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

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Merci beaucoup. Do you want to use the rest of the time? You have only 40 seconds. Do you want to get a short one in?

Mr. Tonks is next. You have a time slot after that.

Mr. Tonks, welcome to our committee this morning. You have five minutes.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm almost inclined to invite Mr. Rickford to take my time, based on the information he has and the line of questioning he had. I'm sure he'll get some time.

From a natural resource and environmental perspective, I would be interested, and I hope the committee is interested, in the process.

Using this as a case study, I see the Tsawwassen First Nation has completed a negotiation, and part of that, looking at the map, would involve offshore rights. I understand this is an urban first nations community that has negotiated this relationship.

From the perspective of Parks Canada and the Auditor General reports on sustainable practices in aquatic and offshore sensitive areas, I would be interested to know, once you have completed your negotiation, is there a contractual responsibility or accountability continuum? With the Auditor General not responsible for reporting, obviously, on that particular area, offshore, do you build into that process a responsibility on the first nations of reporting, after the treaty has been resolved or arrived at? Do you make recommendations with respect to that ongoing sustainable development responsibility?

[Perry Billingsley]

In terms of relationships and accountability, yes, there is accountability back to other governments, particularly other governments that are providing funding.

With respect to environmental management, because Canada has a relatively complex web of environmental management, first nations will have responsibilities with respect to environmental management, and the province has responsibilities with respect to environmental management in some of those same areas, as does the federal government, because of the nature of Tsawwassen—it being offshore, the shipping routes, all that kind of thing.

What the agreements typically do—and I'm afraid I don't have the text of the Tsawwassen agreement here in my brain—is assign to each level of government its responsibilities, and then it really focuses on how those governments are going to harmonize environmental protection and resource management and development.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

I'm not asking for the content of that particular agreement, but generally, does the treaty define the parties as levels of government, inclusive of the first nations that are part of that treaty?

[Perry Billingsley]

As levels of government, yes, in the sense that municipalities represent a level of government, and provinces represent a level of government. The treaty sets out the roles and responsibilities of each level of government in that context for any number of things, but including environmental protection.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

This is my final question, Mr. Chairman.

Municipalities are levels of government responsible under provincial legislation. But under the treaty, the first nations are treated as a separate level of government. So is there a defined route to report through on sustainable development practices?

[Perry Billingsley]

The short answer is yes. The longer answer would be that the treaty sets out the roles and responsibilities of the first nation in respect of those kinds of issues, and also their relationship and roles and responsibilities vis-à-vis the provincial government and vis-à-vis the federal government.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

I see.

Thank you very much.

[Michel Roy]

I would just add that when we're negotiating an agreement, we're always getting directions and mandates from the departments that are responsible for, for example, the environment or natural resources. We will get mandates from those departments in terms of negotiations; they're not things that we do by ourselves.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Now we'll proceed to Mr. Clarke, for five minutes.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you for coming tonight.

My question is on specific land claims. The negotiations for specific land claims can be very complex and difficult, especially when you're dealing with different territories and provincial jurisdictions. Very specifically, in regard to my riding in northern Saskatchewan, what's taking place right now is the Athabasca land claim, which has to do with the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, northern Saskatchewan, and Manitoba.

My question is this. How is this specific land claim proceeding through this new negotiation phase that we've proceeded to enter? With this being so vast and dealing in consultations with many agencies or groups, will this one specific land claim be able to meet the timeline set out from this specific land claims process?

[Michel Roy]

Thank you for the question, Mr. Clarke.

This table that you are talking about is not a specific claim. It's not covered by the specific claim policy. It's not covered by timelines or whatever. This is a special claim that we are dealing with. We have a special mandate for that claim. As you may know, we are quite advanced in the negotiations of that claim. We had an overlap agreement amongst the first nations, the aboriginal groups, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories. We have the support now of the Nunavut government on the overlap agreement. So we are really trying to finalize an agreement.

But it's not a specific claim, so it's not covered by the timeframe that we were referring to. It's really a special claim in that case.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Do we have a timeline or the best, most optimistic timeframe to resolve this? If you don't know the answer, just get back to me later.

[Michel Roy]

We need to renew the mandate, actually. That could take some time, but we can come back to you with more information on that.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

That would be great. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

You still have a couple of minutes, if you want to finish.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I could share my time with Mr. Rickford.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

You have two minutes.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Just for some appreciation of the background to my question earlier, I want the witnesses to understand that it was the richness of some of the stories between Kitchenuhmaykoosib Inninuwug and Sandy Lake, and of course Island Lake. For the benefit of the committee, there's a great book called Killing the Shamen. It's a Yukon book by Thomas Fiddler and James R. Stevens, which gives us a context for Treaty No. 5 and Treaty No. 9 and their historical relevance.

That being said, my last question builds on Mr. Tonks' question about the strategy for land management. It's about the provincial ministries of natural resources and how they'll play a role in disputes between some of the treaties of adhesion, specifically 3 and 5 in areas of northwestern Ontario, and how that might be dealt with in the context of the specific claim. It has a lot to do with things like power generation in places like Ear Falls and the rights to traditional land use cabin permits through the Ministry of Natural Resources. It's not always clear who has those rights on specific lakes, etc.

[Perry Billingsley]

The question is particularly complicated. It straddles a number of our different areas. Of course I can't speak for any of the provincial governments, but they too are bound by Supreme Court decisions in respect to consultation and necessary accommodation. They need to be very aware, as they pursue their land management activities, of those obligations with respect to the specific claims.

[Michel Roy]

I think we have to take into consideration that those decisions from the court around conservation changed the dynamics. In the past in these historic treaties area you had first nations living on reserve and development was happening on what they called “traditional territory” without any consultation. People were essentially saying, well you have jurisdiction over reserve land; outside of it we don't have to consult with you. With the court decision now, there is a need for consultation on the use of traditional territory.

It is not an issue in the context of specific claims. We are dealing with obligations under the historic treaties. Sometimes it's land that we didn't provide to the band, or mismanagement of assets.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you very much.

We now turn to Mr. Lévesque.

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

In James Bay in Quebec, there is the Peace of the Braves Agreement. Last fall, I think, the federal portion of the agreement was finalized. Was that part of a specific claim? Are there any specific claims to be dealt with in that area?