Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 25th, 2016

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Did shared royalties create some finality in resource development? Was that completed comprehensively within your agreements?

[Grand Chief Ruth Massie]

I think the resource development royalties are identified in our agreements. The Council of Yukon First Nations has the umbrella agreement. It has established the legislative processes and boards and committees to work with both governments. We really are making great strides to educate the general public so they can also contribute their share to our issues as well.

I see lots of benefits from our agreements. Our agreements in our region are 20 years old. We have new government structures. They've enabled us to employ a lot of our own citizens. There are better programs and services directly at the community levels. We don't have to ask, hat in hand. We also co-manage and share programming with the Yukon government.

It's not always a straight line. Every once in a while we have our difficulties in working with another government, with sharing. First nations have always shared. We've always cared. We've always helped. It's not always that way coming toward us. A lot of it is a learning experience. A lot of it is public. Perception has been positive.

We don't say our agreements in the Yukon are first nations agreements. They're agreements for our region, and that includes every person there. There isn't one resident in our Yukon territory who has not benefited from our agreements. They're employed. It's increased the GDP in our region. It's brought up the population.

I don't know whether some of the new committee members know that under self-government we pay taxes, just like every other Canadian. I know there was a Canadian perception many years ago that you were giving the first nations all this money. We borrowed that money from Canada and we paid back every penny, plus 6%. The Canadian government charged us 6% interest on our land claim loans over a 15-year period. It's almost as if we bought our own land back again.

Now we're working with industries that want access to our resources. We want to be interested in development as well, but we want responsible development, and that's what these agreements are all about. There are rules and regulations on how you play in our backyard, and industry gets that. They're a little more positive than Canada or the Yukon government has been, and they're respectful. That's all we ask: be respectful in our yard, because when you leave, these are our homelands, and we're still here. We don't want any more messes to clean up.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Okay, thank you. I'll tell them not to despair. There's still some good hope out of this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Mr. Fairclough, you had your hand up. There are about 20 seconds left in this—

[Cathy Towtongie]

The benefits for Nunavut are in our land deal. We knew there was something there, so when they found Sir John Franklin, after 200 years, we own half of that. We get exciting vehicles. Last year a vehicle came over the North Pole from Russia, and a sailing ship came from Romania trying to emigrate to Canada, so we get a lot of excitement when we see these strange vehicles in the Northwest Passage.

That said, I'll give it over to the CEO, but come to Nunavut and you'll see a different part of Canada. I've always said if we weren't part of Canada, we would have been a different country. The cost of living in Nunavut is very high. The structures are designed as if we're living under the regime. The Canadian taxation system is designed as if we're living in the south, because we're always paying taxes.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Thank you.

I'm afraid we're well over on that question, so we're going to have to move along.

I was remiss earlier in not also welcoming our colleague from the House, MP Romeo Saganash, who will be asking a question on behalf of Charlie Angus.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

He's acting on behalf of the NDP, but he does act as my lawyer as well.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to first welcome our witnesses to this committee and especially thank them for their presentations and their contributions to this important committee. I happen to believe this one theme: it's the most important committee on this Hill because of the impacts it has on natural resources and the economy.

You're right, Grand Chief, when you say that signing agreements with aboriginal peoples in this country is not only good for the environment, but it's also good for the economy of this country. I think it's a good path that we're on in signing these agreements.

I first want to start with a very philosophical question, I guess. In the second paragraph of your letter to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs, you talk about your group advocating for modern treaty implementation policies since 2004, and at the end of that paragraph you mention that:

In absence of this policy, the successful implementation of our treaties has been undermined by current federal operational practices and policies, which are inconsistent with the terms of our Constitutionally-protected agreements.

I want to ask somebody from your group to elaborate on this point because I think it's a fundamental one. I come from a land claims agreement area in northern Quebec, where we have the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, and I think this point is very fundamental because it determines the relationship between your nations and the crown, which is a legal and constitutional relationship as opposed to a political, policy-driven approach at the civil servant level in an era of nation-to-nation relations and reconciliation. I think that's a fundamental point, so maybe one of you can elaborate on it.

The second question is related to the fiscal policy. It is my understanding that the Conservatives quietly imposed—and the word “imposed” is important here—their new fiscal approach days before the election. Given the Liberal commitment to a nation-to-nation relationship, their commitments to treaty and aboriginal rights, their commitment to remove issues from the courts, what has the government or the department told you on this point? Can you describe in concrete terms how this fiscal approach will impact your communities? How will it impact your budgets and services?

I believe that the terms of our treaties contain a constitutional recognition of rights, interests, and benefits, so how will this new fiscal approach impact your communities?

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

I'm afraid there's just about three and a half minutes left there, so please do your best to be crisp. Thank you.

[Grand Chief Ruth Massie]

Thank you for the question.

You're right. This fiscal policy is being imposed. We have not accepted it because of the language in our agreement. How is it going to affect us if it goes forward? We will have no choice but to defend our agreements. That means going back to court, because that's not what the provisions in our agreements say. Our agreements say “shall negotiate”. If you impose something on us, that's not negotiation. I think that what they want to do brings us back to being glorified Indian Act bands again, with a plus. We would not be independent, self-governing first nations trying to look after our communities and our citizens.

Also, in the agreements we have the language defining our citizenship. It was our citizens who voted on those agreements. If we go back to this policy, it speaks to status Indians. Not all of our citizens are status Indians, but we are still responsible as first nation governments to provide programs and services for the whole of our citizenship.

As an example, my first nation is Ta'an Kwäch'än Council. It is a self-governing first nation. We have 432 citizens, I believe. Right now, though our negotiations, we get funding for 212 people, but we have to provide 100% of the programs and services to our citizens. Otherwise, we're discriminating against our citizens, and then you have two classes of people. You have the haves and have nots, and that's not appropriate. As indigenous people, that's not how we treat our people. We're all equal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Thank you.

Mr. Fairclough wanted to weigh in. There is still a minute and 10 seconds left.

[Chief Eric Fairclough]

We'd like to see the government suspend this approach to fiscal policy. We feel that if it is implemented, you violate the treaty. When you violate the treaty, which we signed together with you, you put into question the honour of the crown. To put it simply, we, together, should be defending the crown in this matter.

It's not good for our final agreements. It's very different from the rest of Canada, in that our agreements have been negotiated and protected in the Canadian Constitution. These things can't just be overlooked when developing policies like this.

A prime example of where we took action in the Yukon was the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. It was the same thing. It went down the road of violating our final agreements. We're in a court position, and the federal government is now reconsidering and wanting to amend those four points that we feel are in violation of our agreements.

I think this committee needs to examine that very carefully. We have a lot of professional people who know our agreement inside out. Work with us and help us get through this.The policy isn't working, and it needs to be suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, Andy Fillmore]

Thank you for that.

Before I invite the final question from Mr. Rusnak, I'm afraid I have to beg your forgiveness. I must get on an airplane, so I'm going to ask our vice-chair, David Yurdiga, to take over as chair to close the meeting.

Thank you very much for your time today. I'm very grateful.

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I'm going to get started right away, as David is in his seat now.

First of all, Kevin, I've been in Nisga'a Lisims territory. I was with the BC Treaty Commission as a placement student while I was in law school at Osgoode Hall. It's a beautiful area. I was in New Aiyansh. I stayed at Lorene's Lava Lodge, which is probably still there, a fine operation. I travelled to Gitwinksihlkw and Laxgalts'ap. I always have problems pronouncing that. It is beautiful territory.

What has happened with all of your agreements over the last 10 years under the former government is unfortunate. They've made them extremely difficult to implement. One of the questions I wanted to ask is whether there any dispute resolution mechanisms within the agreements that don't involve litigation, don't involve your going to the courts.

I don't know where you want to start.

[Grand Chief Ruth Massie]

Go ahead, Jim.

[Jim Aldridge, Legal Counsel, Nisga'a Lisims Government]

Among the different coalition members, there are different provisions. Virtually all of them include something about dispute resolution.

There is a range from the Inuvialuit agreement, for example, that includes the possibility of binding arbitration through a series of other agreements. Far and away the most common is arbitration only if both parties consent, and, as President Towtongie indicated, the federal government was loath to ever consent to arbitration.

Part of the NTI's settlement with the government includes amendments to the agreement to enable a unilateral demand for arbitration in specified circumstances, all the way through to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, which includes the Cree-Naskapi Commission as a very effective, albeit non-coercive or non-binding, dispute resolution body.

The short answer to your question is that yes, they have a variety of provisions for mediation, discussion, and negotiation, but rarely for binding arbitration, and that, unfortunately, is one of the reasons so many disputes have ended up in litigation, when one would think that litigation should be the last resort.

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I don't know how much time I have, Mr. Chair.

You touched on the subject of an independent commission. Do you have a recommendation for what that commission would look like, and what exactly that commission would have the power to do? Has the coalition contemplated that, and if you haven't, can you do that and provide that to this committee?

[Jim Aldridge]

That has been fleshed out in a certain amount of detail in documents that have been developed over the years, including what we provided to the Senate standing committee back in 2007.

We can most certainly provide material on that to the committee for its careful review and study.

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

As is the case with a lot of things that have been done in the past, such as studies by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and so many other studies that have been done by Parliament and the Senate, we don't seem to learn from those lessons.

A lot of hard work went into a lot of those documents. Often it's just a matter of going and brushing them off and sitting down with groups like yours and coming up with solutions that work today.

It's frustrating to see that you guys came up with these agreements and that over the last 10 years they've been essentially stifled. It really breaks that trust going forward. It's supposed to be a partnership. When I was in Nisga'a territory, there was a high level of excitement after the agreement was beginning to be implemented. It's sad to hear what has happened under that agreement over the last 10 years.

Is there any final comment on what can be done and what you see as we go forward?

[Chief Eric Fairclough]

I'll just say this very quickly and I'll let Kevin answer too. I think what you can do is study our implementation of our final agreements. This committee should be doing that.

Surprisingly enough, when we go to lobby and talk with different MPs and different parties, not many people know about what is in the final agreements. There are only 26 or 28 of them in Canada. It seems as though the focus of the federal government is always on the Indian Act bands and never on the proper implementation of our final agreements.

One thing we all agree on, I think—Canada and the rest of the first nations—is that we want to move forward. We have these agreements to do that. I believe Canada would like to see first nations actually negotiate a final agreement and get on the road to self-sufficiency. This new fiscal policy takes us backwards. We shouldn't go there. As you said, let's learn from our mistakes.

[Don Rusnak, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

I'm probably out of time.

[The Vice-Chair, Conservative, David Yurdiga]

You have a minute and a half.

[Kevin McKay]

Thank you.

In support of my colleague from the coalition, I want to make it very clear to the committee that we're not here to tell you that the coalition members regret signing their treaties. That's not what we're saying. Not one coalition member here regrets signing their treaties. I want to make that clear. What we're here to tell you is that those treaties are sacred. They represent a hard-fought compromise.

I say, with all due respect, that nobody compromised more than the aboriginal signatories to those treaties. Of course we have a lot invested in them, and we want to see them work not only for our aboriginal groups and governments, but indeed all of Canada.

Let's be perfectly clear here. What our treaties call for is institutional change. That's what we're asking for. Notwithstanding the political goodwill from whichever government happens to be in power, without that significant institutional change, nothing will change, and the sad reality is that our treaties will not be able to maximize their potential value.