Evidence of meeting #77 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 agreements.
President, North Slave Métis Alliance
Indeed, there is a bit of complexity there, but we can figure out how to coexist with one another within the fishbowl.
Liberal
President, North Slave Métis Alliance
We've done so. Here in the North Slave region, the North Slave Métis people have coexisted with our first nation counterparts for over 200 years. We've figured out how to do that.
When it comes to land claims, there are two parts to them. There's fee simple land that the crown turns over to each land claimant, and then there are settlement lands. In this context, we would expect that the crown would set aside a certain amount of fee simple land for the aboriginal people to live on and to use for economic purposes and/or living purposes.
Then there are settlement lands. The settlement lands would be the overlap lands. Those are the lands where the aboriginal people expect to be able to exercise their aboriginal rights 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Those are the lands where we're going to bump into each other, where I'm going to run into a Tlicho or a Yellowknife person when we're both doing the same thing: hunting from the same caribou herd, like we've done for 200 years. That would be expected, and it's something that we've done for 200 years since the Métis arose in the North Slave region. I have no trouble with that.
Sub-Chief and Mayor of Fort Providence, Deh Gah Got'ie First Nations
I've tabled a document called “Dene Principles & Values”. That should answer your question regarding the collective stewardship role that we play.
We also disagree with transboundary agreements between provincial or territorial governments. All aboriginal people have a collective role to play in the use of the land, the way it's used and how it's protected. Take the Site C dam as an example. We don't challenge Site C, but we do challenge the Bennett dam. The experience with the Bennett dam, downriver in Fort Providence, has been devastating. We used that example to show how you can safely build the Site C dam. It's not happening now, but that was the case.
Liberal
Liberal
TJ Harvey Liberal Tobique—Mactaquac, NB
Okay.
I just wanted to say that I meant all my comments with due respect.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to our guests here today. It feels weird to say that, as we're up in your territory.
First off, I would like to go after some comments we had at our last meeting from the chair of the tribunal for specific claims. He said, to some effect, that specific claims are more of a justice issue than a programming issue, and that INAC was set up to deliver the programs that were agreed upon within the treaties. So we have an organization that's really good at delivering programs and isn't necessarily very good at doing justice issues. He argued that land claims are a justice issue, not a programming issue.
I guess what it comes down to is that justice is difficult in that from a judge's point of view, you cannot enact justice. You can only judge on whether something is being just or is not being just....
He's shaking his head on that.
I'd be happy to have a rebuttal to that, to some degree.
Legal Counsel, North Slave Métis Alliance
Well, I'll be brief, because I think everyone can....
I think we have lots of examples in Canada of where we've sought justice outside the court system. Justice includes the very nature of reconciliation. Whether it's recognizing the absolute evil of residential schools or setting up the settlement of the residential schools, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the independent assessment process, and the payment for attending, those are examples of justice that are not from the courts. They were court-related but very much settlements. It's the same thing with modern land claims. The ability for indigenous people to actively participate over their very lands, which were taken away through the colonial experience to a large degree, is a measure of justice.
As to whether or not Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada is the right mechanism to deliver justice, that's a great question. We've seen several failures of it. But I think justice can definitely be achieved outside the courtroom.
Conservative
Arnold Viersen Conservative Peace River—Westlock, AB
Okay.
I think his point was more that INAC has always been focused on program delivery, and it doesn't necessarily have the tools to enact justice in the same way as, say, the justice department would. I'm not sure if you would agree with that statement or not.
President, North Slave Métis Alliance
Thank you for the questions.
Justice is a big word, right? It has a lot of different dynamics to it. I think a step in the right direction toward getting justice is reconciliation. I think that's the path that Prime Minister Trudeau has set the current minister on. My understanding is that this was in the mandate letter that was provided to Minister Carolyn Bennett when she took on the office of minister of INAC.
She is still part of that mandate now, even though the department has been divided into two separate and different departments. It seems to me that she holds that portfolio, and that this is what this committee is looking into—sort of—in terms of land claims.
A land claim is about a form of justice. It is about reconciling the wrongs of the past brought on by colonialism. It does, in its end form, bring about a form of justice. Of course, there were a lot of wrongs that were committed under colonialism, and there are forms of justice under way, such as reconciliation about the sixties scoop, the residential school experience, and these sorts of things. There are a lot of things like that.
This is a step in the right direction. Getting land claim settlements in place is a form of justice. It's part of the bigger picture. As part of the bigger picture of reconciliation, which is the purpose of section 35 and which the good people of Canada saw fit to provide aboriginal people, I say that this is the right way to go. It's going to help bring aboriginal people into the mainstream of this country and right some of the wrongs that were done to them.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
This one hour has gone by in a flash.
Obviously, this is a complex issue. We look forward to continuing for the whole day on this. In fact, we have been and will be studying this for weeks. We will continue to hear presentations in Ottawa after today.
I offer our personal thank you for coming out, participating in this, and bringing your wisdom to us. You can be sure that we'll use your words and reflections, and also your recommendations, which will help us, in a report that we will make to the Government of Canada, which is officially then obliged to respond to our recommendations.
Thank you for being part of the process. Meegwetch.
We're going to take a short break and then convene with the second panel.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
It looks as if we have all the panellists. If you don't mind, we'll get started. That will give us a few extra minutes to delve into the subjects, and there's a lot to talk about. If that's good for everybody and the witnesses and MPs are ready, let's get started.
We're continuing our process to discuss land claims, both specific and comprehensive, and processes of self-government, which we've heard have been beneficial to communities. We've talked a lot about self-government in one of our last studies, the suicide study. We look for your input on that.
We have three presenters on this panel: the Behdzi Ahda" First Nation, the Northwest Territory Métis Nation, and the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation.
Forgive my pronunciation.
Each group has 10 minutes. I'll try to give you signals when it's time to wrap up so that the MPs around the table have an opportunity to ask you questions.
We have an order listed on the agenda. Unless the groups have changed order, we will go with that.
The Behdzi Ahda" First Nation is the first presenter.
Go ahead, Chief Kochon.
Chief Wilbert Kochon Chief, Behdzi Ahda First Nation
I'm going to introduce myself in my language.
[Witness speaks in Dene]
I've said that my name is Wilbert Kochon and I'm the chief of the Behdzi Ahda" First Nation. Thank you for listening.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. I am from Colville Lake, a small community 745 kilometres north of Yellowknife. We have a population of about 150. Most of them are members of the Behdzi Ahda" First Nation.
We established our community the same year that the Sahtu land claim was signed in 1993. We built the community by ourselves. As a smaller community, we did not get as much attention as larger communities. That forced us to do things on our own.
We are an independent people. We built our community at a time when Canada's policies wanted to make us dependent.
It seems to us that your policies are stuck in the past. Canada has made a lot of mistakes with those policies.
We have a different view of the future. We want to move forward. Canada and the GNWT should move forward as well. You need to look at your policies again and renew them.
I will now ask our self-government chief negotiator, Joseph Kochon, to speak.
Joseph Kochon Chief Negotiator, Behdzi Ahda First Nation
Mahsi.
[Witness speaks in Dene]
I've just said that my name is Joseph Kochon and I'm from Colville Lake. I've been doing this work for the last 24 years. I have many roles in my community, and one new role is being the chief negotiator. I'm grateful to be here to present to you some ideas that might help in future deliberations.
We are part of the Sahtu land claim agreement and are negotiating a community-based self-government agreement with Canada and the GNWT.
I am going to start by stating that Canada's self-government policy has been the same since 1995. Over the last 20 years, there have been a number of studies by Parliament, the Senate, and the Auditor General, and commissions about indigenous people, but we still have the same problems facing us. We want your committee to produce an action plan, not a report. Our community has motto: don't talk, just do it. We'd be pleased to lend this motto to your committee.
Canada still has a colonial relationship with us. What would help would be for you to test your policies against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Use that as your guide for what should change.
This government wants to reset the relationship with us. We are glad to see that the Prime Minister has taken action, but we are not seeing that change at the negotiating table. There's a big gap between what the politicians say and what the negotiators say. Somewhere in this big government machine, the people who are supposed to change what is being said at the negotiating table are not doing their job.
We want your action plan to tell the bureaucrats to change their negotiating mandates. Today we are focusing on three areas we see that need to change.
The first is about cultural competency: training for government officials. Government people make decisions that affect our lives. Few of them know about or have been in our community. I can give you examples of problems that has created, with everything from someone in Ottawa trying to shut down our post office because they did not understand the geography of the N.W.T., to houses sitting empty in our community while we have families that are homeless or living in overcrowded houses.
To try to fix that at our negotiations, we have asked for a culturally competent approach to implementing our self-government agreement. What this means is that everyone from government who is dealing with our community should take training to understand us and our context.
Recommendation 57 of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission also approached government to do this. So far, the reaction from both governments to include this in our self-government agreement has been to put it on the “too hard” pile and to prepare us to hear that the answer is no. Saying no is unacceptable.
In health systems across Canada, this training is a priority, because in the health system when doctors and nurses don't have cultural understanding, or if they act on stereotypes, people die. It happened in an emergency room in Winnipeg. There have been similar incidents in N.W.T. and Nunavut. In the health system, people might die right there. It is obvious that they have died because someone was making decisions based on stereotypes instead of knowledge. That's why health systems are changing.
In other systems, such as housing, the suffering is not so obvious, but the suffering happens. People who are homeless because of bad housing policies also die, or families break up or their kids fail at school. It's good to start with health care, but don't stop there. There are ways to kill or harm people other than by denying them immediate health care.
Our first recommendation to you is to give your self-government negotiators a mandate to include cultural competency obligations in land claims and self-government agreements. Require your officials to understand who they are working with.
The second is to change funding policies so that we can speed up the negotiating process. Negotiations with Canada are set up to keep us negotiating for an entire generation—20 or 30 years. This does not help us to rebuild our community, which has been damaged by colonization, and it does not serve taxpayers in Canada well. As you know, we also pay taxes in Canada.
We want an agreement in five years. We are negotiating chapters, including those on governance, housing, and lands. After we have done those things well, we will come back to the table to negotiate more authorities. We can call this a modular or stepping-stone approach. After completing module one, with about 12 chapters, we can focus on implementing and negotiate other authorities later. We are building our government at our own pace.
Canada and the GNWT have committed to completing a final module one agreement with us by 2018. We have one year left to complete our agreement. Canada, the GNWT negotiators, and the bureaucrats are all supporting this accelerated pace as best they can. However, Colville Lake is severely held back by the INAC funding policy.
INAC's negotiating funding policies assume that we will spend 20 years negotiating everything in one agreement. As a result, we cannot get the resources we need to finish in five years because the funding policy assumes that we are going to take 20 years. The funding policy uses the size of our population to also restrict the amount of funding; however, the number of people in our membership does not dictate the amount of work that is necessary for us to complete each chapter that we must negotiate. To serve the needs of all people in Canada and to fulfill the government's commitment to allow us to negotiate from a position of equality, the funding policy needs to change to reflect the actual costs of negotiations.
Our second recommendation is that negotiations and negotiation funding must be flexible. The flexibility must provide resources needed to negotiate an agreement in five years instead of 20 years.
I'll get right to our third recommendation, since we're running out of time. If Canada is committed to renewing the relationship in which crown and indigenous governments work together on matters of mutual importance and concern, the self-government agreement, instead of requiring “certainty”, must recognize that we will evolve and take up all our rights and responsibilities.
Thank you. I think you all have a copy of the presentation.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
Very good. It will be part of the record as well. Thank you.
Moving on to the second presenters, please go ahead, Jake.
Jake Heron Chief Negotiator, Northwest Territory Métis Nation
Thank you very much for giving us this opportunity.
Mr. Bailey, who is the president of the Northwest Territory Métis Nation, is unable to attend, so I've been delegated this responsibility. It's an honour and my pleasure to be representing him, given that I'm not an elected official. Having said that, I welcome the House of Commons standing committee here today.
As a bit of historic background, the indigenous Métis of the Northwest Territories have a distinct culture and history, and a separate way of life independent from the Dene people, with whom we have long ancestral relationships. Indigenous Métis helped to establish Fort Resolution in 1786, among other communities in the Northwest Territories.
The members of the NWTMN were the backbone of the Hudson's Bay Company's trading network throughout the Northwest Territories and beyond, including Fort Rae, Fort Resolution, Fort Smith, Hay River, Fort Reliance, Rocher River, Fort Fitzgerald, and Salt River.
Some of the languages spoken are Chipewyan, Cree, French, Slavey, and Michif.
To give you a bit of the structure, the Métis councils are made up of indigenous members from Fort Smith, Hay River, and Fort Resolution. Collectively, we have been in an enumeration process, and close to 3,000 people have applied for enumeration.
The NWTMN is mandated to negotiate the land and resource agreements and self-government agreements with the Government of Canada and the Government of the Northwest Territories, and to seek the recognition of its aboriginal rights. In the NWTMN's constitutional bylaws, article 2(b) lists its objects: to protect, promote, and enhance the aboriginal rights of Métis of the South Slave Region. The NWTMN does not receive core funding from Canada to fulfill its objectives, nor does it do so for the administration of programs and services for our members.
In regard to the implementation of the Daniels decision, as the federal government has responsibility for Métis based upon the Daniels decision, the NWTMN must be treated on an equitable basis, with Indian bands and status Indians, with respect to all aspects of federal programs and services and associated funding envelopes. We implore Canada to take immediate steps to bridge the gap, as the denial of federal programs and services has placed the NWTMN in a dire situation compared to that of bands. The NWTMN requires core funding in order to be in a position comparable to that of Indian bands and their tribal councils.
In terms of principles respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples, in researching Canada's websites, it's noteworthy to refer to the opening paragraph and the caption entitled “Principles respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with Indigenous peoples”, found on the Department of Justice website. It states:
The Government of Canada is committed 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.
It is fair to say that with a change of government at the federal level we are cautiously optimistic that we will achieve an equitable land and resources agreement, including self-government.
In terms of land and resource negotiations, from 1972 to 1990, the NWTMN participated in the joint Dene-Métis land negotiations. Elsewhere in the NWT, Dene and Métis have negotiated a single agreement, e.g., Sahtu and Gwich'in land claim agreements; however, with the collapse of the territory-wide Dene-Métis negotiations, the Akaitcho Dene First Nation initially decided to pursue a treaty land entitlement negotiation that did not include indigenous Métis of the South Slave region.
The NWTMN land and resource negotiations commenced with the signing of a framework agreement among the NWTMN, Canada, and the Government of the Northwest Territories in August 1996, which set the stage for negotiation of a land and resource agreement in principle.
On July 31, 2015, the NWTMN, Canada, and the GNWT signed the Northwest Territory Métis Nation Land and Resources Agreement-in-Principle. The AIP sets out the substantive basis for negotiations of the NWTMN land and resources final agreement and includes the following matters. Not everything is included, but these are some of the key elements: the continuation of Métis traditional life; wildlife, fish, plants, and tree harvesting practices throughout the agreement area, including gifting and trading; Métis land and community land ownership; a capital chance for resource revenue sharing; consultation for oil and gas exploration, mineral exploration, and development; requirements for the negotiation of impact and benefit agreements; commencement of the self-government and co-management negotiations; and, involvement in heritage resources and protected areas and parks.
The failed 1990 Dene-Métis final agreement formed the basis for the N.W.T. land and resources agreement-in-principle negotiations. The other N.W.T. land agreements also inform negotiations, as the parties are seeking equity among the aboriginal groups, taking into account population size and the extent of their traditional territory.
In regard to the report of the ministerial special representative, on April 6, 2017, special representative Thomas Isaac prepared a report regarding aboriginal land claims in the southeast region of the Northwest Territories. The following are key recommendations of the ministerial special representative: aboriginal rights are exercised on the same land base by overlapping aboriginal groups.... You all have Isaac's report, so we can just move on.
Concerning implementation, since the report of the ministerial special representative was released, parties have undertaken the following initiatives. Canada and the GNWT have tabled a revised offer for the capital transfer of land, surface and subsurface, and resource royalties, and harvest areas. The NWTMN has tabled a counter. The parties developed a work plan to expedite the NWTMN land and resources negotiations over the next 18 to 24 months.
One other thing is the change in the federal mandate since the AIP. During the July 2016 main table negotiation session, the federal chief negotiator advised that Canada has now a mandate to conclude a final agreement that would be a section 35 treaty land agreement.
Let me just highlight some of the substantive offer: a mandate for land resource negotiations; self-government; overlap; seeking a meeting with the Minister of the Environment responsible for Parks Canada, and recommendations.... One of the reasons why I just touched base on the minister of parks and the environment is that I've been at the table for seven years, and I think we've been asking successive environment ministers to meet with us. We haven't been successful.
In terms of recommendations, we look forward to your assistance in improving land negotiations involving the NWTMN; ensuring the minister's response for the negotiation on parks; INAC should meet with the NWTMN leadership on a regular basis; ensuring that timely negotiations with the N.W.T. final agreement are a priority for Canada and the GNWT; ensuring that the final agreement is equitable with other aboriginal final agreement negotiations as offered; and, exploring viable options for generalized interest in terms of sharing the royalties in the subsurface.
I'll quit there just to get a little bit of grace.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
All right. It will give us more time to delve into the areas that members want more information on.
To our final group, please go ahead. You have 10 minutes.
Duane Ningaqsiq Smith Chair and Chief Executive Officer, Inuvialuit Regional Corporation
Thanks, Madam Chair.
Thank you all for the opportunity to present before you. My name is Duane Smith. I'm the chair and CEO of Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. With me today is my general counsel, Kate Darling. We will, as others have, just make it briefer than what we had planned. We have provided our presentation to the interpreters.
The IFA, which is the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, is a modern land claim agreement within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution. This agreement is not just ours. It belongs to both Inuvialuit and to Canada. Under it we each carry solemn obligations to diligently carry out its promises. The IFA established the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation as the organization with authority to generally represent the rights and interests of Inuvialuit and to manage the implementation of the agreement. We have gathered a lot of experience on this topic in our 33-plus-year history.
Through our land claim agreement, Inuvialuit would seek to ensure a balanced approach to our resources that preserves the integrity of our treaty rights and pursues reconciliation over the long term. Under the distinctions-based approach, in accordance with principle 10 of the principles respecting the Government of Canada's relationship with indigenous peoples, “a distinctions-based approach is needed to ensure that the unique rights, interests and circumstances of the First Nations, the Métis Nation and Inuit are acknowledged, affirmed, and implemented.”
Since settling our claim in 1984, the Inuvialuit have shouldered the work of ensuring that federal laws, policies, and operational practices are consistent with the Inuvialuit Final Agreement and support its objectives. This has often been a difficult exercise in coordination and education of federal representatives. More recently this has begun to change for the better.
Inuit from the four Inuit regions of Canada have also signed the Inuit Nunangat Declaration on the Inuit-Crown Partnership. Under this structure, our land claim organizations have been active participants in the development of Canada's Arctic policy framework. We've also contributed to the work of the review of law and policies project. These are important venues for ensuring that the federal government—our partner under the IFA—has the proper guidance for its work toward achieving the objectives under the agreement.
With that we'd like to make our first recommendation. The IRC respectfully requests that the committee include in its report the recommendation to continue to invest time and intelligence in the Inuit-crown partnership, the Arctic policy framework, and the review of law and policies, and that Canada continue to approach this work through a distinctions-based approach.
With regard to implementation, I'd like to speak now to key issues relating to the implementation of our modern treaty. For Inuvialuit everything flows from the implementation of the IFA and its achievement of its stated objectives: to preserve Inuvialuit cultural identity, for Inuvialuit to be equal and meaningful participants in the economy, and for us to protect and preserve our environment for our children.
Over the past three decades, Inuvialuit have received only nominal amounts to support the management of implementation. We receive $40,000 annually, which covers participation at the meetings of the IFA implementation coordinating committee. In comparison to what other land claim agreement holders receive, this is a fraction of what is seen as necessary to carry out the functions of a land claim organization.
We have made the argument that where land claim agreement holders must undertake some functions of government in order to address service gaps, doing so requires a reasonable level of financial support.
With that, we'd like to make our second recommendation. The IRC respectfully requests that the committee include in its report the recommendation to fix the inadequate core funding situation that has limited the IRC's ability to manage the implementation of the IFA since its signing.
In addition to the level of funding, the form of funding can be a constraint upon or a catalyst to implementation. lnuvialuit have proven ourselves to be able business people, project managers, and programmers. If we were not in the ISR providing health and wellness programming and helping to propel economic development, these obligations would fall to Canada and the territory. In order to operate effectively, the IRC needs longer-term financing arrangements that will allow for better planning, consistent offerings, and better outcomes.
This leads to the third recommendation. The IRC respectfully requests the committee include in its report the recommendation to extend longer-term flexible funding arrangements to land claim agreement organizations with established track records of financial responsibility.
In the ISR there are areas where progress has been made such as on skills and training through the federal ASETS program, but there are other areas where minimal progress has been made, like in “Economic Measures” under section 16 of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement and sections relating to parks.
lnuvialuit and Canada would benefit from the establishment of an accountability framework for land claims implementation. This would assure lnuvialuit that the federal government is working diligently to satisfy its promises and would demonstrate to Canadians that tax dollars are being put to constitutional and legislated purposes.
This leads me to our fourth recommendation. The IRC respectfully requests the committee include in its report the recommendation to develop an accountability framework to track the implementation of the IFA and other land claim agreements.
Under my final subject matter, laws and policies, no matter how strong or well drafted a modern treaty may be, if a law, policy, or administrative measure conflicts with the terms of the agreement, this can have an immediate detrimental effect. We experienced this with the 2012 omnibus bills that amended the Navigation Protection Act, the Fisheries Act, and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. We are experiencing this now with the joint Arctic leaders' statement, which instituted, without consultation, the moratorium on offshore development.
We may experience this with the amendments proposed in Bill C-55 to the Oceans Act and the Canada Petroleum Resources Act. Canada has demonstrated on these occasions a disregard for the objectives of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, the processes established under the agreement, and the role of lnuvialuit in our own future.
The IRC, the Inuvialuit Game Council, and several IFA co-management bodies participated fully in the reviews of the National Energy Board Act, the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act, the Navigation Protection Act, and the Fisheries Act. We have also made lengthy submissions on the frontier and offshore regulatory renewal initiative, or FORRI as it's referred to, the Oceans Act, the CPRA, and CEAA, among others. We also intervened in the Supreme Court Clyde River case alongside our fellow Inuit, all of these at our own expense.
As we put forth in Clyde River, free, prior, and informed consent is an essential element in co-operative federalism that includes indigenous authorities. Further, for FPIC to work, consultation and accommodation is required. As we continue to explain to Canada, the Arctic cannot serve as the environmental conscience of the nation without commensurate support in line with the objectives of the IFA to advance the quality of life and opportunities of lnuvialuit.
This leads me to my two final comments and two final recommendations.
The Inuvialuit respectfully request the committee include in its report the recommendation to fix the conflicts created by the past amendments of significant pieces of legislation and to incorporate the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Clyde River decision in Canada's approaches to environmental regulation.
The final recommendation is that we finally, humbly request that the committee include the recommendation to engage with land claim rights holders to determine an adequate exchange where Canada intends to remove economic opportunities from land claim beneficiaries.
Thank you very much.