Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 4th, 2013

[Sophie Pierre]

We do, and right now I guess we fill that, because there is no other body that is specifically set up for that in British Columbia.

The intent, from what I understand of what Grand Chief Kelly was talking about, is that through the AFN and the review of the comprehensive claims policy, this particular issue, of course, is a national issue. So there would be a body set up that would deal with that at a national level.

What I get concerned about is when the made-in-B.C. treaty process is brought into a national exercise. The parts that make it important in British Columbia, which is that we have very few historic treaties—we have only two historic treaties, whereas the rest of the country has historic treaties, so they're on a different page. It gets a little bit worrisome about how we would deal with that.

I should say that as the BC Treaty Commission we have made recommendations to the treaty revitalization process that is going on right now. We made that presentation last year, I believe to the Senate committee. We made that recommendation that as we go through treaty rewrite, we look at enhancing and making it very specific and giving some teeth really to the commission to have a role in supporting the dispute resolution for overlapping claims.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Do you have any views on the amendments that were proposed by Stó:lo to the legislation?

[Sophie Pierre]

I would like to ask my colleague to speak to that. This thing has gone on for...it has been here for two years. It's a matter of concern that this hasn't moved forward much faster than it has up to now. If we're going to be looking at any amendments, they have to be set into some kind of timeframe to get this thing.... Either we should do this and stay with what we put in place by way of a treaty process or find something else. I don't think we can drag this out forever. National reviews sometimes drag out.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

We'll turn now to Mr. Boughen for seven minutes.

Oh, pardon me. Mr. Haggard wants to speak.

[Sophie Pierre]

Yes, my colleague was going to speak specifically to the question on the amendment.

[Dave Haggard]

This is still a long way from a conclusion, but I think it has showed promise. But regardless of whether a new organization is set up to deal with overlap and shared territory disputes, somewhere in the parameters there has to be, in my view, something that brings a final and binding conclusion to the issue.

I don't know that many first nations are prepared to go down that pathway. Some may be and some may not be. Some of my colleagues and friends, where I come from, I suspect would not be. But it's worth a try, and I think it's something the first nations have to come to a conclusion on, to begin with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Mr. Boughen.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Let me offer thanks to the panel for taking time out of your busy schedule, I'm sure, to appear here and share with us today. Welcome.

Ms. Pierre, you were present at the committee on October 25, 2011, and you answered some specific questions regarding the Yale First Nation negotiations. Since then, your commission has made various attempts to assist with an outstanding overlap concern between the Yale First Nation and Stó:lo organizations who have been here speaking with various senators.

What role did the British Columbia Treaty Commission play in attempting to resolve the competing claims of the Yale First Nation and the Stó:lo, and what has been the result?

[Sophie Pierre]

That's what we were describing earlier. A mediator was appointed, and we tried to bring the parties together to help with that process. Many other efforts have been made, from the commissioner responsible for that table as well as from the rest of the commission, to provide opportunities, to provide resources, to provide whatever we could to have the parties come together and resolve this issue.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

And so far, there has been no luck?

[Sophie Pierre]

Unfortunately, no.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

The British Columbia Treaty Commission is noted as saying that one first nation cannot in essence veto another first nation's treaty.

What is the British Columbia Treaty Commission's rationale for taking this position?

[Sophie Pierre]

The way we're describing it is that if the treaty that Yale and the other two parties have negotiated.... Granted, there are overlapping claims with the rest of their Stó:lo people, but if we look at the way the process was set up—and the first nations were responsible for setting it up this way—they agreed that a first nation would identify themselves, come forward, identify their territory, and be accepted into the treaty process. If certain things were set out in their statement of intent—their readiness, etc.—then they would move through the treaty process.

Yale has been going through the process for 18 years. It's not as if.... There needed to be accommodations or protocols reached amongst the people on how they're going to continue to use that process, because it's clear that this is shared territory that has been used by the Stó:lo people for many years. At some point, after you have gone through all of...and everyone has made...and we suggest in our presentation to you that both parties have made best efforts and there is still no resolution.

We have one party that has negotiated a treaty with the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia. If it does not go ahead, we're suggesting that it creates a veto. We're asking whether that is really what we want to do.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Okay. How does the Yale First Nation agreement compare with the B.C. first nations final agreements?

[Sophie Pierre]

I'm sorry, I don't follow the question.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

The comparison between the agreement with B.C. first nations—

[Dave Haggard]

Is that with the ones that have been done?

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Yes.

[Dave Haggard]

They all have their different nuances. All of them have overlapping issues, shared territory issues. We helped to resolve one on the west coast with Maa-nulth and Tseshaht. They all have those issues, but each treaty is negotiated separately by those nations that do the negotiations, so there are some things that are the same, and some things that are very different.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Is the similarity between treaties not big enough to cause both parties to step back and have another look at it?

[Dave Haggard]

They've been stepping back for 20 years.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

That hasn't been finalized yet.

I have a last question for you. How will the final agreement provide the Yale First Nation with more governing authority over its own affairs?

[Sophie Pierre]

Right off the bat, when you have “effective date”, then the laws that they have set up, the jurisdictions that Yale has assumed, come into place on the day the agreement comes into effect. That then eliminates the Indian Act and it eliminates the responsibilities that are found under the Indian Act and places them squarely with the Yale government. They are responsible for that.

The whole point of getting into treaty negotiations is that you negotiate for specific jurisdictions where you want to have the responsibility for your people in order to have those opportunities, including economic opportunities, to develop your nation.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. Bennett, we'll turn now to you.