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

[Chief Bill Erasmus, National Chief, Dene Nation]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mahsi for this opportunity to speak to you.

My name is Bill Erasmus. I'm the national chief of the Dene Nation. As you know, there's a long history in the Northwest Territories dealing with land claims. I thought I would talk a little bit about some of that history to give you an understanding of it and talk about some of the more recent things that are happening and give suggestions on how to make improvements.

I don't have written notes, but I will draft a note to you so that you have it for the record.

Thank you also to the MP for the Northwest Territories and the western Arctic, Michael McLeod. We know that he asked you to come north, and we're very pleased that you were able to do that.

There are other people who wanted to come forward who never had an opportunity. For example, I spoke to Chief Frieda Martselos from Fort Smith this morning. She and her people settled the Salt River First Nation agreement in 2002 and they have a lot of concerns they would like to bring forward. I have asked her to put those on paper and send them directly to you, and possibly have an opportunity at some other point to speak to you, if that's possible by telephone or however.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We'll take note of it, and if there's a possibility, maybe we can send the invitation to participate in a panel.

[Chief Bill Erasmus]

She said she's even willing to go to Ottawa if that were the case.

The Dene go back a long ways in this whole business of land claims. In the early seventies, we took the federal government to court because of the interpretation of Treaties 8 and 11. Canada's version was that we gave up our treaty and aboriginal rights, either through our treaties or through legislation. Our leadership decided to take that to court, and in 1973 Justice Morrow ruled that we did not give up our rights. Treaties 8 and 11 were peace and friendship instruments, so they were not treaties that gave up our lands, our rights, or our resources. As well, those rights were aboriginal rights protected under the Canadian Constitution, and Canada had an obligation to deal with them and protect them.

At the same time, there was the case from British Columbia involving Frank Calder of the Nisga'a. They negotiated. They were people who never had a treaty. They went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada, and they also won their case, which proved they had aboriginal rights. For the first time in Canada, we were told that we had rights. That's where the land claims came from, those two court cases.

As the Dene, we were invited to participate, so we were at the table up until 1990. We also included the Métis with us. You heard some of the Métis here earlier today. At one time, we were all together at one table. We signed an agreement in principle, and we also signed a final agreement. Canada chose to continue to negotiate with us, and they chose to change the policy that guides them so that they could deal with people on a regional basis. Then you had the Gwich'in agreement, the Sahtu agreement, the Tlicho agreement, and the Déline agreement, which comes out of the Sahtu agreement.

At one time all of us were together. Then it went regional. You also have some communities like Fort Liard that are at the table on a community basis. So the policy has changed quite dramatically without our involvement. That's a unilateral imposition on the part of Canada, which really is not the best way to approach things.

Along with that, we have a number of reserves now. The first one was set aside in 1973, the Hay River Reserve. It was set up so they could protect their interests, because NTCL was going to take over their land and they found that the best way to protect their interests was to set up a reserve. The reserve has been set up since then. The problem is, in terms of implementation, that they don't get the same services the reserves in the south get, and most of the financing for their reserve goes through the territorial government, which they have a huge problem with.

In speaking with Chief Martselos this morning, this is part of the big problem. She says, in her words, the federal government is not committed to implementing their agreement. Their agreement was put in place in 2002, and they still don't have water and sewage on their reserve. They have had to use their own dollars to set up what water and sewage there is. Rather than use the dollars outlined in the agreement, they have to resort to their own financing.

As I said, she will put her concerns on paper for you.

In her words, also, she believes that Canada is stalling the negotiations, and we don't know exactly why. We know that Canada didn't want to have reserves north of 60, but the fact that they're here means they have to deal with them, and they should get the services outlined to them.

We know there is the other reserve just south of Fort Smith, on the Alberta side. They work with the Alberta government. It's like night and day. They get a lot of services that others on the N.W.T. side don't.

I have two more quick points. Canada is looking at setting up a fiscal relations table with the Assembly of First Nations, and we welcome that. It's looking at a whole new way of financing our communities. We feel that if we're able to sort out where the dollars are going—because right now we're not entirely clear; some of it goes to the federal government, some goes to the provinces, some goes to the territorial government, very little comes to us—if we're able to get rid of the middleman and have those dollars come directly to us, that will certainly help us. We support that fiscal relations table. We need you to understand it and to support it also.

The other point is on the review taking place that's looking at old, outdated policies. We want you to also look at the devolution agreement that was passed in the N.W.T., because it was under the other administration and it left out 15 or 16 communities throughout the Mackenzie Valley. It's happening without recognition of the actual negotiations taking place at the Dehcho and the Akaitcho tables.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

Next we move to the Tlicho government, George Mackenzie. Welcome, Grand Chief.

[Grand Chief George Mackenzie, Grand Chief, Tlicho Government]

Mahsi. Thank you.

I'd like to welcome the committee to the north. Some don't need to be welcomed, like Michael McLeod.

Anyway, I'm the grand chief of the Tlicho nation. I was the grand chief in 2005. I was re-elected grand chief this past September. We govern 4,000 Tlicho people. Tlicho have land claims and self-government agreements; only three in Canada have a regional indigenous government. Tlicho own 39,000 square kilometres of land surface and subsurface rights, a single block about half the size of Nova Scotia. We have been working with Canada on the joint policy to fund indigenous governments. This work is crucial to the Tlicho government. Adequate funding based on actual costs will benefit our citizens, especially our most vulnerable citizens like the youth, elders, and women.

I'm the spokesman for the Tlicho government, but I'd like to turn the rest of this Tlicho government presentation to our legal counsel, Bertha Rabesca Zoe, to elaborate on the fiscal aspects of our presentation.

[Bertha Rabesca Zoe, Legal Counsel, Tlicho Government]

Mahsi.

Implementation is crucial to the parties in meeting their obligations under land claim agreements. There has been ample work done on it, and studies and reports through parliamentary committees and the Auditor General over the years, since land claims have been in existence. To the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, which a lot of us are part of, the key purpose is on implementation policy. Canada doesn't have a policy on implementation. LCAC drafted a model policy that we've been trying to get Canada to work with us on for quite a while.

One of the things that happened through a lot of our lobbying efforts, and I'm sure some of the leaders here will be touching upon the implementation challenges, is the creation of the deputy ministers' oversight committee and the modern treaty implementation office, which we think is a good step.

Tlicho is unique. As the grand chief said, Tlicho has a comprehensive civil land claims agreement and self-government combined. We have full jurisdiction and law-making authority on Tlicho lands; therefore, governance systems, structures, and operation are crucial. It requires adequate funding based on actual costs.

Over the last year and a half, our government has been engaged with the Government of Canada and other indigenous self-governments in a historic and unprecedented collaborative fiscal policy development process. Through the process, we are working together to develop a new fiscal policy for consideration by Canada that will have profound, positive impacts on our people's well-being. The process is a major step forward, and we are grateful for the leadership your government has shown in building a new and different relationship with us and other indigenous self-governments. Working together to develop these important policies is a fundamental aspect of reconciliation and key to a strong and prosperous relationship. It's time to make the changes real.

We now have a chance in budget 2018 to make concrete changes. The changes we can make now are on, first, new governance funding. A lot of work has gone into determining the actual costs of running our governments. Canada and the indigenous governments together have developed a model using data brought forward by the Tlicho government and the other indigenous governments on their needs and by looking at the cost of comparator governments.

For the Tlicho government, the new model is particularly significant as past policies have failed to account for the costs of our four communities, former Indian bands, coming together as the Tlicho Nation and under the umbrella of the Tlicho government. We call this “aggregation”. Failure to take into account the impact of this aggregation has resulted in a significant underfunding of our government and also acts as a disincentive for other indigenous peoples to come together based on collective identities as we have.

The new funding amount put forward should not be viewed as an aspirational ask from the indigenous governments. The amount represents what our governments actually required as determined through a rigorous and collaborative analysis.

We know there will need to be many discussions on cost-sharing mechanisms in the coming months, but those are separate discussions. Right now, it is important that the governance model developed be approved as is and that the full amounts identified make it into the 2018 budget. In this way, our future discussions on cost sharing will be based on a sound model and full picture of the governance costs.

In addition, in terms of closing the gaps, three proposals have been put forward setting out immediate measures to begin addressing significant gaps in infrastructure, housing, and social well-being in our communities.

An example of the type of initiative that the proposals would support is the Tlicho early learners program. The Tlicho government has identified a critical need to invest in our early learners. We are facing a significant challenge with those children arriving at school with a substantive gap in speech, language, and socialization levels.

We have developed a proposal for an initiative that would not only provide those kids with the support needed to catch up, but also do so by drawing on our culture and making that a fundamental aspect of the solution.

We would be pleased to provide you with the details of the opportunities and proposals, if you would like.

These are important proposals that have the potential to result in real and significant changes on the ground in Tlicho communities. I would like to really stress that it is important that the proposals make it to the 2018 budget as proposed because they represent what is really required by our governments and by our treaties.

Mahsi.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

Now we have the Gwich'in Tribal Council. We're honoured to have Bobbie Jo Greenland-Morgan, grand chief and president.

Welcome.

[Grand Chief Bobbie Jo Greenland-Morgan, Grand Chief and President, Gwich'in Tribal Council]

Mahsi cho.

Vahn gwiinzii, Madam Chair and distinguished members of the committee.

This is my first time in my capacity as the grand chief that I am presenting to the committee, and I realize that time is very short here. I know I'm not going to get through everything, but I'll do my best. I'd like to give a little background and then perhaps share some of our successes, our challenges, and then of course end by giving you some of our recommendations.

For those of you who don't know Gwich'in, our traditional territory extends through parts of Northwest Territories, the Yukon, and Alaska, where our people have lived for time immemorial. We are signatories to Treaty No. 11, which was signed in 1921 as you have heard. We're also signatories to the 1992 Gwich'in Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement. I was only 15 at the time when our claim was signed, and now, in my capacity as the grand chief and president, it hasn't taken too long to see that we are not where we should be 25 years later.

There have been some successes, I must say. Some of those successes include, after the claim was settled, the development of co-management boards, such as the Gwich'in Renewable Resources Board, Gwich'in Land and Water Board, and community-level-designated Gwich'in organizations in each of our communities. We have a board of directors in place that gives the direction to the Gwich'in Tribal Council. In 2003, we also had the land use plan finalized for the entire settlement region. We did, in April, celebrate in each of our communities that 25-year milestone. We do recognize there are things to celebrate, but there's also a lot of concern in terms of implementation and how the government has been failing in some areas, in our perspective.

The Gwich'in claim is unique for many reasons. One of the reasons is that we look at it as a land claim within a land claim in regard to the Yukon Transboundary Agreement, which is appendix C. I'll touch on this again later if I have time, but for now, the committee should be aware that the Gwich'in traditional territory and now the land claim itself straddles the Yukon-NWT border, and this leads to a variety of challenges for us, complications that remain not well understood by key government officials and departments.

I recognize that many of the submissions you will receive will focus on some negatives and there's always room for improvement. Let me get right into some ways we think we can improve here.

The situation and examples bring several of our concerns to the surface. First, there is a need for government to be more active partners in the implementation of modern treaties, a partner that recognizes the extreme resource and capacity constraints of indigenous organizations, and steps up with leadership assistance and genuine interest in making this progress with us—again, a step towards reconciliation. Failure to shift thinking and action in this manner pushes modern treaty holders to what has been referred to as “implementation by litigation”. Such an approach would be, in our view, a win-lose at best, and more likely lose-lose for Canada and indigenous groups.

There's also clear accountability gaps with respect to the implementation of our modern treaties. The government is slow to act because there are minimal accountability mechanisms in place. The government, to us, seems slow to act for those reasons. Government systems and structures need to be improved to ensure that officials are vested in the joint projects of implementing these agreements. There needs to be a recalibrating of departments' and officials' interests and incentives to ensure accountability and motivate action.

In regard to consultation, as the committee would be aware, Canada has come a long way, largely through court decisions, in clarifying consultation roles and duties of government and industry. The progress continues and we welcome much of this. However, we do feel there is an urgent need.

In just the past year alone, it's very obvious that an organization such as the Gwich'in Tribal Council lacks capacity in certain areas. Just in the past few months, for example, we have been engaged in 10 different legislative reform initiatives being moved forward by the GNWT, many of which will affect core protection and interests in our land claim agreement. There are currently no less than six federal legislative reform initiatives that also affect our core rights in respect to fisheries, navigation, energy, environmental assessments, and more.

This does not include any of the many matters on the Yukon side that I have mentioned, nor does it include broader policy framework engagement, nor does it include specific project development consultation, to say nothing of ongoing social issues in areas such as health, education, early childhood development, and justice.

As the committee would be aware, Canada has made several changes in recent years to the system's structures and processes dealing with modern treaties, including a statement of principles on the federal approach to modern treaty implementation and the cabinet directive on the federal approach to modern treaty implementation. However, we feel there's much more room for improvement.

In our view, we'd like to align with the Land Claims Agreements Coalition's position that it would be more appropriate for all of this to be embedded in an overarching federal policy. Creating such a policy is an opportunity for Canada to set out clearly what its intentions and goals are, and how all the recent changes and structure coherently work together to reach stated objectives. Without such policy with everyone involved, including government departments, officials, industry, and modern treaty holders, this will continue to operate in a context of wasteful time.

We further suggest that an independent modern treaty implementation oversight office be established, either within or in addition to the overarching federal policy. We see a strong and urgent need for an independent oversight office, as the Nisga'a mentioned in their submission to this committee. A detailed proposal on this will be forthcoming from the LCAC.

I strongly believe that this structural change is the key component that would benefit all parties and ensure that any progress being made today can withstand any setbacks in the future. The time for this is now, and the change is a relatively easy one as the proposal will detail. This would be a key institutional cornerstone of reconciliation for us all going forward.

In conclusion, I would like to suggest you consider the following suggestions. First, address the accountability gap through the creation of the independent oversight body. Second, address unmanageable consultation burdens through new creative approaches. Third, improve coherence across new and old federal system structures and practices through the creation of the national overarching policy. Enhance measures to sensitize departments and officials to modern treaties in the context of modern treaty holders, including the aligning of incentives and attitudes.

I have more to say but I know I'm out of time here. Mahsi cho for listening and considering our perspectives.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

That was well managed. You could have squeaked in a little bit more, but we'll have an opportunity to ask you questions to elaborate.

I want to make a special welcome to former Liberal MP, the Honourable Ethel Blondin-Andrew. It's so nice to see you and to meet you. It's your turn and you have 10 minutes on behalf of the Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Chairperson, Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated]

Mahsi cho.

[Witness speaks in North Slavey]

Thank you for coming to our territory. You're on the territory of Treaty No. 8 and the Métis people of this area. Welcome.

I'm from up north. I'm from the Sahtu region. I want to say a special hello to my MP, Mike McLeod. I've known Mike for many, many decades.

That makes us sound old. I'm old, Mike, but you're good and new. You're okay.

I want to thank him for the work he does for us and for how well he advocates on our issues.

I appreciate the invitation to make a submission to the standing committee on behalf of the Sahtu secretariat with respect to our regional land claim agreement and our comprehensive land claim experience over the past 25 years. I encourage this committee to undertake a thorough study of comprehensive land claim implementation in Canada and that federal systems support the full implementation of those agreements and the realization of the objectives of those agreements.

When I left federal politics in 2006, I went back to work for my people. That too is the highest calling and honour, including being in the public service. I've learned a lot. My name is Ethel Blondin, and I'm the chair of Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated. I work with the Sahtu secretariat board, which consists of the presidents of the Sahtu land corporations, to represent the Sahtu, Dene, and Métis land claim participation. A delegation of the Sahtu leadership preceded us. They were from Colville Lake.

Our seven land corporations are very, very busy. We essentially take on all of the responsibilities that any government would. We look at economic development, social programs, and any new amendments to territorial or federal laws. I was just at a meeting on Friday with Minister Philpott, Minister Bennett, and Minister Wilson-Raybould on changes to legislation and how it affects women, basically, and our communities in general. Some of what I say here I will have said there.

The SSI was established by seven land corporations to implement the Sahtu Dene and Métis Comprehensive Land Claim Agreement on behalf of the Sahtu, Dene, and Métis in the Sahtu region. In most land claims, even if you have Métis and Dene, they subsume each other. They come together. Ours didn't. We have three Métis communities and we have four Dene communities. They went side by each and stayed that way. They did not subsume each other.

What usually happens is what happened in the Tlicho region, where the chiefs formed their organization. We in the Sahtu have two organizations. We have the Sahtu Dene Council—you saw Chief Wilbert Kochon, who belongs to that council—and we have the seven presidents under SSI. We have two major organizations there.

The one that's responsible for the land claims implementation organization is SSI. We work together. We try to find accommodation on very complex, very critical, and sometimes very juxtaposed issues. We try to come together and find accommodation. We have a joint assembly, which I think is good. We've come to that. They vote their own resolutions and we vote ours. The chiefs vote on their own stuff and we vote on our own. We come together on economic issues because it affects everybody.

The primary organization in terms of implementation is the organization that I chair. My main job, as the implementer, is to work with the federal government and territorial government. We're about to go into a meeting pretty soon on that. We go to Ottawa and we meet in Yellowknife. Sometimes we even meet in different regions.

SSI was assigned certain implementation responsibilities under the land claim agreement, including the management and administration of capital transfer payments and certain resource royalties from Canada. These funds were assigned to the Sahtu Trust. We have two trusts. We have a huge trust that has been making money.

Making money is not always good news. People like to fight over money. You'll know that it's not the hard times that bring the acrimony. It's usually when you're debating over per capita payments and when you're debating over who gets what. So we have good news and we have challenging times.

We also have another one, which is called the Sahtu Master Land Agreement. It's kind of like an equalization formula. It works really well when we have a lot of development. Every land corporation that makes above $400,000 puts the balance of that into a common kitty and then it's redistributed in a financial formula. On an equalization, even those that don't do well that season get money, and those who do well are helping others, but they get more than their share. So it works out differently.

When the master land agreement is challenged, when there's no activity, it becomes very difficult because what we get depends on what the federal government gets, because our revenue stream comes from them under different arrangements, through our claim.

The SSI is the trustee of the Sahtu Trust and the master land agreement trust, which facilitates the sharing of resource revenue generated from the surface of the lands and mines on settlement land amongst the Sahtu, Dene, and Métis, and it administers the trusts on behalf of 3,500 participants of the land claim agreement. This is a mixture of Métis and Dene.

The Sahtu, Dene, and Métis have lived in the settlement area since time immemorial, and now live primarily in the communities of Norman Wells, Tulita, Deline, Fort Good Hope, and Colville. The Sahtu, Dene, and Métis in Canada signed the land claim agreement on September 6, 1993. On June 23, 1994, it was ratified by Parliament. Oddly enough—it's kind of strange—I was there. I was asked by the minister at the time to do the honours on that claim, on the Sahtu claim.

Under the land claim agreements with the Sahtu, Dene, and Métis, Canada committed to meet broad but focused socio-economic objectives, including the following objectives. The first was to encourage the self-sufficiency of the Sahtu, Dene, and Métis, which is based on the cultural and economic relationship between them and the land

The second objective was to provide the Sahtu, Dene, and Métis with the right to participate in decision-making concerning the use, management, and conservation of land, water, and resources. We do all that. We're very challenged for resources, but we step up to the plate and we respond to all those issues. We have people from our area representing us on tracking change, and stuff to do with water. We participate in the water management strategies.

We also deal with SARA, all of the legislation that deals with species at risk, and we also have people on park management and park creation. We created a park in our tenure, in these last 10 years. In my tenure we've created a brand new park called Nááts'ihch'oh, and a lot comes along with that. To provide the Sahtu, Dene, and Métis with wildlife harvesting rights and the right to participate in decision-making concerning wildlife harvesting and managing, that's a big issue.

I think sometimes we undersell the importance of things like this. In the recent months—

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

You have one minute.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew]

If we have one minute, then I'm going to do this.

We need you guys to take land claims seriously. A claim is good, but the implementation and the resources to do so are even more important.

We need you guys to be sincere and honest about procurement policies. We don't want people coming here and stealing our opportunities in our own land when we have people who are capable of making those deals.

We also need you guys to take aboriginal health seriously. The issue of dental health is a major non-insurance health benefit issue that affects our people. Our children and our people are suffering because it's so expensive. With the amount of money that has come out of our land, we should all have perfect teeth.

On the other hand, I think there are a lot of issues on land claims. The reason I don't like appearing before a standing committee is that you can't do justice to the way that you want to express yourself. You're in a squeezebox. I'd rather talk to my own people on my own terms and go to Ottawa and talk to the minister than be put in a squeezebox that pays no respect to the way we communicate.

I also would like us to have the proper infrastructure. Infrastructure will be transportation. We need a Mackenzie Valley highway completed to make food available and affordable for our people.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

The lesson learned is it's harder to control MPs than lawyers. Ethel, those are very good points. I'm just teasing.

Now we're on to the question and answer period, and we will have a significant amount of time so we're able to dig into your recommendations.

We're going to start with our local MP, Michael McLeod.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to everybody who presented here today. Of course it's always a challenge to try to get everybody's comments and opinions.

Today we're talking about a very important subject that I was very adamant we start to take a look at. That's the whole issue of specific claims, comprehensive claims, self-government, and what we need to do. We are working on trying to get the right relationship between Canada and its indigenous peoples.

We've already had a number of presentations from aboriginal governments that have settled land claims. We have heard about implementation, some issues with self-government.

I'm trying to get a read on what needs to change. We have settlement areas, but we still hear about housing, health, and economic development. Some of the claims seem not to address these issues at all, and we have some areas of the territories that have no land claims. The issue is still the same there. Should we, as a government, be changing the mandate of land claims, or is it okay and we should focus and put more emphasis on implementation? Will self-government solve those issues, or should that policy change also?

It's broad. We don't have a lot of time, but can you give me a snapshot? We'll start over here.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew]

As you probably know, we have five self-governing arrangements unfolding at various stages in my community. The five communities are all at different stages. One is complete.

What's significant about this is that the land claims agreement trumps the self-government provisions, and having said that, it sets the stage for everything else. We have to work together. Eventually, if all my communities get self-government, what happens to the mother organization? We have to redefine ourselves at SSI. We have to have a repository of certain authorities maybe, and then the rest goes to the community, which is fine with me. I think we've learned not to hang on to power. The power should be given to the people to do what they will.

A land claim is only as good as the implementation plan. We need more resources. I work with the land claims coalition and so does the Tlicho—we've been working with them for quite a while—and our bid has always been to get more money for implementation.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Bobbie Jo.

[Grand Chief Bobbie Jo Greenland-Morgan]

Thank you.

The Gwich'in Tribal Council has in the past year also been a part of the implementation committee. We have the 10-year plan. But in the past year, sitting at those meetings, my concern is just that things move really slowly. That's where a lot of our problem is, in enhancing and getting to where we should be. Some matters that might be of urgency to the tribal council, for example, appear to us to be not as important or as urgent to the government. Things just take a long time to move along.

If I may, I will give the example of the economic measures set out in chapter 10 in the Yukon transboundary agreement that I mentioned. Economic measures are an instance where government has perpetually read the provisions narrowly instead of approaching this work to actively implement the spirit and intent of the agreement. Chapter 10 contemplates support of the Gwich'in traditional economy, the marketing of renewable resource products, training, and education assistance, yet the meagre activity that has taken place has focused on the relatively weak provisions that deal with government contracting.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

You're saying the implementation is the issue, not the actual policy.

[Grand Chief Bobbie Jo Greenland-Morgan]

Yes, for sure.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Maybe I could just get a comment from the Tlicho.

[Bertha Rabesca Zoe]

Mahsi.

As you know, the Tlicho are self-governing, and with governments you have jurisdictions. When it comes to the issues of health, education, and housing—the question you're asking—a lot of that is within self-government agreements and the shared jurisdiction. The Tlicho have an intergovernmental services agreement with GNWT. This agency delivers health and education within the Tlicho region, and the GNWT retains jurisdiction over housing. Self-government includes those things, but if the Tlicho government decides to one day draw down the jurisdiction, it would require negotiation. Again, though, a lot of these programs are not adequately funded, so the question is why would the Tlicho government draw down on housing when the funding level for housing is wholly inadequate?

This takes us back to my earlier presentation, about those three proposals that we submitted to Canada that deal with social housing and education. Now, Prime Minister Trudeau and this government have been talking about closing the gap, right? What is the gap between indigenous peoples and the mainstream, and how do we address that gap? One of the first things we want to do with this proposal is find out the baseline: where are we in our communities on these social issues and the well-being, and what is the gap? What do we need to close that gap, so we're on the same level in comparators?

That's the stuff that's done through the fiscal work and the work that the Land Claims Agreements Coalition has been doing for numerous years. We're all partners, we all work together, and we all develop these policies and the work that the coalition has been pushing for years. We need the coalition to be taken seriously by this government on the ample amount of work that is done on implementation issues and policies, and on our concerns.

[Michael McLeod, Liberal, Northwest Territories, NT]

Is that it for the time, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

I was going to let you wrap up, but we've run out of time on that questioning. It's been seven minutes. Perhaps somebody else will follow through on that.

The questioning now goes to MP Cathy McLeod.

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

I will give a quick minute to national chief Erasmus. He didn't have a chance to jump in.

[Chief Bill Erasmus]

Thank you. I'll be very brief.

It's all about authority. The Canadian Constitution makes it really clear. There's section 35 for indigenous people, section 91 for the federal government, and section 92 for the provinces. The Supreme Court of Canada says those are the three sovereigns, so we're talking about sovereign authority on this side. Canada has not come to terms with how to deal with our sovereignty. There are problems with the policy—setting up the policy to negotiate with us—and there are problems of implementation; there are problems at every level.

The agreements that are on this side of the table need to be in the Prime Minister's Office. They need to be where the NAFTA agreement is. They need to be where other treaties are. Professor Alfonso Martinez, who did the study for the United Nations, said that a treaty is a treaty. So an Indian treaty—those are our agreements—is the same as any other international agreement. That's the way we need to look at it.

Thank you.