Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 10th, 2009

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

Good morning, gentlemen, and welcome to our first meeting for the year. In 2008, there was a tripartite agreement with Nunavik. A Naskapi group with a reserve in the area disagreed with the final agreement. An agreement was signed so that those groups concerned could meet. I think the federal government took part in the meetings along with the Quebec government.

Have there been any other meetings since then?

[Michel Roy]

I'll ask Mr. Billingsley to answer that question, if that's okay with you, Mr. Lévesque.

[Perry Billingsley]

Yes there were, I visited the Naskapis to discuss this very issue, and the meetings are ongoing. As you pointed out, they're concerned about the agreement with Nunavik, but I think they're now working with the Inuit in order to find solutions to these concerns.

[Michel Roy]

So, there is now dialogue.

[Perry Billingsley]

That is right, there is an ongoing dialogue, now.

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

Whether it is an existing agreement or a parallel agreement, you can validate it.

[Michel Roy]

It all depends on the nature of the agreement and its scope. When we know that, we will see what our options are.

[Perry Billingsley]

The Nunavik Agreement was an agreement in principle on self-government, which involved a lot of ongoing negotiations. So, the Naskapis may greatly influence the final agreement on the negotiation.

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

Let's take Kitcisakik as an example or even some existing reserves which want to expand. They do not have any more space left, they are bursting at the seams. These people would like to able to set up businesses in their communities, have a future.

When you are faced with requests of this nature, do you need to consult with the province and get its agreement right from the outset when discussions are getting started?

[Michel Roy]

That depends on a lot of things, Mr. Lévesque. You are referring to additions to the reserves, to a community that wants to expand its reserve, and that involves a program which is actually separate from the claims process. There is a reserve expansion program under which a first nation may, if it meets certain criteria, expand its reserve lands. When aboriginals submit a claim, they have to prove that the federal crown is under an obligation to cede more land. That is an important distinction. When they come and see us with a specific claim, they have to demonstrate that the federal government owes them additional land that they would not necessarily have been given, and this would be the result of a treaty which was not upheld or a situation which existed in the past. If they are able to prove their claim, then negotiations take place. The province will take part in the negotiations since, generally speaking, these are provincial lands. So the province is involved. We have to be careful, there are two separate processes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

You have a minute and 15 seconds left.

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

Thank you. Did the Anishnabe Algonquin Nation identify you as an interlocutor with respect to Kitcisakik, for example? If they did, how far along are you in the discussions?

[Michel Roy]

Unfortunately, I find it hard to answer that question. We are not responsible for that file in our organization because it does not involve a claim. There is no land claim negotiation underway with that particular group. It has not come to that yet.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Merci beaucoup.

Let's proceed now to Mr. Rickford, for five minutes.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And welcome to the witnesses.

My question is bifurcated here. First, I want to know a little bit about a strategy in terms of the potential for the comprehensive and specific claims in the context of treaties that overlap provincial boundaries. As a subtext to that, I want to talk about disputes between specific nations that are part of a treaty, specifically Treaty No. 3, Treaty No. 5, and Treaty No. 9.

Treaty No. 5, of course, extends into Ontario. There's been discussion amongst some in the communities there--specifically in Sandy Lake, Deer Lake, and Pikangikum, which are in my riding--about revisiting the rights under Treaty No. 5 and about any processes that are available. But of course Treaty No. 5 has a very big territory, and first nations communities in Manitoba may be part of a comprehensive claim.

Then, of course, Treaty No. 3 borders Treaty No. 5, which is considering its rights within Ontario. There are some disputes about some land there, specifically in the Trout Lake area just outside of Red Lake.

To complicate things even more, you have NAN, a wonderful organization representing 40-some first nations across northwestern Ontario in the James Bay area; it includes members of Treaty No. 5 and Treaty No. 9.

Do you have a strategy for, or have you thought through, how you're going to work with those kinds of dynamics, and the extent to which Grand Council Treaty No. 3 is involved? Is there potential for a forum there on how to...? Moving forward, how will those rights and obligations be severed in terms of the specific treaties, dealing with, of course, the potential--or not--of Treaty No. 5 within Ontario to advance its interests?

[Michel Roy]

Thank you for the question.

Yes, that's a very complex situation. With NAN, for example, a group of many first nations involved as signatories of different treaties, they are involved right now with us on self-government negotiations as a group. So as a group, they have to define among themselves a constitution and how it will work among them as a self-government arrangement. So it's about the jurisdiction, not necessarily about the historic treaties.

In terms of historic treaties, when, for example, you talk about the group that is mainly in Manitoba, but coming from Ontario—

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Treaty No. 5, yes.

[Michel Roy]

In Manitoba, you have a treaty commission, with a treaty commissioner, so they have a forum for discussion around issues, around the implementation of historic treaties. We don't have those in Ontario right now.

We know that following the Ipperwash inquiry, the Ontario government has been looking into eventually establishing a treaty commission in Ontario. They are having some discussions right now. So that could eventually help the discussions in Ontario on the implementation of historic treaties. But the implementation of historic treaties has always been an issue for the federal government in the relationship with the first nations that signed historic treaties.

As I said, in Saskatchewan and Manitoba we have the treaty commissions, so we have a forum for discussion there. In Ontario we have a forum for discussion with the different signatories, but Ontario is looking right now at maybe creating a provincial commission, which would then be a forum for discussion to address those issues of implementation.

Is there anything you want to add?

[Perry Billingsley]

Yes.

One of the things that came out of the political agreement with the specific claims renewal was that we held a treaty conference in March 2008. Coming out of that, one of the things we're doing is working with the Assembly of First Nations and the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations to put together an engagement process in which we will be using treaty commissions. We also have treaty tables in various areas to talk with treaty first nations and begin to address ideas on, as you mentioned, the concerns around rights and hunting and fishing, for example, and the issues that come out of the rights related to the treaty.

So we have a process in place where we're talking with people to try to understand where everyone's coming from.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

I'm sorry, Mr. Rickford, you've used up your time.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I was just getting started, my goodness.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Rickford.

Now we'll go to Ms. Crowder, five minutes.

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

Thank you. I'm going to focus on comprehensive claims.

You're saying that there are 80 comprehensive claims in negotiation right now. Do you have any idea how many nations don't have comprehensive claims and aren't in the system?

[Michel Roy]

Not in the system?