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

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Mr. Premier, we are being very generous. You have already passed the bell, but keep going.

[Robert R. McLeod]

Okay. I'm just about done.

In summary, we are pleased with the overall direction the federal government is taking in terms of reconciliation. We are, however, concerned that Canada is forgetting the Northwest Territories when it is making national policy. Our current framework of public government working in collaboration with future indigenous self-governments, with clear processes for taking on authority and transition funding, is one that should be supported, not torn apart.

Our framework for sharing resource revenues is intended to support indigenous governments, including building capacity to take on programs and service delivery. It too can serve as a model for the federal government when it looks to issues such as its own resource revenue sharing.

Reconciliation requires a national dialogue to ensure that, as a country, we are moving forward together. The same is true of the Northwest Territories. This means both collective action and collaborative decision-making about our future. We strongly urge Canada to support that national discussion and not to make those critical decisions without collaboration with its partners and the provinces and territories.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

Questioning now goes to the seven-minute round.

We will start with MP Michael McLeod.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Premier. I am glad you took the time to come and present to us. We heard from many of the indigenous governments this morning. Unfortunately, we didn't have anybody here from the Dehcho or the Akaitcho. We heard many issues being brought up, and many challenges that the indigenous governments are facing.

Having discussed this many times with some of the indigenous governments that haven't settled yet, I know they are concerned about the comprehensive claim policy. They are concerned about the self-government policy, and they feel it's outdated. We heard this morning that the models and the policies are outdated. We also heard that maybe it doesn't meet the United Nations declaration.

During my time in the Government of the Northwest Territories, we always raised the fact that the mandate was getting to be a bit old, and it presented some challenges when we tried to move forward, especially with some of the indigenous governments that hadn't made significant headway. It didn't give us a lot of flexibility.

We are now reviewing, as a committee, the comprehensive land claims agreements, the specific claims, and the self-government policy. Is there anything you could recommend that would help make things a little easier? What recommendations would you make to the government's policies, to the government's approach? Is there anything you could recommend?

[Robert R. McLeod]

Thank you very much for the question, because it was very difficult for us. We recognized that essentially there were three areas in our mandates that we had to revisit, at least for the Northwest Territories.

First and foremost, one of our mandates was that we had to adhere to what we referred to as the “failed” Dene-Métis comprehensive claim, where we had to live within the parameters of that claim. The second one, because of the fact that we had a number of settled land claims, was that we also had to live with population numbers from 25 years ago. Obviously, the population numbers have changed. The third one was that we didn't know, if we increased the numbers in the settled land claims, whether we would have to revisit them.

I guess we've taken a leap of faith where we're trying to be more flexible. With the ministerial special representatives, I think it really pointed a way forward where it directed us to work more closely to help with facilitation among the different aboriginal governments that had significant differences, to try to bring certainty and finalize some long-standing land claims that had been negotiated for over 25 years.

My only recommendation would be to revisit the mandates and have some flexibility, recognizing there are existing claims that have already been settled, existing self-government agreements.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

My next question is again on something we heard this morning regarding implementation of some of the agreements. We heard from one of the indigenous governments that has settled self-government. They're indicating that because it's a joint arrangement with the territorial government, until the Government of the Northwest Territories has adequate resources in their coffers, they are not interested in drawing down, because there is nothing there. I think housing was the example.

So we are negotiating all these agreements, and trying to get other indigenous governments to come to the table, yet that could end up being an empty pot. It's still dependent on the federal government to honour some of these arrangements, but the fiscal agreements don't seem to be worded that way.

[Robert R. McLeod]

I think housing is a good example. Somebody asked the question in our legislative assembly the other day. It was that the funding flows through the GNWT, but the housing money from the federal government is very minimal. I would agree with that assessment, and I think that if the federal government wants to make more housing money available, incremental funding would be very good.

I think probably we all know which government you're talking about here, because only one government has the self-government agreement. I think they would have to take that into consideration before they draw down programs.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

You have about a minute left.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

One quick point that I heard today is that the treaties and the modern treaties need to be recognized as being on par with other international treaties. Would you agree with that statement that was made this morning?

[Robert R. McLeod]

We support all treaties. We do not abrogate any treaties, so we certainly take that into consideration. We certainly respect and honour all the treaties. I think we were one of the first jurisdictions to pass a motion in support of UNDRIP as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

That concludes your time.

We're moving on to MP Viersen.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I really appreciate being here today and in your presence, sir.

One of the things you mentioned in your statement was the idea of maybe moving targets. We heard earlier today that one of the earliest comprehensive land claims agreements was settled in 1991. Could you elaborate on how things have changed since 1991?

I get the impression that there is not an incentive to settle the claim, because since 1991, people have learned, oh, we can do this, or we can do that and that. The claims as we go further along are perhaps a better deal, or are they changing things to make it a worse deal? I don't know which way it's going. Changing things basically means, well, we'll just wait for a better climate to make an agreement.

I think that's what you were saying. Could you address that a little?

[Robert R. McLeod]

When you look at the first claim that was settled, with the Inuvialuit land claim, I think you will see that this was probably because we were moving from the failed Dene-Métis comprehensive claim. The Inuvialuit claim was the first land claim settlement in Northwest Territories, so they probably benefited from that. I think if you look at the Gwich'in and the Sahtu, you see it was probably not as rich, maybe. I'd have to go back to confirm that. The Tlicho took a different approach, where they took a combined land claim and self-government agreement.

I guess whether it would benefit those who have been negotiating the longest remains to be seen. I think for every aboriginal government that has settled land claims, it's my understanding they all have a disclaimer, at any rate, whereby if anybody gets a better deal they'll get the same thing. It was the same thing when we negotiated devolution. We had a better deal than Yukon, so Yukon got the same deal. I guess if anybody gets a better deal, it would benefit others who have settled, I would think. But that remains to be seen.

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

So it's not necessarily that there is that incentive to hold off for necessarily a better deal because somebody in the future—

[Robert R. McLeod]

Although, if some governments have been using that as a negotiating tactic, well, I don't know for sure.

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

Interesting. You said there are still three outstanding land claims. Are you convinced that's going to be the extent of it? You said it seemed to start out as one and now it's three. Was there any indication that it would fragment into even more land claims after that?

[Robert R. McLeod]

We always knew there were seven. There are three outstanding ones that have not been settled. If others can make a case that they are entitled to be recognized as an aboriginal government with their own negotiating table, that remains to be seen.

Also, aboriginal governments from other provinces that have had historical aboriginal use and occupancy have been successful in negotiating claims in the Northwest Territories. I don't know. It all depends on who the federal government recognizes and agrees to have at the negotiating table.

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

From your perspective, overall, have comprehensive land claims been a positive thing for the Northwest Territories?

[Robert R. McLeod]

In my view, they've been very positive. I think if you look at our economy, if you look at the settled claims, those areas that have had settled claims have the resources and the capacity to be very successful in a strong economy. Here in the Northwest Territories when you look around, the most successful businesses are aboriginal businesses.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

The questioning now goes to MP Anandasangaree.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Premier and Mr. Deputy Minister, thank you for being here.

I want to start off by saying that you do have a great representative in Ottawa. He fights for N.W.T. each and every day. Having been on the committee with Mike for the last two years, I know that he's been absolutely consistent in his advocacy.

I do want to pick up on a couple of points, most notably with respect to certainty and finality of claims. I know you've expressed some concerns, and I know when we've talked to other communities over the past few weeks that's something that has become a very sore issue. That's one of the reasons they've cited as...the comprehensive claims taking so long to come to completion, some as much as 40 years.

I think the approach that appears to have some consensus is an evolutionary approach, a rights-based approach, where it's not full and final agreement but an agreement where it evolves over time as issues change. I want to try to reconcile this with your concerns about it causing delays and potentially, for those who are holding out the longest, getting better agreements. I don't know if you can comment on that.

[Robert R. McLeod]

Well, I guess with regard to certainty, if you talk to industry, there's the fact that very large parcels of land are inaccessible because of negotiations. We have large tracts of land on which we have land withdrawals. We have “land lease only” policies in certain areas with that, and also there are large amounts of protected area. I think 57% of the Northwest Territories is protected-area already. It's very hard if you're limited in the areas that are open for development, so that part of it is a concern.

As for whether future negotiations can result in better deals, I have no problem with that. It's up to the negotiating prowess, I guess, of the different negotiators.

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

With respect to overlapping claims—that's something we heard quite a bit about this morning—can you give us an indication of your government's position vis-à-vis overlapping claims? As others have suggested, is it the federal government's responsibility or is it up to the different, and what may sometimes appear to be competing, claims for the nations to work out? Is there a hybrid solution that will require all parties to be at the table?

[Robert R. McLeod]

I think to date the governments have basically left it to the aboriginal governments involved in the competing claims to work it out amongst themselves, and I think that's worked well for the most part. For those areas that have not settled as of yet, our ministerial special representative has indicated, in his view, that the governments had to play a more active role to help facilitate some solutions and try to work together with the aboriginal governments to resolve some long-standing issues. I think we're prepared to do that, because I think it's in everybody's interest to settle all the land claims and self-government agreements in the Northwest Territories.