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

[Grand Chief Ruth Massie]

We are allowed 15% of the existing budget to cover the administrative costs. I would say that 90% of the time our costs are greater than the 15%, but we're only allowed the 15%.

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

Then you allocate the rest down to the first nations communities?

[Grand Chief Ruth Massie]

Yes.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

We're going to move into our final round of questioning.

Mr. Genest-Jourdain, for a last question.

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

My question is general in nature, so it's up to you to decide who will answer.

At this time, do your nations have sufficient funds for experts to shore up the public consultations in your communities? I'm thinking here of experts in mining, for example, who could give the public accurate and comprehensive information.

[Fred Tolmie]

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

In terms of supporting and having the type of expertise that is required to assist the Nisga'a Nation to meet its requirements for participating in the environmental assessment process, we receive funds from the environmental assessment office. It is often insufficient, particularly for British Columbia, with their number of first nations that often participate in this, so they spread it amongst the different first nations in accordance with what they feel is equal to their interest being affected by a project.

Where we have succeeded in ensuring that we have sufficient funds is in engaging the mining proponent directly and entering into a capacity funding agreement with them to ensure that we have geologists and biologists who can look at the plans and provide us with the necessary information to make informed decisions. That's the process. It's mostly through the proponent directly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you. I think that completes that question.

Mr. Boughen for five minutes, for our final question.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you, Chair, and let me add my voice to that of my colleagues in welcoming you here as a panel this afternoon. We're very appreciative of the time you're willing to share with us.

I have a couple of questions. First of all, how does land use planning support sustainable economic development in the north? This is to any of the members.

[Grand Chief Ruth Massie]

For the Yukon region, our land use planning is part and parcel of our agreements for land use planning to accommodate economic development. It has to be implemented properly. For first nations in the Yukon, we want to participate in economic development, but we want to do it in a responsible way. Through our agreements we are charged to look after and protect our land, our water, the air, and so on, for generations to come, and it is our responsibility to ensure that this happens. We really think that with the land use planning in place, it involves all three parties to come to agreement to proceed. It takes away the uncertainty for industry and it eliminates the risk management of a lot of the activities.

Land use planning is very important for our region.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you.

I heard a number of presenters talk about the problem and fixing the problem. I guess I'm wondering how we define the problem, what is the problem, and then what ideas do you have to fix the problem?

I think Mr. McKay was talking about the problem in his presentation.

[Kevin McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the member for the question.

We know the minister and his officials have recently appeared before this committee, and again through one of the committee members we heard they went to some lengths to reassure the committee that all is well with implementation issues with respect to modern land claims agreements.

With the greatest of respect, Mr. Chair, the coalition does not share that view. We continue to experience frustration as our treaties and our self-government agreements are treated as agreements with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development instead of with the crown. For example, the issue that Mr. Tolmie shared with you all with respect to our attempts to negotiate the provision of services from HRDC...all they want is a mandate, and we don't think it should take this long to get a mandate. If the proper implementation processes were in place by the federal government, that mandating process could be more streamlined.

We are unable to have a means to measure progress against objectives instead of obligations. Of course, as you are aware, this is contrary to the recommendations of the Auditor General in this respect. Implementation continues to be handled by middle-level officials from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. They have little or no authority with respect to dealing with other departments; they have little influence. In fact, Deputy Minister Wernick, in a presentation made before the committee a few years ago, stated that that is one of the challenges his department has to deal with on an ongoing basis.

With respect to the need for an independent body, we strongly believe this needs to be one of the priorities, Mr. Chair; otherwise we are left with the current situation in which the department tells you everything is fine at the committee here, and then we show up as the coalition and we tell you these problems continue to exist. It leaves you and other parliamentarians in a difficult position. An independent body could, hopefully, provide objective evaluations with respect to all parties.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

Mr. Andrews, for a few last questions.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

How much time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Five minutes. For your last question you don't have to take the full time.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I actually have two questions.The first one is regarding the co-management boards.

A departmental audit showed there have been a lot of delays in nominations and appointments that have hindered some of the activities of the boards. So my question is, what accounts for these delays and appointments? What impact has it had? What measures specifically can the department take to minimize this? Are these appointments that are made by the minister...? How many vacancies are on these boards where the minister hasn't made these appointments? That's question one.

[Grand Chief Ruth Massie]

For our region, we usually make our submissions to the minister from the Council of Yukon First Nations leadership. Once its recommendations to the minister leave us, they do their background if they're following through, and we don't think it should take that long.

We have one submission that is outstanding from a year ago February. We did confirm that it was received within two weeks after it left the Yukon. I know our mail is slow sometimes, but that appointment or that acknowledgment has still not been realized for our area. It's very, very important to the board for which we have submitted the name. It's critical for our Yukon First Nations. We have no representation and have not had representation for approximately 18 months.

[David Kunuk]

I would have to concur; it's a very serious situation. Sometimes there's a quorum issue because there are so many vacancies.

That's probably the only thing I would add.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

I want to go back to Fred and our conversation earlier. We talked about HRSDC. You mentioned another society the government is dealing with. These training programs you're speaking with...the government has made agreements with all the provinces. It's nothing new for them to make agreements on this training with other governments. I would assume all these agreements are somewhat similar.

Why aren't you having any luck with this? You mentioned that some recommendations have been made to the minister. Are you aware of what these recommendations are and why you are being singled out?

[Fred Tolmie]

That's a good question, and it goes to some of our frustration. The member is quite correct. These agreements aren't new; they've been done with other treaty first nations. They're being completed with other institutions, and our request to negotiate an attempt and reach an agreement is to reach an agreement similar to what already exists. It goes to part of our frustration and lack of understanding of what specifically that delay is. I can't answer specifically. It was communicated to us that the recommendation that went to the minister is that the department should move forward and begin a process of negotiation and reach an agreement as contemplated by the Nisga'a Treaty, but so far a response hasn't been forthcoming.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

It's been almost a year now.

[Fred Tolmie]

That would be January. We're going to count from June 1 when we first had the meeting with HRSDC officials. We were informed the recommendation went forward at the end of June. From the end of June until now, we've played telephone tag. The response we got is that a mandate is still being considered. As I said, these agreements exist everywhere.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

You mentioned another society that they were negotiating with. Is this one similar? Did you want to elaborate on that?

[Fred Tolmie]

It's a very good service delivery organization. They are looking to serve northwestern British Columbia. We have just asked, under the terms of the Nisga'a final agreements, that their service area not overlap the area we are proposing to provide those services to Nisga'a citizens. We thought it would be a good idea for those negotiations with them and our negotiations to proceed at the same time, so that when they're implemented it can be done more easily. That's not happening.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Grand Chief, gentlemen, thank you so much for coming today and testifying. We appreciate the fact that you made your time available. We knew you were in town, and we appreciate you extending your offer to this committee and we appreciate the testimony today.

Colleagues, I just want to make you aware that Thursday's meeting is as was discussed. We'll hear from the Institute on Governance between 11 a.m. and 12:30 p.m. Then we will have a meeting of the subcommittee to discuss committee business, specifically witnesses for our study. If you haven't given the names of your suggested witnesses to the clerk yet, we'd ask that you do that immediately so we can have those put together for discussion on Thursday.

Thank you so much, colleagues.

The meeting is adjourned.