Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 6th, 2011

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Thank you very much, Chair.

I extend a welcome to our delegation today.

I'm new to this committee. Today I'm subbing in for our critic, Dr. Carolyn Bennett.

I'd just like to expand a bit on what was brought up a little earlier. The minister was testifying before this committee less than a week ago. When we brought up the implementation of the comprehensive land claims agreements, he said that most of the issues were largely resolved. He dismissed it—I will quote the minister—and said that “most of the issues have gone away”.

I was wondering if you could tell us, each one of you, about the progress and specifically about the implementation issues related to the agreements. What hasn't been largely resolved? Could you give this committee some direction? Could I hear from each one of you on that?

[David Kunuk]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

From the point of view of NTI, one of the biggest outstanding is the implementation contract, which is much like a funding contract. It is still outstanding. I think many areas of the contract would have.... We were able to fix things; I think there have been a couple of small minor fixes that the minister may have referred to, which is part of that legislation for land use planning and the assessment act, as well as the Nunavut Tunngavik water plan.

They're a bit late, but they're still coming; they're still at the infancy stage. But overall, I think a start to a funding contract would be a big start to NTI.

[Grand Chief Ruth Massie]

For the Council of Yukon First Nations, in our implementation I do believe that it comes down to the inadequate funding.

In our region, we get a five-year review of the renewal of our financial transfer agreement, in which we did declare all of the inadequate areas. That review stretched out to five years, and in the end, the technical officials who worked on it agreed to the recommendations. None of the recommendations has been implemented to date. It was not approved by the department. With our review, it is also with the whole Government of Canada, not just with the aboriginal affairs department.

[Fred Tolmie, Chief Executive Officer, Nisga'a Nation, Land Claims Agreements Coalition]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I thank the member for the question.

One specific example I have goes back to the treaty obligation monitoring system.

An essential cornerstone of sustainable economic development is going to be employment skills and training. Without employment skills and training, a lot of our people are going to be standing on the sidelines, especially in our area of northwestern British Columbia, where substantial resource development is taking place.

Being on the sidelines is bad enough. What would be worse is if we were to participate in these projects—which are under very harsh conditions—and if we were to go in there improperly trained. There'd be a chance some of our crew members wouldn't be coming home at the end of the day. And that's reality for us.

To get to a specific obligation that would be tracked under the treaty obligation monitoring system.... It's in paragraph 68 of chapter 11 of our treaty. It states:

At the request of any Party, the Parties will negotiate and attempt to reach agreements for Nisga'a Lisims Government delivery and administration of federal or provincial services or programs that are intended to:

a. improve the employability or skill level of the labour force and persons destined for the labour force; or

b. create new employment or work experience opportunities.

At the request of Nisga'a Lisims Government, the parties will negotiate and attempt to reach an agreement.

On January 28 of this year, we sent a letter to the Honourable Minister of HRSDC, informing her that we would like to negotiate and attempt to reach an agreement on the delivery of an aboriginal skills and employment training strategy program. On February 3 we received a polite acknowledgement from the minister's office that our correspondence had been received. By the end of February, we had received phone calls from officials from HRSDC, indicating that they would like to meet.

The federal election was called, so we quite appropriately put everything off until after the election. On June 1 we had an opportunity to meet. In this meeting I conveyed...well, first of all, we made it clear—it was our expectation that the treaty is clear—that there is a clear obligation to negotiate delivery of this program.

At the same time, Human Resources Development Canada was already engaging another society to deliver these same programs. So we felt it was important that we move forward and complete the negotiation in the same timeframe they're presently negotiating the delivery of these skills in our area.

Plus, we laid out the specific opportunities at hand. One is that we would develop and deliver employment skills training that is market-driven. We are meeting with construction companies that are willing to put their own money into this, along with the federal program and possibly Nisga'a Lisims Government. We're going to be able to add our own resources. So you've got leveraging of these resources, market-driven, that will enable our participation.

At the end of the June 1 meeting we were advised that they were going to seek a mandate from the minister's office. We were informed that a recommendation had gone up at the end of June, and that was all we heard of it. We're now in December. We have been making inquiries to find out—we anxiously want to move this forward because these opportunities are happening as we speak. Meanwhile, HRSDC is continuing to negotiate with this other society that they would like to have deliver these programs in our area.

The point is that this is an obligation the Nisga'a Nation has the right to bring to dispute resolution. After six months without a response, all we're hearing is that the minister is considering a mandate while they are negotiating with another service delivery agent in our area. We just don't feel that to go to dispute resolution is the proper way for the Nisga’a Nation to maintain its relationship with the federal government, consistent with the honour of the crown. Meanwhile, it is negotiating with another agency just down the road from us.

It's a bit of frustration, and to get to the point of why the Land Claims Agreements Coalition feels that, while there is a treaty monitoring system, what is missing is.... Yes, they acknowledge there is an obligation, but there is frustration on our side with the accountability in fulfilling those obligations, and a treaty monitoring system isn't in itself providing that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. Tolmie.

Mr. Rickford, for seven minutes.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to members of the coalition and their guests here today. As has been said earlier, we have embarked on what I believe, and I think what my colleagues generally believe, is an important process to understand economic development with respect to a number of, if you will, legal instruments that are available, modifications of opportunities that break away in the context of first nations, specifically the land, or the Indian Act.

Our focus indeed is on creating better economic development strategies and understanding in all the different parts we are seeing here at this committee and how we can all understand that we're jointly responsible, of course, for creating an environment that balances environmental protection with economic development. I think that's one of the themes we are hearing here today.

I just want to talk about this whole idea of what my line of questioning has gone around, the tools that exist in agreements. I hear you loud and clear. You've referred to funding issues, and that's on the record here, and certainly we'll need to understand that more, but from my perspective, there are certain regimes in these agreements that I'd like you to focus on in a technical way, if you could, for our further enlightenment.

This may be a question for you, David, more directly, in the context of Nunavut. Specifically, how are tools in the agreements, things like co-management regimes and land use plans, and others I'm sure you will tell us about, assisting members of the committee, but particularly in Nunavut, to participate in sustainable economic development in your region in particular? Grand Chief Massie made some representations as well around land use planning, and I'd like to give her a very brief opportunity to expand on that.

David.

[David Kunuk]

Thank you.

In the case of Nunavut, as I mentioned briefly, when Berger was around he asked us to agree on funding between INAC and Inuit and the Government of Nunavut. He wanted to stay away from the focal point of his sales pitch that Nunavut is in crisis, so in a matter of two months he asked us to go in and agree on numbers with the absence of the institutions of public government, i.e. the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal, the Nunavut Impact Review Board, the Nunavut Planning Commission, and the Nunavut Water Board.

In the absence of their presence we agreed on numbers, just so that Berger could do his bigger sales pitch.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

These are things that are like co-management regimes and land use planning. These are the tools we're talking about?

[David Kunuk]

Yes, I'm getting to that point.

Because of the funding where they had a shortfall—by far, all of them were short by $1 million, plus more, because it's a capacity-driven issue.... Nunavut is one of the interesting areas for industry, so the paperwork mounts up very easily. As everyone knows, there are miles of paperwork when there is industry interest.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

What specific tools are the industries interested in, David, that are contained in these kinds of agreements?

[David Kunuk]

Lack of red tape is probably one of the areas they want to see, but that red tape could mean that certainty is a big issue. In the absence of proper funding in these areas, that is a red tape issue on its own. Then, of course, there are wildlife perspectives in the case of the hunters and trappers organizations. They're a one-man show that has the same obligation as an environmental section of a government unit.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I've seen your economic outlook here. By the way, it's a really good report, and there are a couple of key points there on investment in the knowledge of natural capital and investment in the preservation of natural capital. That's a great way of framing it.

They are saying to reduce red tape. Is that what you're saying?

[David Kunuk]

There are different interpretations of red tape. Uncertainty is red tape on its own. Clear rules aren't there because legislation is not completely done in certain areas—that's red tape. Even ownership is red tape too, whether it be industry, Inuit-owned businesses, or what not, that creates red tape. So there are many ways of interpreting red tape.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Just for the benefit of the committee, is NUPPAA, for example, an important piece to this process? I mean getting that through, and getting on with that piece of legislation.

[David Kunuk]

I think that's definitely a great step towards certainty, because it will help define what the rules are in the area of land use planning and assessment.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I should say, all of the colleagues here understood—in the case of Eeyou Marine, for example—the need to get through that; as a committee, we're pleased to report that it has received royal assent. We worked very effectively as a team to identify that as a final piece of legislation in a constellation or process that consummated that. So I think we should be thinking about NUPPAA in those regards.

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

You have 50 seconds.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Fifty seconds—these time assignments never do this justice.

I just want to ask you about this, David. Last week, it was announced that the first royalty payment from the Meadowbank gold mine amounts to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2.3 million. It's an important milestone, indeed, for the Inuit of Nunavut and for Agnico-Eagle. How has settling this Nunavut land claim agreement facilitated the achievement of this milestone?

[David Kunuk]

The land claim agreement implementation process defines rules in relationship with industry, and within our own land management rules and procedures we've created and the royalty regime we've helped deliver, that, on its own, has facilitated the process we saw in the press release last week—not so much government, because this is Inuit-owned land. But I don't think we should separate the two when it comes to land use activity, because Inuit and other aboriginal people still hunt and harvest in many areas, not necessarily only on Inuit-owned lands.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you very much, Mr. Kunuk.

Mr. Genest-Jourdain, you have five minutes.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

[The member speaks in his Native language]

Hello, Ms. Massie.

My questions relate to the co-management and management boards. You raised this subject earlier. I'd like to hear your opinion as a stakeholder on the ground.

Are these management boards an organizational vehicle, do they constitute a corporation under the act governing companies? What is the typical composition of the co-management boards associated with land claims agreements? Could you tell us which members sit on these co-management boards?

[Grand Chief Ruth Massie]

Yes. In the UFA, we have the boards and committees. Some of them are public advisory boards. The seats on the boards and committees are equal. They work together, technically. They come forward with recommendations, usually through a consensus-building exercise. Their recommendations on the subjects they address go for approval to the Yukon government minister responsible. It comes down to the Yukon government minister giving final approval.

There has been public consultation on this due to dissatisfaction of the Yukon public, in most cases. When it comes down to a disagreement, there are recommendations to go to arbitration, mediation, or even dispute resolution, which is not adequate at this time because it's not working. All parties have to agree on dispute resolution and arbitration. If one party disagrees, it doesn't proceed. As the recommendations come forward from the advisory group, and lots of them go through the public consultation process, they go to the minister. The minister has the opportunity to say yes or no to a situation, whether it's for or against the public.

It's quite concerning that we don't have a process to continue adjudication to satisfaction. For the most part, most boards and committees work. The general public also participates as committee and board members, as do the other governments.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

There's an additional minute if anybody has anything.

Ms. Duncan.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I have a quick question. The members mentioned your request for an independent audit review body separate from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. It would report annually. It would be something like the Auditor General. Would somebody on the coalition like to elaborate on that and on why you're calling for that?

[Kevin McKay]

Yes. Thank you for the question.

Mr. Chair, through you, the coalition strongly believes that there has to be an independent body that reports directly to Parliament on all of these issues. That's the only way we can effectively, first, assess the situation, and second, decide on an appropriate action plan, with full disclosure to Parliament on a regular basis.