Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 23rd, 2017

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

That, to some degree, leads into my next question, and then hopefully I have time for a third.

We heard from the last panel that there was no consultation over what potentially could be a lot of economic prosperity and opportunity with the unilateral decision about offshore oil and gas. I understand that there has also been a unilateral decision in terms of the imposition of a carbon tax. It probably has its benefits and its negatives, but there is nowhere that I think it will affect more than northern communities and communities that are already struggling.

First, were you part of that conversation? Were you given numbers in terms of how it's going to impact your community? Have you been given any kind of opportunity to have that dialogue with the federal government as they look towards implementing a unilateral decision?

[Chief Bill Erasmus]

We were not approached about the carbon pricing. It's unfortunate because, as you know, climate change and all of that affects us greatly. We're probably one of the most vulnerable people because we're closest to the land. That's what I was trying to say earlier. We need to be part of every conversation. As an authority with governing powers, we need to set up our own institutions so that we're able to govern ourselves. Even if those institutions are not in place, Canada's economy needs to include all of us. If it means putting money in trust, then that's fine, but we haven't been part of that discussion. Thank you.

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

I think in many ways what I'm hearing in the Northwest Territories and in the north, although there are many challenges ahead, I think.... Again, I'll use comparisons. Compared to the province that I represent, British Columbia, you seem to have dealt with a lot of very difficult issues and have at least moved many steps ahead of perhaps where we are.

I can appreciate Ms. Blondin-Andrew's comments about the lack of time and that boxed feeling. But hopefully there still is great benefit in terms of the work that committees do. It's not the be-all and end-all, but recommendations do go through to the minister and the Prime Minister from the work the committees do. I do appreciate the frustration, but hopefully we do see some changes made as they relate to the work that you put in to present and that we do here listening.

One of the most surprising things about the hearing is this. I knew we had a specific claims process and challenges with the specific claims process and the comprehensive process. I recognize and acknowledge the importance of these processes. Until I met with the Lands Claim Coalition, I had always assumed that, once these agreements were signed, the implementation was taken care of. I think perhaps the biggest surprise for me in the last couple of years since I've taken on this portfolio and role is how we haven't done that. I really appreciate the suggestions we had in terms of some things we need to do: when we sign an agreement, we have to honour it, and we have to implement it.

I know that Bobbie Jo Greenland-Morgan made a number of suggestions. I thought those were interesting suggestions. Does anyone else have other suggestions in terms of ensuring the implementation of signed agreements and treaties?

[Bertha Rabesca Zoe]

Again, as Ethel mentioned, with regard to the procurement issues and the economic chapters in the agreement, the implementation of those needs to happen seriously. We all have similar economic measures chapters that deal with procurement in our region and that deal with a lot of remediation site work that is crucial to the economy and to the environment, and also the work that the coalition has been doing in trying to advance an implementation policy.

We do have a model policy that's floating out there based on the four-ten principles we've been talking about that the leaders here have mentioned. We've been involved in implementation since day one at the implementation committee and so forth. We worked with the previous government, and we didn't advance very far. Hopefully, through this government, we'll be able to pick up the pace in implementation. Through the coalition, we've done lots and lots of work, so if that work could be taken seriously and considered seriously, that would be a huge step in the right direction.

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

Grand Chief—

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

You're out of time.

MP Anandasangaree, I understand you're splitting your time with MP Harvey.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My thanks to the panel for joining us, and a special welcome to Ms. Blondin-Andrew. We had some good discussions over coffee about a year ago. I look forward to connecting with you again.

I do want to focus primarily on self-government issues, and perhaps, Bertha, you can start off with respect to the type of policy you're able to exercise right now. You've already identified some of the limitations vis-à-vis implementation due to financial resources. Perhaps you can expand on the specific policy you have, focusing on education, language, and cultural rights.

[Bertha Rabesca Zoe]

The Tlicho have a full box of governance. There are other agreements, negotiated rights, that we don't have and we can negotiate that into our agreement. We do have, as Grand Chief said, 39,000 square kilometres of land, which is huge. One of the first things the government did was put the lands into moratorium until we develop a land use plan.

The land use plan is very critical to the operations of the Tlicho government in terms of what areas are available for what. Because we have three diamond mines in our traditional territory, that mining activity and the mineral rights are really important to the future of the Tlicho. The land use plan is a step in determining those rights and which area of the land is available for development.

The Tlicho have opened up their lands for development via the land use plan. Now GNWT is working on Wek’èezhìi, which is land that is outside of our territory that includes a management area for regulatory purposes and for wildlife management. They're working on a land use plan for that area, so we're working with them and making sure that the buffer zones are all the same. That will determine how land is going to be used. That's all part of the type of authorities the Tlicho have. We developed this land use plan ourselves, and we had to consult with other governments on it, so it's a reversal of—

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

With respect to education, maybe you can touch on that. Are you exercising that power right now, or is it still being negotiated?

[Bertha Rabesca Zoe]

The Tlicho have a different position, that through the intergovernmental services agency that the Tlicho are actively involved in, that it's all driven by the Tlicho. In the school system, their principle is “strong like two people”. So we haven't exercised that jurisdiction, but because the ISA agreement that we have is a 10-year agreement, we're negotiating a renewal of that agreement and we're contemplating the possibility of exercising that jurisdiction.

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

Ms. Blondin-Andrew, with respect to overlapping rights and claims, I know this is something that's come up. Are you dealing with a situation where there is overlapping jurisdiction?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew]

Yes. Unfortunately, my friend Bertha and I have an issue between our two claims. There's an overlap there that was created in a very complicated way, I suppose. We don't only have that issue, we have overlap issues with multiple parties, the Na-cho Nyäk Dun, the Dehcho Treaty 8, and what I'm asking the federal government to do is to hold a full workshop on overlapping agreements with us. They're working on that. We're trying to find a solution.

There's something I wanted to tell the committee that I thought was good news. When we dealt with the implementation of our claim, we're on 25 years we had to renew our agreement. If you think negotiating a claim is hard, try renegotiating the funding provisions for your claim after it expires. It's very challenging. But one thing I thought Minister Bennett and her cohorts did well was to increase the money for the renewable resource councils. They have an onerous role. The role went from being hunters and trappers organizations to being monitors of environmental change, climate change and all that. We asked the government to triple the funding. They doubled it. The effects of that, which I've seen throughout the Northwest Territories with the renewable resources councils, have been just fantastic. It was a really good thing to do. So things can happen that are good.

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

We've heard extensively about the difficulties in actually negotiating the claims. That's been our experience over the past several weeks on the first part of this. I think what we're hearing about today is a bit more of an advanced stage, where you're talking about actual difficulties in implementing. While we've heard that before, I think your focus is not so much on the negotiation itself per se, because that appears to be something that is working or has worked. It's now about implementing it. I think that's a really important issue.

You've said that there is a renewal or renegotiation after 25 years. Was that built into the agreement, or is that...?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew]

Yes, there's a time period. I think it's after 10 years.

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

In terms of review or renegotiation, is that built into any of your agreements as well ?

[Bertha Rabesca Zoe]

There are no renegotiations of the agreement. There are amendment provisions, but the implementation plan that accompanies those agreements is for 10 years, and there are options to renew or renegotiate.

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

Ms. Greenland-Morgan.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

I'm sorry, Gary. We've run out of time on that one.

We're now moving to MP Viersen.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Is there anyone else who wants to take a crack at that last question? Did you need a little more time on that one?

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew]

Can I add something?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Yes.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew]

As you know, history is the judge of this process. Implementation is a challenge for every government. It doesn't matter who they are. They could be NDP, Liberal, or Conservative. It doesn't matter. It's a challenge for every government because it deals with resources, and you're not renegotiating the provisions: you're renegotiating the funding for the provisions. That's what I should clarify.

Thank you.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Go ahead, Bill.

[Chief Bill Erasmus]

Thank you.

Part of the fundamental problem we have is that because our people were on the land until quite recently, and people who moved into our communities were relocated into our communities as late as the seventies, while we were on the land, the territorial government assumed authority over our programs and services. At first, when we were negotiating with all of our communities, we wanted to take over all the programs and services. In 1986 we were instructed that this wasn't possible through the negotiating process. To date, there are very few communities that have control of this, and that's part of the big problem: there's now a whole bureaucracy. There's a whole civil service around providing the services to our people, whereas in the south on the reserves, people have the opportunity to provide their own services through their tribal councils and so on. Here, the funding goes to the territorial government. Now we're trying to wrestle that from them, and we're also trying to wrestle it from the federal government.

In reality, because we're parties to Treaties 8 and 11, that shouldn't be a problem, because part of the treaty arrangement was that we would always govern ourselves. The difficulty today is that some of our chiefs say they want to take over something but are told they can't unless they have a self-government agreement in place. We really are hampered by that. People want to get on and want to do a whole number of things, but they're told they can't until they have a self-government agreement. We've been at the table since 1973. We have only five communities that have settled out of 30. It's a huge problem.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

I ask most groups that come here about the fact that all around this table we have made an assumption that the comprehensive land claims agreements are good things and that they bring prosperity. I was wondering if I could just go through the lineup to see if you agree with the statement that comprehensive land claims are worthwhile things to be pursuing.

I'll start with Ms. Blondin-Andrew.