Evidence of meeting #35 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was negotiations.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
I would just caution members that you shouldn't refer to a document that we don't have, so if you have questions, they can arise out of a document, but don't pay reference to it, because it's not fair to the rest of the—
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Okay. I'm referring to page 11 of the deck that—
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
We don't have the deck, so please don't refer to it.
I am going to take 30 seconds of your time, Mr. Albrecht,.
Mr. Campbell, when the Auditor General was here last spring, I asked if there was going to be money set aside in a reserve, knowing there were going to be pending costs from the claims. I asked that question and the answer at that time was that there were discussions that were going to be held regarding putting a reserve together for settlement of claims.
Assistant Auditor General, Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Mr. Chairman, I don't have any further update on that. That would be a question for government. Government would be setting those funds aside.
Monsieur Roy might be able to help with that.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Claims and Indian Government, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
We are still having some discussion about that. Essentially, we have a source of funds for those agreements we are dealing with today. There is a source of funds for that.
Liberal
Gary Merasty Liberal Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
Recommendation 7.52 from the Auditor General says that the ongoing policy review process should take into account lessons learned from the B.C. process, case law, and the existence of other options in the federal government. That is the crux. My colleague Jean earlier talked about this issue.
The starting point of the negotiations is the go or no-go point. It helps determine the tone the negotiations will take and whether they'll succeed or not. Not wanting to fully recognize that rights discussion--and you have the first nations who come in with that position--is the fundamental issue. The chair talked about an arbitrator. The arbitrator to the first nations has been the courts. If they disagree on a starting point, they've been using the courts to establish their arguments.
There have been a few court decisions, on which I'd put an exclamation mark, that refer to past court decisions. If you take one court decision from ten years ago in isolation and you make a decision and evolve the next policy from there, one at a time.... Recently you've had court decisions that actually put a whole different perspective on that body of case law, for example, over the last 25 years. To me, that's the issue. Unless the federal government moves from that starting point—and yes, you can argue that the first nations should probably have some wiggle room as well—we're going to be in this process for a very, very long time.
The courts have said those rights exist. They've left it to negotiations to use those decisions as a framework to negotiate land claims and other issues. One party of course comes with the narrow, and the other comes with the widest, and that seems to be the downfall at the end of the day.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
Mr. Merasty, I also have Ms. Karetak-Lindell and Ms. Neville. I don't know whether you want to ask a question, or are you going to give them some time?
Liberal
Gary Merasty Liberal Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK
I'll just turn it over to them.
It is more of an observation. The recommendation here is to go back to the drawing board on your opening point. If you don't, the rest of the recommendations don't matter.
February 8th, 2007 / 12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
I have one very short, more of a technical, question.
We all know the 2010 Olympics are being held in British Columbia. I'm wondering if that has made your situation different from the rest of Canada. Has that, as Mr. Albrecht was saying, given more momentum to having some sort of target date? I know it's difficult to put a timeframe on it and objectives that are going to be met by a certain time.
Executive Director, Federal Treaty Negotiation Office, British Columbia, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
I'll try to answer that. Thank you.
Certainly the 2010 Olympics, development of pipelines and mines, planned forestry development, all these major projects that we hope will lead to prosperity and economic activity in British Columbia and for which first nations ought to be a part will benefit from the certainty that treaty negotiations can bring. It's one of a number of projects that would benefit from what we're doing.
Conservative
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
I have one minute.
I find an inconsistency in your presentation, Mr. Roy, that at one point you say “we anticipate concluding final agreement and agreement-in-principle negotiations with other First Nations this year”--I made a note of how many, and you've actually addressed that--but on the next page you talk about the existing treaty tables and that “only a minority are currently making substantial progress in negotiations”.
What is it? Are we making gains? Is there a momentum? What's happening?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Claims and Indian Government, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Thank you for the question.
Actually, we are talking about 47 tables. We have three who have initialled, and as was said, we don't know whether they will be ratified. We are hoping they will ratified. We are hoping to have maybe three to four new final agreements in the upcoming 18 months. That's why I'm saying it's a minority of tables that are moving forward. Four or five out of 47, I would say, is a minority of tables.
Executive Director, Federal Treaty Negotiation Office, British Columbia, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Let me add to that. I believe the Auditor General report quotes the review that the department does annually of progress in negotiations and refers to, I believe, 18 “productive” negotiations. So it's somewhere around 18 or 20 that are moving forward quite well. But even in the case of some tables that are quite challenged, our hope is that, with the agreements we've reached most recently, now that they are public and people can see the package available and what governments are prepared to agree to at this moment, they might encourage other groups to become more active, so that we can make more progress.
There will still be tables that are moving more slowly, for the reasons I mentioned earlier.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
Is there anybody with questions from the government side? No?
Okay. Are there any further questions from the Bloc?
Madam Crowder?
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
I have just one.
Are you aware of any tables where...? When I talked about the cookie-cutter approach, I was not talking about the three initialled agreements; I was talking about agreements currently underway. Some of the tables have been told that if they don't accept the template that was in those three initialled agreements, resources will be withdrawn from their table.
Are you aware of any tables where part of the negotiation has said that if they you don't accept these three templates, we'll withdraw resources?
Executive Director, Federal Treaty Negotiation Office, British Columbia, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
That answer is no, I'm not aware of any situation.
As I mentioned, apart from the BCTC funding, which is allocated at arm's length, we are prepared to send federal representatives to any table that is active and moving forward toward an agreement.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
Thank you very much to the witnesses. We really appreciate your taking the time this afternoon.
Oh, I have Madam Karetak-Lindell.
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
Thank you. I have another technical question.
When different groups have an agreement on something else—let's say a focused agreement on education—does it make it easier for you to work on the whole picture because some groups have taken the opportunity to work at a single-focus agreement with the government? And then, when they see that it's beneficial for all parties, does it makes it easier for them to work on the bigger picture, and also set an example to the other groups that it's beneficial to every one of us, as aboriginal people, to have an agreement that gives certainty to everyone—not just us, but the people involved also, the local, provincial, and federal governments?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Claims and Indian Government, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Thank you; that's a very good question.
Just take the example of B.C., where we have, for example, a province-wide agreement now on education. We consider it a sectoral self-government agreement on education. Of course, then it's a building relationship in question: people are learning to work together to have the capacity to take charge and control of the education part.
In terms of capacity-building, this is a way of getting first nations ready to assume greater responsibility in the future, so it's really something that is encouraged. We do it in B.C., and we are doing it in other parts of the country. These are what we call sectoral self-government agreements.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
That was a good question.
That's a thought, too: should the negotiations be split, so that one is talking about what I call actual infrastructure service needs while another one is talking about actual claim entitlement? Would it be advantageous to separate those two out?
Assistant Deputy Minister, Claims and Indian Government, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Effectivement, those are the things that we can do. We are negotiating right now, but it will be mainly related to the self-government component of the agreement. We will be negotiating sectoral self-government agreements. We have some negotiations going on in the country on child and family services or education, because they are priorities of aboriginal people in their communities. Those are the issues that they want to deal with initially, so we are having those discussions and negotiations.