Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Sept. 19th, 2017

[Stephen Gagnon]

We generally tend to divide them between what happened before 1975 in the James Bay and then what happened after. That is how I would define that.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

You're working on things that have already been agreed on and people are saying this is not being lived up to.

[Stephen Gagnon]

To some extent. Let's say there was a numbered treaty out west and we have not yet fulfilled all the terms of the treaty land entitlement. That would be a claim that I would deal with. However, we also deal with just management of lands and assets, so it's not only treaty-related in my world.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

The border between Alberta and the Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories, and B.C. and the Northwest Territories is all grey, yet I imagine there are some sorts of negotiations going on with that area. How do the jurisdictional boundaries with the territory and the province affect specific land claim? I note that my riding nearly goes up to there. The first nations in the area don't distinguish between Saskatchewan, Alberta, or the Northwest Territories. How does that play into it? Are there hard lines when it comes to a specific land claim agreement and provincial and territorial boundaries?

[Stephen Gagnon]

Are you asking about specific claims or a specific comprehensive claim?

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Member, you have only a second to respond.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Oh, okay. I'm running out of time already.

[Stephen Gagnon]

I don't want to be flippant, but it is complicated. We do have cross-boundary claims that we have to deal with too that are more jurisdictional.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Do you have any examples of a cross-boundary claim?

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We'll be able to answer that in the next round, I hope. Thank you.

We're moving on to MP Will Amos.

Sorry, Arnold, but we ran out of time.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate this opportunity. As a new member on this committee, I'd like to say hello and thank you for welcoming me. I'd like to start by saying meegwetch to all of the Algonquin constituents in my riding of Pontiac, on whose traditional lands we now sit, for the advice they've given me over the past months and years as to how they see crown-indigenous relations. My education in this regard has been a slow evolution. I really have them to thank.

I'd like to follow up on the line of questioning around specific claims. It's wonderful to have this expertise from the department here. For those who are not aware, the Algonquin of Kitigan Zibi have been undertaking a specific claim negotiation with the Government of Canada for some time now.

I think one of the most interesting challenges around our road to reconciliation is engaging non-indigenous people in these challenging issues. I think it's fair to say that fewer than 0.1% of my Pontiac constituents are aware that there is a specific claims process negotiation with the Algonquin, or have any understanding of what that might entail. While I appreciate that there are confidential aspects to this negotiation—and those are really important—I think it would be helpful if there was, on the public record, what the average Pontiac resident should understand around the specific claims process that is being undertaken with the Algonquin.

I wonder if Mr. Gagnon could please outline what the average constituent in Pontiac needs to know about the specific claims process vis-à-vis the Algonquin.

[Stephen Gagnon]

Well, without getting into specifics about the actual claim—and fortunately, I'm not really up to speed on all the actual specifics, so I'm probably not going to get myself into a bunch of trouble—I guess I would say that the average citizen needs to know that the process we're going through is an acknowledgement that Canada has done something in the past that it needs to fix, that we've somehow wronged the first nation and we need to find a way to reconcile that, if I can use that term, or correct what happened in the past. They need to know that if land interests are going to be at play, there will be consultations on that, but ostensibly this is an issue that the Government of Canada has acknowledged and is trying to settle, to correct something it either never did in the past or it did incorrectly in the past, and there needs to be some kind of agreement to solve it.

I don't know if that goes far enough, sir.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Sure. That's helpful.

I wonder—apart from the obvious circumstance in which there's a third party landowner whose interests would be affected—if there are circumstances in which public consultations that occur in communities would be affected by a specific claim.

[Stephen Gagnon]

I don't know for sure, but, for example, in cases where crown land would potentially be part of a package, there will be a public consultation session. If it's just financial though, I don't know whether that would be the case.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I have read the briefing notes with regard to how specific claims are compensated, the rules around situations in which there was an illegal or inappropriate taking of land, and the valuation of that land at the time of the taking. I wonder if you could elaborate a little further on how the government approaches the compensation issue, and how first nations like the Algonquin are able to use those funds thereafter once they are compensated.

[Stephen Gagnon]

I could answer the second part of your question first. The first nation would decide how it's going to use its lands. Typically there are trust agreements put in place. We don't generally get involved in how the money is used.

The first part is much more technical, and I might be getting a little out of my depth in how we do that. It sometimes depends. There's often a loss-of-use component. Often the value of the land at the time is brought forward. There are many ways to bring forward loss from a historic loss.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

This is going to be the last round, and it's going to Kevin Waugh.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

I too am new to this committee, so thank you very much.

I'm from Saskatoon. I was a trustee for 10 years with the Saskatoon Public Schools division, and we have a unique agreement that we signed two years ago with the Whitecap Dakota. I'm going to say it was a unique agreement because Saskatoon Public looks after Whitecap Dakota education. We're on their reserve from K to 4, and then they come into the city of Saskatoon and use our schools. In fact, we named one of our schools in Stonebridge Whitecap. We opened it last week.

Why can't we do more of these agreements between cities and first nations? They're reaching out. We've all seen their education numbers for graduation. You know that this agreement took years and there was a lot of paperwork back and forth, but it was a celebration. This agreement is the first of its kind. I think it's a template for everyone in this country to follow.

I would like your thoughts on the agreement between the Saskatoon Public Schools or the board of education and the Whitecap Dakota.

[Perry Billingsley]

I think it was a very positive development. I think it is an approach, and I know that Chief Bear is addressing the indigenous education component at home in Whitecap Dakota.

These kinds of agreements between communities and first nations exist all over the country. They are very much under the radar. They are not necessarily on education, but they are on the delivery of different services, education being one of them.

It is the education component. What has been done in Saskatoon I think is very valuable.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

It's something to follow up on. We all have stats. I've seen the stats out of Nova Scotia and I'm very encouraged. Everybody wants graduation rates. Sometimes, through accountability, it's hard to get graduation rates out of certain areas in this country. My province is Saskatchewan and at times nobody wants to admit there have been difficulties. We do need to move that forward and get people pushed across the line of a grade 12 education.

[Perry Billingsley]

Yes, I quite agree, and that is what we're hoping will come out of the recent agreement that was signed with the Anishinabek First Nation. I believe that 23 first nations signed on. We have a good-sized aggregate that gives us some of the elements of school boards and that kind of a thing. That agreement was complemented with an agreement between the Anishinabek and the Province of Ontario in terms of looking at curriculum development and results and transferability between school boards.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

I love that. We don't need to reinvent this. How do we get that pushed across the country? It looks like it's working. I'm going to reach out to them after this, but I am tired of each school board and each district doing their own little thing, when we have seen successes here obviously. How can we share those successes?

[Perry Billingsley]

We are very active in trying to share the approach of the sectoral self-government arrangement. I know that the education branch is very active. There's the example of a Manitoba school board that was put in place. I'm afraid that I'm blanking out on the name, but that is another approach.

I know that some Treaty No. 4 first nations from Saskatchewan are interested in pursuing that kind of approach.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

I won't go into that. We're here more about land claims.

On your comprehensive land claim policy, what is the status and the current work taking place now to update the comprehensive land claim policy? It's on page 6 here.