Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Sept. 25th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Good morning, everybody.

It is our great pleasure to be in the traditional territory of the Tsawwassen and to be here in a beautiful hotel. We want to thank you for your hospitality in British Columbia.

We, as the national Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs, are on a cross-Canada tour to discuss land claims, both comprehensive and specific land claims.

I need to get the meeting to order because we have very precise rules. We want to give you enough time to present, to have a wholesome opportunity for members of Parliament to ask questions, and for you to present your perspectives.

Thank you again for coming forward. You have 10 minutes to do your formal presentation, and then we'll take the rest of the hour to do a question and answer process.

I turn it over to you. I am not sure who is starting out, but welcome.

[Celeste Haldane, Chief Commissioner, British Columbia Treaty Commission]

Thank you.

First I would like to acknowledge the Tsawwassen First Nation as well as thank the committee for the invitation for the treaty commission to come and briefly present this morning from a modern treaty perspective.

The key point I would like to raise is that the treaty commission is the independent body that oversees negotiations for the reconciliation of indigenous rights through modern treaties. The evolution of case law in Canada and, internationally, the UN Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples have further clarified that treaty negotiations are a constitutional imperative mandated by section 35 of the Canadian Constitution. As such, the treaty commission's role is critically important in assisting the three parties, Canada, British Columbia, and indigenous nations, to live up to this constitutional and legal imperative. A new era of recognition of indigenous rights is at hand, and the B.C. treaty negotiations process is well placed to embrace this change and leave the country in reconciliation. Reconciling must not only include the sharing of land and resources but also the sharing the jurisdiction, the sharing of sovereignty.

True self-determination for indigenous peoples, as mandated by section 35 of our Constitution and the UN declaration, cannot happen without it. I understand the importance of your committee's work and the questions that you're trying to answer when it comes to nationhood, nation to nation, as well as proper title and rights holders.

For starters, the recognition of indigenous rights must be a lasting nation-to-nation relationship through treaty negotiations, which requires the recognition of indigenous rights, not extinguishment. The notion of extinguishment has been rejected outright by indigenous peoples participating in negotiations and has no place in modern-day treaties. The treaty commission recommends continuing to support the ongoing work of rights recognition because this is a fundamental component of reconciliation. The rights recognition mandate must be at treaty negotiation tables, and at the heart of nationhood is the thorny issue of overlap and shared territory.

Overlap disputes between indigenous peoples interfere with the implementation of the declaration by disrupting negotiations and slowing the advancement and implementation of treaties and reconciliations in general. These issues are made more complicated by the fracturing of indigenous peoples by colonialism and the creation of colonial and neo-colonial indigenous entities.

Indigenous peoples are best placed to resolve overlapping and shared territory issues amongst themselves. These issues and their resolution have been a part of traditional indigenous governance for thousands of years. It's an essential function for self-determination and self-governance. The treaty commission has been involved in this type of work, supporting nations and engaging with nations to resolve their territory and overlap issues. We have some examples, and I would be more than happy to discuss this issue later on. We also covered it in our previous annual report that looked at shared territory and overlap issues, which are best resolved amongst indigenous nations. That's why one of our recommendations to the Government of Canada is that there be dedicated funding to support first nations' or indigenous nations' efforts to resolve shared territory and overlap issues.

I'll provide a brief update as to where the status of treaty negotiations are in British Columbia. We have 14 first nations in advanced negotiations with seven nations in final agreement stages. We have seven nations in advanced AIP negotiations. Five of these are multi-community with several Indian Act bands coming together to build their vision of nationhood.

These efforts must be supported and are Canada's best opportunities to advance reconciliation in their nation-to-nation relationship. The completion of several of these advanced negotiations is possible within the next two years. To accomplish this, political will is needed from all parties. From the federal government, this political will must mean that the current efforts and energy devoted to reconciliation and nation-to-nation relationships as expressed in the 10 principles must find their way to these advanced treaty negotiations.

Another way to advance these negotiations is with a recommendation that the treaty commission puts forward, around loan funding. The required borrowing provisions in the comprehensive claims policy must be eliminated for given loans that are currently outstanding to communities that have been engaged in treaty negotiations. There is, I know, a lot of work happening at the federal level to address this issue. To the extent that any community has repaid any portion of its loans, that community should be reimbursed for those funds.

Reconciliation is a shared prosperity, and from the treaty commission's perspective, reconciliation means a true sharing of prosperity: of lands; of resources; of economic, social, and cultural as well as governmental space. Nowhere does the sharing of prosperity become more of a reality than at the community, local, and regional levels. Understanding that shared prosperity has the ability to advance reconciliation significantly in British Columbia and in Canada. When a first nation prospers, the entire region prospers—the theme of our 2017 annual report. My understanding is that a copy of our 2017 annual report has been provided to the committee.

The treaty commission has long held the view that modern treaties, when fairly negotiated and honourably implemented, are a successful mechanism for the protection and reconciliation of indigenous rights and can generate significant economic benefits for indigenous peoples as well as for the local, regional, provincial, and Canadian governments and their communities.

If we're going to maximize the full potential that treaties bring to advancing reconciliation, then consideration needs to be given to addressing some of the recommendations the treaty commission has provided in both our verbal as well as our written submission.

I will turn briefly to my colleague Tom, who will share his perspective on implementing a modern treaty within his community.

Hay ce:p qa’.

[Tom Happynook, Commissioner, British Columbia Treaty Commission]

Thank you, Madam Chief Commissioner.

First of all I want to bring your attention to the annual report. On the front cover is a photo from the Tsawwassen First Nation, who are implementing their treaty. You'll note that the very first section is about the Tsawwassen First Nation's treaty. I just want you to have a look at that.

Several years ago, a big wind storm blew trees down in Stanley Park here in Vancouver. We have a beautiful campground setting right on our beach, Pachena Bay, and it also blew some trees down there. We were still under the Indian Act. It took us seven months to get permission from the minister in Ottawa just to move those trees from the campground to a playing field in the middle of our village. Then we had to get permission to sell them. Luckily, we have a really great relationship with the forest company, and they purchase all the wood that our Huu-ay-aht forestry company produces. We sold the trees, and the money went into our trust account in Ottawa. That's when, through proposals to the minister, we were able to beg for access to that money. The money was still in the hands of the Minister of Indian Affairs in Ottawa.

I spent 20 years at the Maa-nulth Final Agreement negotiations. We concluded our treaty, and our implementation date was April 1, 2011. We're six years into implementation now. We are close to the community of Bamfield. The West Coast Trail ends up in our village. We now own the local store, the local restaurant, the local motel, the local pub, two fishing charter resorts, the airport, and we have our campground, our forest company, and fishing licences. We are free from the shackles of the Indian Act and are now just blossoming into nationhood.

I wanted to share that story with you.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

That's a wonderful way to end that presentation.

Thank you so much.

Now we have the First Nations Summit, with Cheryl Casimer and Melissa Louie.

[Cheryl Casimer, Political Executive Member, First Nations Summit]

[Witness speaks in Ktunaxa]

First of all, I acknowledge Tsawwassen First Nation for allowing us to do this important business on their territory.

Also, thank you for the opportunity to make a presentation to you in your study on specific claims and comprehensive land claims agreements.

We have prepared a kit for you with a USB that includes my speaking points; the summit's submission to the federal working group of ministers on the review of laws and policies related to indigenous peoples and a list of recommendations that form part of that report; the national treaty loan amounts described for you; principles of a new first nations-crown fiscal relationship, a stand-alone document; a copy of the British Columbia Claims Task Force report; and copies of the British Columbia Treaty Commission Act and the Treaty Commission Act, B.C.

As a bit of background on the First Nations Summit, we were established in 1993 to support first nations' engagement in the made-in-B.C. treaty negotiations framework. The First Nations Summit is one of the three principals, along with Canada and British Columbia.

Our mandate arises from the tripartite 1991 B.C. Claims Task Force report, which was jointly developed by first nations, Canada, and B.C.; the 1992 agreement to set up the B.C. Treaty Commission as the independent body to facilitate treaty negotiations; and subsequent federal and provincial legislation and the First Nations Summit chiefs' resolutions.

The summit is the only body with the exclusive mandate to support first nations in conducting their own direct treaty negotiations with Canada and B.C. A critical element of the summit's efforts includes the identification of concrete, actionable steps to overcome negotiation barriers. In first nations-crown treaty negotiations with B.C., we are facing a number of process and substantive issues that pose significant challenges in treaty negotiations and must be overcome in order to reach treaties, agreements, and other constructive arrangements.

Addressing process and substantive negotiation issues and barriers must be undertaken in the context of implementing the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Any review and redesign of the made-in-B.C. treaty negotiations framework or any federal or provincial initiative that might impact the made-in-B.C. treaty negotiations framework, including review and revision of Canada's comprehensive claims policy and related laws and policies, must include the summit from the outset and be consistent with the United Nations declaration and existing case law.

As to some key federal and provincial commitments, the summit acknowledges that we are currently discussing these important issues with the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs in a new political and legal environment that has important implications on these discussions. The summit welcomes the federal and provincial governments' unequivocal commitment to implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's 94 calls to action and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and parallel reviews of federal and provincial legislation. Further, B.C. has made the welcome and necessary commitment to implement the historic Tsilhqot'in Nation decision regarding aboriginal title and rights issues.

We collectively have a historic opportunity to positively and dramatically transform the relationship between all levels of government and first nations government. There is absolutely nothing to fear in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's 94 calls to action and in the human rights standards in the United Nations declaration. We must put our minds together and combine our collective best efforts for constructive and long-lasting solutions.

Yesterday, during the reconciliation walk, the Attorney General of Canada, Minister Jody Wilson-Raybould, once again reaffirmed and recommitted that in order to have a positive crown-indigenous relationship, we must do it together.

In terms of our path forward and opportunities for collaboration, the summit takes this opportunity to highlight that full and effective collaboration from the outset of undertaking this important work is consistent with key international instruments and documents as outlined in the 46 articles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the outcome document of the September 2014 World Conference on Indigenous Peoples, all three of which Canada has agreed to.

As we move forward, what is required to accomplish transformation of barriers and challenges is new attitudes and tone in leadership and in the bureaucracy as a whole.

This work requires strong, bold leadership from all levels of government, including those bodies monitoring government initiatives. In this regard, the summit is optimistic about the perceptible shift in leadership at the federal level, with Canada's new 10 principles guiding its relationship with indigenous peoples, as well as the recent dissolution of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and the creation of the two new ministries: Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, and Indigenous Services. These are a hopeful sign that Canada is serious about decolonizing its approach to indigenous issues, and to building a new relationship from a more appropriate foundation.

In reflecting on Canada's commitment to achieving reconciliation with indigenous peoples through a renewed, nation-to-nation, government-to-government, and Inuit-crown relationship based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation, and partnership as the foundation for transformative change, we stress the recognition of aboriginal rights, especially through mechanisms such as modern-day treaties, agreements, and other constructive arrangements.

The summit has prepared a 50-page submission, which sets out key perspectives on the status of treaty negotiations in B.C. and key challenges and barriers. Further, it contains 30 recommendations to transform first nations-crown treaty negotiations in B.C., as well as highlighting key intersections between treaty negotiations and the new federal framework for reconciliation, including the reform of Canada's laws and policies.

In 1991, the B.C. claims task force reported, and the subsequent made-in-B.C. treaty negotiations framework was established in response to the profound failures of the federal government's comprehensive claims policies, which required first nations to prove their connection to their lands through a cumbersome and inappropriate process. The task force report provided a blueprint for a new and different made-in-B.C. negotiations framework. The policy-set direction in the task force report has over time been displaced by Canada's increasing reliance on its pre-existing, outdated, and unacceptable comprehensive claims policy. The intrastate negotiations have become position-based, as government bureaucrats are assigned to oversee the process, and in many cases, negotiate treaties. This is not helpful or conducive to reconciliation.

The summit continues to remain mindful of the Supreme Court of Canada's statements at paragraphs 20 and 38 of the Haida Nation v. British Columbia judgment, which provide that “Treaties serve to reconcile pre-existing Aboriginal sovereignty with assumed Crown sovereignty” and also that “negotiations, the preferred process for achieving ultimate reconciliation”.

The BCTC, established in 1992 by agreements among the principles, which are summit, Canada, and B.C., started its operations in 1993. Its role is set out in the B.C. Treaty Commission Agreement, and in ratifying legislation and resolution of the principles. The BCTC's independence is a fundamental component of the made-in-B.C. treaty negotiations framework. Among other responsibilities, the BCTC facilitates negotiations in B.C., a role that could be expanded to include dispute resolutions.

At various points in time since the inception of the BCTC, concern has been raised that Canada and B.C. have encroached too closely on the independence of the treaty commission. The summit continues to advocate that Canada and B.C. must meaningfully commit to fully respecting the independence of the B.C. Treaty Commission's allocation of negotiation support funding, and the principles that no one party should have unilateral control over first nations-crown treaty negotiations in B.C., and no party should have its expenditures reviewed by another party to the negotiations.

To provide important context about the importance of the made-in-B.C. treaty negotiations framework, it should be noted that 57 of the 99—or 58%—of the comprehensive land claim and self-government negotiating tables are in British Columbia.

This is all about relationships. We seek Canada's and B.C.'s commitment to take a leadership role in working toward reconciliation with first nations in B.C., including the negotiations of viable, fair, workable, and equitable treaties, agreements, and other constructive arrangements. It is not always about full comprehensive treaties; it can be a number of arrangements. Further in this regard, we are seeking Canada's commitment to a process that will ensure the decisions of the courts relating to lands, territories, and resources are fully implemented. We also seek Canada's commitment to finding creative solutions and working toward reconciliation and moving beyond dialogue regarding barriers to negotiations, and to the implementation of agreed concrete commitments, and to implementing steps to overcome challenges. We can see 30 recommendations in our submission related to that.

Governments must provide space for engaging bodies, such as the First Nations Summit, the first nations governments, and other key parties in developing instructions concerning the scope and content of the mandate.

The last point I wanted to make is about our negotiation support funding. Very quickly, that support funding is a hindrance to first nations in the negotiation process. There needs to be serious consideration given to the forgiveness of all existing treaty loans. To date, they total $528 million across Canada. We know that mounting debt is deducted from the final capital transfer payment, which erodes the net value of the treaty. There is also tremendous uncertainty regarding what happens to the debt if the parties are unable to reach a treaty.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

The final panellist of this session is the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs.

Welcome. I look forward to your presentation.

[Chief Judy Wilson, Secretary-Treasurer, Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs]

Weyt-kp. I am Chief Judy Wilson from the Neskonlith Indian Band. I'm the secretary-treasurer for the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs, who represent over 100 first nations in B.C., largely those outside of the B.C. treaty process.

The union has supported and advanced the rights, title, and self-determination of our indigenous nations since its inception. Our mandate is to work towards the implementation, exercise, and recognition of our inherent title rights and treaty rights to protect our land and waters, through the exercise and implementation of our own laws and jurisdictions.

I'd like to thank the [Inaudible—Editor] people, on whose ancestral lands and territory we're meeting today, Madam Chair, with the standing committee on claims. We have provided some speaking notes, and we also have a formal submission that will be forthcoming.

Basically, we included some recommendations based on the recognition of title rights and four basic principles that we put forward.

The first is that all claims are human rights issues. This is articulated through international frameworks such as the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and the Organization of American States American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The second is that indigenous nations are rights holders. Canada cannot assume underlying title and then issue a new proprietary interest. This assumption reflects the colonial doctrine of discovery, which meant the British crown could unilaterally declare sovereignty over our territories. Instead, the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous nations is required in the development of any of our land.

The third principle is that structural and systemic changes are needed. Canada must shift its idea of sovereignty and federalism to one that is inclusive of our indigenous legal orders, title rights, and treaty rights.

Fourth, all policies and processes must include joint development, reviews, and oversight. We can't say that's happening today, Madam Chair. It's been more unilateral, and continues to be, and we need that change. We need to be full and equal partners in any processes of legislative reform and ongoing oversight.

One exercise I looked at last year for myself was to look at all the reserve lands in Canada, and to find that actually they can fit almost onto Vancouver Island. Our lands and territories in Canada are vast. To take those lands and put us on tiny reserves is a violation of our human rights and displaces our people. That's a very small percentage of the lands that we hold now, and the rest are assumed crown lands. I just wanted to make that illustration.

In 1973, as you are aware, Canada made a unilateral decision to formulate these policies, but also to split comprehensive and specific claims—no one's mentioned that to date—into two separate processes. This created a lot of different barriers for our people. While the claims drag on, our territorial lands and resources are being taken. Trillions of dollars are being removed from our lands as these processes drag on. Our lands are being taken up, destroyed, and degraded.

Canada needs to understand these urgent issues for our indigenous nations. Early in August, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination called Canada out on its discriminatory practices of violating the land rights of indigenous peoples. The committee called upon Canada to reform its policies. I was one of the delegate members who travelled over to Geneva to make those presentations, along with other indigenous nations from across Canada.

With its unilateral development and release of its 10 principles, Canada again failed to recognize the independent standing of indigenous peoples in international law.

I wanted to shed a bit of light on B.C. and how our issues are distinct. There's a small number of historical treaties signed in B.C. that are uniquely affected by the failure of the comprehensive and specific claims policies and procedures. The result is the crown governments' wide-scale denial of indigenous title to our territories. Canada still demands that we extinguish our inherent rights, but we cannot disassociate ourselves from the land. We are tied to the land. We are part of the land.

We also have hundreds of historical reserve claims, many of which are stuck in, or rejected by, the current process. Jody would have more statistics on that, and it's a large number here in B.C. As a result of all these injustices, B.C. nations have been at the forefront of land rights policy for decades. We know what would work for claims reforms. We struck a B.C. specific claims working group in 2013 at the union to work for a fair and just resolution to specific claims.

I'll talk a little bit about the comprehensive claims now.

The current policy still continues to demand termination agreements that result in de facto extinguishment of our indigenous title. The policy doesn't reflect the legal and political realities of the landscape. My colleagues mentioned Chilcotin and the UNDRIP and CERD and also the nation-to-nation relationship, but those are still bases for doctrine discovery.

We have several recommendations on the comprehensive claims; they are in your package. These include to work collaboratively with nations and to work collaboratively on any forums or policy to enable the agreement, other than the current process. Another recommendation is to create a nation-to-nation decision-making process.

I'll jump right to specific claims now. I am halfway through my remarks.

The background on the specific claims is as follows. Through UNDRIP we have the right to redress in cases of our lands being taken, used, or damaged without our free, prior, informed consent. The specific claims process must be the mechanism for this redress, but the indigenous nations face barriers at every turn. The process has been plagued with systemic biases and conflict of interest; a number of recent reviews and studies have shown that. Failures of the process affect B.C. nations disproportionately. Also, half of all claims come from B.C., and 53% of rejected claims come from B.C. as well.

I'll skip right to the recommendations.

Recommendation number one is to work collaboratively with indigenous nations to develop a truly independent process. The root of all the biases and barriers has been the conflict of interest mentioned earlier. Canada adjudicates all claims against itself. I can't see anywhere a place where that would ever be fair.

Real reform must begin with the creation of an independent process for claims adjudication, including the initial assessment of how a claim is validated. This needs to change; this is what all of our nations have been calling for, for decades. All previous policies have failed because they have not addressed Canada's conflict of interest.

I want to point out that optionally, the tribunal could play a larger role in assessing and adjudicating claims; however, the final form that this independent process takes needs to be decided collaboratively, with indigenous nations as equal partners. As you know, many of the tribunal decisions have been appealed, and that is a process that shouldn't happen that way.

Recommendation number two is to work collaboratively with indigenous nations to create structures of joint decision-making and oversight.

Recommendation number three is to provide sustainable research funding for this.

There is some summary that we have in our brief. I'll skip that and go right to the questions to the committee.

What is the overall objective and what are the expected outcomes for the study?

Can you provide more specific guidelines for the written submission and the types of evidence that would be most helpful for the study?

How will the findings shape current reform processes? Also, we want to know how the AFN-INAC joint technical working group review of specific claims and the working group of ministers on the review of laws and policies related to indigenous peoples will work together.

Canada has publicly announced that it's working towards this new relationship. How will Canada address the concerns of indigenous nations that the 10 principles continue to perpetuate colonialist doctrines and attitudes?

Those are the questions that we thought would help in moving our formal submission to you, along with some of the dialogue that we'll hear here today. These are all outstanding.

I appreciate the committee's time and effort in bringing this together so that we can start to have a real dialogue on what Canada is doing with all its policies and legislation, on how we're going to move towards a true nation-to-nation relationship based on recognition of the title rights of our people, and on how we can move into the way we will take to reform this and co-exist, as our ancestors said in 1910. We already had a framework laid out on fifty-fifty sharing and also on how we would work together to be great and good in this country.

Sxuxwyéyem.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

Now we'll move into the question period. The first round of questions comes from MP Gary Anandasangaree.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Madam Chair, I'm going to pass the mike to Mike Bossio. He will start the discussion.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you all so much for being here today to assist us in this very important report to hopefully provide guidance in order to move to the successful conclusion of a lot of the outstanding land claims, issues that exist right now in our country.

First, I just want to get a sense of the difference between the BCTC and the First Nations Summit. If I understand correctly, the FNS comes into play pre-negotiation to try to assist indigenous communities in establishing the right to claim, and then BCTC comes in at the negotiating process to assist indigenous communities through the claim. I know that might be really simplistic, but I'm trying to get a sense of where one begins, what the relationship is between the two, and their involvement in the process.

[Celeste Haldane]

Thank you. The First Nations Summit is a principal to treaty negotiations process. They're the political body. Where the rubber hits the road for the BCTC process is when nations submit their statement of intent to the Treaty Commission. That's where the negotiations start happening within that process. That's the clear distinction in a nutshell.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

In your brief, you said:

The honour of the Crown and Canada's international obligations demand that many different options for agreement be on the table, including non-treaty arrangements and consultation and accommodation processes.

In your view, what can some of those different options look like? I assume you're talking about, in one sense, comprehensive versus specific and that we can't get stuck in these two very clearly defined areas, that options need to exist above and beyond that. Can you give us a sense of that?

[Chief Judy Wilson]

I can answer part of it. I had my hand up; I think that's how we have to do it.

Part of it is that it wasn't really being advanced in B.C. The former provincial government had over 400 types of agreements. There were economic development agreements, resource agreements, and strategic engagement agreements. I was at a table in March of last year where our former premier told the minister, “I think we can say this works better than treaties”. I thought that was so atrocious, because that was not honouring the relationship with our people, even our inherent title and rights. She was bypassing addressing the issue of historical issues of title and rights and going to one-off agreements, as we call them.

The issue is that they did not want to look at the real issues on the table; they bypassed them. I didn't think that was fair, because they still had continued access to our lands and our resources through those 400 types of agreements, and those are still questionable.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Okay, thank you.

Cheryl, go ahead, please.

[Cheryl Casimer]

First of all, I'm not certain what you're trying to achieve with the question. Could you clarify again what you are seeking?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

What do you see as the different options that need to be on the table? Those are good things to get on the record as part of the report, to guide us through this process.

[Cheryl Casimer]

The First Nations Summit, as a principal to the process, supports and advocates for those first nations that are participating in the made-in-B.C. treaty process. For the most part, those first nations that we represent are actually sitting at tables with Canada and British Columbia, working towards a comprehensive agreement.

What we have done recently as a principal, along with Canada and British Columbia, is to try to look at ways of achieving reconciliation through other means, aside from comprehensive agreements. We struck the multilateral engagement working group. Through that process, our technical team and our political team have been looking at other options.

You might want to just look at a sectoral agreement that you can enter into with Canada and British Columbia. You might want to look at a core agreement as well. We try to identify different options that first nations could look at in terms of how they might be able to advance that relationship.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you.

Finally, you make a great statement here in the brief that, “at the root of all the bias and barriers, there's a basic conflict of interest, where Canada adjudicates claims against itself”—I think most of us could agree on that—and that “Real reform must begin with the creation of an independent process for claims adjudication”.

What do you feel that independent process needs to look like so that there's balance? How do we achieve that balance?

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Mr. Bossio, could you direct your question to a particular—?

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

It's to UBCIC; I think it's part of their presentation.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Okay.

Jody Woods.

[Jody Woods, Research Director, Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs]

First I'd like to thank the Tsawwassen for allowing us to do this work on their territory.

What we hear consistently from chiefs and communities is that they want a process established.... Calls for this have been coming since 1947. You'll see in the appendix of negotiation or confrontation that there is a list of 18 separate calls, mostly from government bodies or studies like this, calling for a truly independent process.

The key feature of it is that Canada not assess claims against itself. Currently, that's what happens. A claim is submitted, and Canada then assesses its validity. That validity is right now determining such things as access to negotiation dollars and access to full and fair negotiations. In order for this process to work and to bring about reconciliation, it has to be independent and it has to facilitate negotiations.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Questioning now moves to MP Cathy McLeod

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's great to be in my home province. Normally on a Monday when the House is sitting, I have to travel.

I really appreciate your coming here today. Hopefully, being in Vancouver has made it a little bit easier to actually present to the committee.

I'm the only one from British Columbia. We have a very different and unique set of circumstances in British Columbia. Certainly, given Mr. Bossio's initial comments, I wonder whether it might be helpful—we have three very important organizations here—to hear a quick sentence from each of you about how you complement each other and how you take a different direction concerning where you think we need to go. I know it's a complicated question, but for the support of my colleagues, it might be helpful for them.

[Chief Judy Wilson]

Thank you, Cathy. I think you have a bit of a history of our organization, so you know very well how our organizations are rooted.

The union is rooted in our advancement of title rights and the protection of our land and water. We are definitely a non-treaty organization.

The way we came about as the First Nations Leadership Council was to work together. We didn't want government and the province to split us up, which historically has been the way they divide and conquer us.

The First Nations Summit does important work on their historical treaties, but so also does our organization, like others that are outside of treaties and don't believe the treaty process is the answer for them. We're still talking about one thing: we're talking about our inherent land.

The issue is, the province assumed jurisdiction over our lands. This is called the colonial doctrine of discovery whereby those assumptions were made, whereas we have never ceded, surrendered, sold, or exercised our title rights away.

The union does a lot of research work into this specific claim, and the comprehensive claim has its process through the treaty processes. It's really important that we work together.