Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 8th, 2007

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

With regard to Mr. Campbell, I wonder if he could comment on the statements in the sixth paragraph of his brief? It refers to the means first nations have at their disposal to put forward their demands, and the fact that the federal government can hardly present offers to them that are equal or that go beyond those they could obtain otherwise.

I'd like to hear what he means by that.

[Ronnie Campbell]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yes, this is what we observed. Clearly the government set an objective to have those treaties negotiated by the year 2000. So they need a more realistic plan.

One thing, Mr. Chairman, that your committee might want to consider and that Monsieur Roy has talked about is the action plan the department is working on. Monsieur Lemay had asked a question about elected officials and what you could do. One thing I may suggest is that when that action plan is available--I'm sure Monsieur Roy would make it available to the committee--you may want to use that for further consultation and discussion. In fact, you may want to use it to deal with that very question of, given that action plan, how you think things are going to change. I think the department, probably by that time, would be ready to respond once they had that action plan in place.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

That being said, is it realistic to put an actual timeline to say once you sit down at a negotiating table, five years is the maximum amount of time you have or else there will be an arbitrator to deal with the issues? Is that realistic, or is it too complex, and are there too many different issues to be negotiating?

[Michel Roy]

Arbitration after five years presents a problem, in my opinion, because of the issue of the definition of rights. The first nations arrive at the table claiming that they have recognized rights, and we reply that they don't have to show evidence of these rights. We're trying to find a way to implement the rights and take into account those rights in our process...

what we call an orderly process to implement the rights, but we do not try to define the rights.

I don't know how an arbitrator could deal with this issue in this context.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Mr. Blaney, go ahead, please. I did not take any of your time.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Roy, welcome, as well as to your friends from British Columbia.

You said that in the past 15 years, society was more accepting of aboriginal demands regarding treaties and their financial impact. Earlier, Mr. Lévesque stated his concerns. I can understand the justifications for engaging in a process, but it's important to determine whether we have the means to get to the end of that process and see the overall repercussions of it. Sometimes this can be somewhat worrisome.

I'd like you to tell us more about your view of the scope of these negotiations in terms of the timetable and the financial impact, on the one hand. On the other hand, in the shorter term, you referred to three negotiations that are currently underway. What do you think are the chances that these agreements will be successful and ratified?

I'd like to hear your views on that. If I have any time left, I would have other questions.

[Michel Roy]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I will speak only about British Columbia. Studies were conducted two or three years ago that showed the absence of a modern treaty in British Columbia, and the fact that there was this uncertainty vis-à-vis titles and Aboriginal rights was costing the province approximately one billion dollars in loss of economic development and so forth. So there is a cost to that.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Is that a non-recurrent amount?

[Michel Roy]

The study mentionned one billion dollars, but I couldn't tell you exactly, I'm sorry. Perhaps Jeff could do so.

[Jeff Goldie]

Price Waterhouse completed a report about ten years ago that put a figure of that nature on it. There was a subsequent report commissioned by the British Columbia Treaty Commission, which revised that amount upward. It was completed several years ago. That's publicly available on their website.

[Michel Roy]

I think it was simply to demonstrate the impact of this. Like it or not, mentioning this type of amount and this type of impact attracts attention from citizens and from industry. Moreover, through polls that were conducted and the referendum that the province held on the issue of treaties, we saw that it had the support of citizens, in the final analysis, to go ahead with the treaties.

In addition, certain recent surveys demonstrated that even after the signature of the three agreements in the fall, there's been a 10% increase in support among BC citizens for treaty negotiations. One poll was on that very topic. This demonstrates that there is marked interest in this issue.

You ask me about the longer term. We have these three agreements which we hope will create momentum, because this will be implemented after ratification. Mr. Goldie talked about a potential for three or four new agreements in the coming year or 18 months. We think that will create momentum.

Moreover, we also have to examine more closely the development of interim measures that will allow for economic development in forestry, fisheries etc., in order to go ahead and not wait for the final agreement, because this is very complex. There's a lot of overlap among the various land claims. Almost 150% of the territory of the province is being claimed, I believe. This has to be examined very closely.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Have you put a figure to all this? That exercise has to be done eventually, since you're telling me that three agreements have been signed and there are three or four more to come. We're still talking about 47 negotiations, and that represents 60%. How do you see the overall scope of these treaties?

[Michel Roy]

It's clear to me that we will never come to an agreement with all the communities. For instance, we will have to have a solid consultation and accommodation policy as an alternative to signing a modern treaty. That's my personal belief.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Those who do get signed agreements would be lucky then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

A quick question, Mr. Blaney.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

That's all.

Thank you, Mr. Roy.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Madam Crowder.

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

I realize I tried to cram too much into my last question because I have such a short period of time, so I'm going to re-ask the question, because I didn't get the answer.

I also wanted to be on record around the fact that the treaty process in British Columbia did not start in 1993. It was the start of the BCTC process, but many nations have been attempting to get treaties for decades. One of the chiefs of one of the bands told me he started the negotiation process at the age of nine at his grandfather's knee, and he's now 63 and his nation is no closer to treaty. So the notion that it's only been 13 years is just not true. Some of these nations have been 50, 60 years. And part of it, I must admit, is because the Province of B.C. dragged its feet, but it doesn't negate the fact that many of these nations have been at it for decades.

The other thing I think is important to state is that the three treaties were initialled, but they still have a ratification process to go through in the communities, and they may or may not actually end up in final agreement. So I think that any celebration is simply around celebrating initialling, and it may not actually result in treaty in those communities.

The question I didn't get answered was around section 7.49 on page 20 in the Auditor General's report, which talks about, again, the view of first nations that there is an inherent right. In the Auditor General's report they talk about the fact that the federal government position does not necessarily come from a rights base, and in your own presentation you talked about it being a non-rights-based nature. I think that is fundamental to the lack of progress on treaties.

So please could you answer two things? One is on the B.C. mandate Mr. Goldie referred to yesterday. And I would be interested to know if we can get a copy of the B.C. mandate from the federal government. Does the B.C. mandate specifically say that the negotiators come at it from a non-rights basis? And if that's the case, how will your action plan address the lack of progress being made on these treaties because of that fundamental difference?

[Michel Roy]

Mr. Goldie may have more to add on that. I referred to it in relation to an earlier question, but it's true that we are coming to the table on the basis of a no-rights base. We do not come to the table with the acknowledgement that the group has some specific rights. They have to at least give us certain proof that they were there before and have some rights on that piece of territory.

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

Does that not fly in the face of the court decisions that have reaffirmed aboriginal inherent rights? We've got all of these judicial processes that the federal government is choosing to ignore.

[Michel Roy]

What we are trying to do with the comprehensive claims is have an orderly process to implement their rights, not to try to define those rights. For us it's less--

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

Why not?

[Michel Roy]

If it's based strictly on the acknowledgement of rights, then it means that the first nations will have to prove without any doubt that they have those rights.

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

Why shouldn't the federal government have to prove that they don't? Why is the onus on the first nations and not the federal government?

[Michel Roy]

The reason is that if we go with a rights basis, it will all be on a legalistic approach, which we try to avoid in those terms. That issue is being discussed with first nations. I know that as you said, it's right in their face. That issue is being discussed with them, but up to now that is the position of the government.