakota First Nation on the Prairies. Some of them have sat at tables in other areas of the country contemplating why they potentially were not historically approached to enter into treaty, whether it be into treaty or adhering to treaty. They have considered that. Sioux Valley Dakota Nation is aware of that.
One of the advantages to perhaps to not having this arrangement be a treaty also is that it provides flexibility. While there's the term ``protection,'' along with the term ``protection'' comes a cost. What is the cost? Potentially that inflexibility. That has to be weighed and balanced with where the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation is at this time in its history.
Right now it's satisfied with undertaking these jurisdictions pertaining to the agreement, becoming self-governing, continuing to evolve and work on these other processes. They are very significant and may well still afford the opportunity, as we've seen with the agreements, of being inclusive of a much larger agreement down the road.
Senator Sibbeston: If it ever changes, if someday the Sioux Nation wants this to be a treaty, there would have to be another bill which, right to the very top of it, recognizes Aboriginal rights and protections emanating from section 35. There would have to be a new bill recognizing that there's a modern treaty under section 35. Am I right on that, do you think?
Mr. Slusar: You are correct.
The other thing is there's language in this bill that contemplates exactly what you've said. If Sioux Valley Dakota Nation wishes at some point in time to visit this in the context of it becoming a treaty, again, that opportunity has presented itself.
On the one hand, we have this: It's a foundational thing, something to be built upon, and it could certainly result in a treaty. That has been contemplated. Right now the people of Sioux Valley Dakota Nation have spoken very clearly that they're not prepared for this bill to be a treaty at this point in time. There are historical reasons for that.
Senator Raine: Thank you very much for clarifying. I feel very confident that we're moving in the right direction.
I would like to move that we now go to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.
The Chair: We have a motion. I'd like to ask the committee, having hopefully answered the questions that the committee had: Is it agreed that we proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-16, An Act to give effect to the Governance Agreement with Sioux Valley Dakota Nation and to make consequential amendments to other Acts?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
If I can draw the committee members' attention to the bill, shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
I think we're getting into the meat of it. Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Sibbeston: You can lump them together, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Carried.
Senator Sibbeston: How many are there?
The Chair: There are 21.
Senator Sibbeston: You can lump them together. I don't want to say ``agreed'' 21 times.
The Chair: All right. If it's agreed, shall clauses 4 to 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clauses 10 to 15 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clauses 16 to 21 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the schedule carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Carried.
Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: No.
Senator Dyck: Senator Sibbeston, why don't you put in your comments, the distinctions between this bill and the previous ones? I think that distinction you made was very clear. You don't want to do that?
Senator Sibbeston: No. I'm satisfied with the bill as it is.
Senator Watt: I think it's important to make sure that — I know it's going to go through, so don't worry. If the other groups of First Nations in this country choose to go through another avenue, I don't want to see this become a stumbling block, being set as a precedent that there's no way the government will agree to you unless you go through that avenue.
I would like to see that statement basically saying that we are not setting a precedent for the other nations. In other words, this is not necessarily the model that would fit all.
As legal counsel, are you in agreement with that? Do you think your people would be prepared to —
Mr. Slusar: Absolutely, Senator Watt. This is a bill. This is an agreement with Sioux Valley Dakota Nation. This negotiation never set out nor does it today intend to set any precedent for anyone else. In fact, the language in the agreement, I think, speaks to that very thing as well. This is specific to Sioux Valley Dakota Nation, and we're certainly satisfied with that.
Senator Watt: On that account, I would be prepared not to vote against it, but I most likely will abstain.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Watt.
Mr. Webber, I believe you wanted to make a comment.
Lee Webber, Legal Counsel, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada Legal Services, Department of Justice Canada: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In response to Senator Watt's concern that this not be regarded as some sort of a binding precedent, the senators generally might find it useful to refer to the Government of Canada's inherent right policy. That is the policy pursuant to which Canada engaged in these negotiations, or at least most of the years of these negotiations. That is the policy that governs the Government of Canada's participation in self-government negotiations at multiple tables.
In that policy, it is very clearly spelled out that a range of possible mechanisms can be adopted by the parties at negotiation tables as they see fit. They can treaty protect an agreement. They can create a contract. They can have legislation. There is this menu of possibilities, and it is in the policy explicitly that essentially there's no one-size-fits-all approach.
I hope, Senator Watt, that provides some comfort.
Senator Watt: I think basically what you're stating is the fact that that's already within the policy.
Mr. Webber: Yes.
Senator Watt: There is nothing wrong with repeating that again within the context of this legislation, just to make sure, for clarity. The government usually asks for clarity. We're asking for clarity also, from the Aboriginal perspective. That's important to us. It's important to you and it's important to us.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Watt.
I think it's very clear from the record in this committee that this is not binding or intending to set a precedent for anyone else, in keeping with the Government of Canada's inherent right policy.
I think this has been a very useful further discussion of a complex subject, and I'd like to thank the witnesses for their participation.
In closing, is it agreed that I will report this bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Agreed.
Senator Sibbeston: Mr. Chairman, maybe you could provide information to our witnesses, and also to the First Nation and all the viewers: When is this bill likely to become law and assented to? I think they're very interested in having that happen. What do you think?
The Chair: We're very fortunate. We have the Deputy Leader of the Government with us here tonight.
Welcome to our committee. Can I defer to you, Senator Martin, to answer Senator Sibbeston's question on behalf of the government?
Senator Martin: Yes. I feel like my timing is perfect, and I'm happy to be here today.
We hope that once it is reported in the chamber and it's at third reading — sometimes when there is such agreement, the sponsor or the critic may rise and speak briefly. If there is unanimous adoption, then once it's adopted at third reading, it is ready for Royal Assent. So it could happen as quickly as tomorrow.
Senator Dyck: You want me to do two speeches tomorrow, is what you're saying.
Senator Martin: Since Senator Dyck is the critic, and we will be discussing this tomorrow morning with Senator Fraser, I hope that it can be sooner rather than later. It could be as soon as next week.
The Chair: But we could report the bill to the Senate tomorrow, February 27.
Senator Martin: Yes.
The Chair: And third reading would be subject to the readiness of the parties. We have the sponsor of the bill here in Senator Raine.
Senator Martin: And the critic.
The Chair: And I believe the critic of the bill will be Senator Dyck.
Senator Dyck: You want me to do another speech tomorrow, too.
The Chair: The short answer is ``soon.''
Senator Martin: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. ``Soon.'' You took the word right out of my mouth.
The Chair: With that, I would like to thank all honourable members of the committee for what I think was a very thorough discussion of the issues around this important bill.
I would like to suspend the meeting. If I can prevail on your goodwill, colleagues, we do want to go in camera to discuss our work plan for our infrastructure and housing study before we break tonight.
(The committee continued in camera.)