Evidence of meeting #69 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
Thank you. You're always invited to submit a brief, if that cannot happen.
We're now moving into the question and answer period. This round is seven minutes for each and we will start with MP Bossio.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Once again, the more we drill down into this, the more difficult it becomes to ask questions that are going to tease out the information we know we need on this. That's why it is vitally important that submissions be made. Even if you don't have the time to provide detailed answers, please send in further submissions that answer some of those key questions.
I had the opportunity to have a conversation with my colleague, Romeo Saganash, and we were talking about the Northern Cree treaty. You said earlier today that there were approximately 20 negotiations that have happened in that time. In that sense it has been a living document.
Last night we were talking and I think you said that over a 20-year period the premier had met with the Grand Chief of the Cree four times, but then since the last negotiation was completed they now meet each other twice a year. They're able to deal with issues—boom, boom, boom—as they come along.
I notice that you mentioned in your submission that you've negotiated a bill to revisit this every 15 years. Have you had a first 15-year revisit yet? No?
Sorry, I apologize. I forget when the agreement was signed.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Okay, so we still have a significant period of time.
Now that you're six years into it, do you feel that 15 years is still the right period of time, or should this be an ongoing discussion that happens between the minister and the premier rather than waiting 15 years to find out that, man, we really bungled this up in this area or that area?
1:55 p.m.
President, First Nations of the Maa-nulth Treaty Society
I feel it should be an ongoing process, meeting with the ministers to discuss some of the areas we're having difficulty implementing.
When we're negotiating a treaty, there are intentions around the table with all three sets of negotiators from the province, the federal government, and our first nations. There are intentions that somehow don't make it into the written document of what we meant by the statements that are in there, which can be easily misinterpreted by anyone reading our treaty as creating an argument against what the intention was.
1:55 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
When you're in that process—and Morgan, you can jump in as well—is it always just a provincial representative, a federal representative in the indigenous community, or are there any...? We were talking earlier in another discussion about how the Ministry of the Environment will have Fisheries there, they'll have Parks Canada, they'll have MNR there, and a number of different bodies there to negotiate a specific agreement with a proponent of either a project or with an indigenous community, like for what is happening in Haida Gwaii where they're trying to protect their oceans around the Haida.
Would you find that it would be far more beneficial that, rather than having these silos, you would have a whole-of-government approach where a number of these departments that are actually involved in the final negotiation behind the scenes were at the table with the authority to negotiate in good faith at that specific meeting?
1:55 p.m.
President, First Nations of the Maa-nulth Treaty Society
I'm going to ask my colleague, Gary, to respond.
1:55 p.m.
Gary Yabsley Legal Counsel, Ratcliff and Co, First Nations of the Maa-nulth Treaty Society
I'd like to go back to where you started. That was the first part which was the length of time pertinent to the 15-year review because in the negotiations for the treaty that was one of the critical issues, and we delved into it. Maa-nulth proposed initially that the review happen every 10 years. Governments were reluctant, as Chief Cootes said, particularly the former federal government, because we were simply looking to reopen the negotiations every 10 years.
There were two pieces to it. We had thought 10 years was an appropriate amount of time. The timing was tied, in part, to the acquisition of adequate data about whether the treaty was working or not. One of the issues that came up was that 10 years wasn't going to be enough time, so we wouldn't know after 10 years, so they pushed hard, and eventually we moved it from 10 to 15 years.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
You're actually at seven years, so is the data there already?
2 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Ratcliff and Co, First Nations of the Maa-nulth Treaty Society
No, and that's one of the points that Chief Cootes is making here. Apart from the timing of it, and this gets to your question, the other element was the focus of it. Our thinking at the time was to consolidate it into a comprehensive review based on data, so we knew whether or not there were economic changes, whether or not governance was working at the community level, whether or not cultural values were being rejuvenated—
2 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Ratcliff and Co, First Nations of the Maa-nulth Treaty Society
Exactly. There is a range of criteria by which we could say this is working or not, and if it's not, why not.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Do you even have anecdotal evidence to point in the direction that we need to do a review now, because if we wait 15 years, the problems we're already experiencing today are only going to become that much worse?
2 p.m.
Legal Counsel, Ratcliff and Co, First Nations of the Maa-nulth Treaty Society
That was our original thinking, so that's why we pushed for 10 years. Where your question is going is, are we better served with a shorter period with well-founded data to help us understand? I think the answer is absolutely yes. That was our original thinking.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
Just to go further on that same notion...
I'm sorry, Morgan, you haven't had a chance. I will let you jump in instead of asking another question.
2 p.m.
Research Associate, Havlik Metcs Ltd.
I'm going to speak a bit about the idea of the treaty issue. Given that we're a historical treaty as opposed to a modern-day treaty, our treaty is fixed. Our first nations understanding of what happened at the treaty meeting is extremely different from what was written down and what is interpreted by Canada. Frankly, Canada has used that to their advantage, and their poor record-keeping about practices related to our treaty has also been taken advantage of by Canada.
I'll leave it there.
2 p.m.
Liberal
Mike Bossio Liberal Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON
I will take that to just quickly say I posed this question to another group, and I'd like you to submit an answer on it. Do you feel, given the nature, and how diverse these negotiations are, that we need to embed within legislation the enforcement of trying to bring forward a more fluid nature to treaty negotiations, because we don't have anything like that today?
2 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My question will be directed to you, Morgan with HML, because you are a little different in that you are an advisory firm. You represent several groups from B.C. and Alberta. What is the difference? Let's start there. As an advisory firm, you mentioned Vancouver and Calgary. There was another location maybe, was there?
2 p.m.
Research Associate, Havlik Metcs Ltd.
Yes, one of our directors is based in Victoria, so our main offices are considered to be Vancouver and Calgary, but to speak to your issue between Alberta and British Columbia, because we work with Treaty 8 first nations, our experiences are generally pretty similar. Where we start to see differences breakdown in a lot of cases, from what I've heard from my colleagues and superiors, is when it comes to negotiations.
As an example, we are representing two communities. Not only did we do the specific claims research...the mission that was sent in for their treaty land entitlement claims, we are also working with them on their negotiations. We're in two very different places despite the negotiations starting at very similar times. In Alberta, we've actually been able to secure land selection and received, my understanding is, some very good feedback and participation from both Canada and the provinces in those negotiations.
In British Columbia, we're in the exact opposite position. We have a framework for the negotiations, but we're not able to deal with the land. My understanding is a lot of that is British Columbia not coming to the table. That is the struggle that I understand a lot of communities in British Columbia face. The province has been adversarial, or not as willing to come to the table on those issues, and have those discussions, or there are other issues at play today—I don't maybe have to share with you—but I'm certain that my superiors would be more than happy to address in a formal written submission to the committee.
2 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
We heard the difference when we came to the Vancouver area. You represent both areas, Alberta and B.C., and that's why I wanted to drill down a little bit, because our committee isn't going to Alberta, and we wanted to know the differences between the two provinces.
2:05 p.m.
Research Associate, Havlik Metcs Ltd.
I think you will see it a lot more in the negotiations. You're going to see it in the different types of claims. My understanding is that treaty land entitlement issues in British Columbia are a lot more difficult to address, mostly because historically British Columbia has been less willing to provide additional reserve lands. From the outset, the communities we service that were not given their full treaty land entitlement now have to submit claims because British Columbia didn't want to come to the table and fulfill those obligations. My understanding is that Canada has not been able to compel British Columbia to do so.
2:05 p.m.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
We'll move now to Chief Cootes. Thank you for your presentation here today.
Let's talk about the modern treaties. You've had some success, it sounds like. This is one of the few areas we're going to hear today that has had some success in modern treaties.
2:05 p.m.
President, First Nations of the Maa-nulth Treaty Society
Every time I read the treaty it seems to get better and better. I have to say that about a lot of the treaties, and I don't say it about many documents.
This has liberated us from the colonial type of imposed government we had with the Indian Act, and it allows us to make our own laws. Every decision we made in the past as a band government took months and months to get permission from Ottawa to tell us we could cut down a tree, put in a trail, or make a decision in our council.
It gives us the freedom to serve our people. One of the major differences is that our treaty is structured from the bottom up. Funding comes to all of the five nations. If we choose to participate in the central government, that's our choice. We can kick some money up to an organization such as the Maa-nulth Treaty Society, or we can do it on our own. It's much more cost-effective to have some services provided collectively.
We have a set amount of resources for fisheries, hunting, and all of those. Some are allocated; some are not. The ones that are allocated have been the hardest hit in our negotiations. It was all about compromise when we were negotiating—whether we got enough over here or over there. At the end of the day, we have to give up something to get something that balances in order to move our nations forward and generate wealth.
One of the hardest hit areas was land and fisheries. I wanted to point that out because our allocations are fairly inadequate in some areas and quite adequate in others. We don't have a balance across the spectrum of species of fish that we're entitled to.