Thank you for your indulgence, and thank you for inviting me to speak about the comprehensive land claims process. It's an important issue, and I appreciate the opportunity to do so.
In 2014, I was asked by Bernard Valcourt, who was then the minister of aboriginal affairs, to lead Canada's engagement with aboriginal groups and key stakeholders about the renewal of Canada's comprehensive land claims policy. I delivered a report to the minister based on my findings in February 2015. I appreciate that three years can be an eternity in the development and implementation of public policy, but nevertheless, I believe that many of the findings and recommendations in my report remain relevant, and I will be pleased to answer any questions that committee members may have about the report.
I thought it would be useful to address three issues to get the discussion going. The first is the need, in my view, for Canada to maintain momentum at those treaty tables that have a realistic chance of a successful outcome. The reason I say that is when Minister Bennett was appointed two years ago, her mandate letter set out an ambitious agenda of 13 priorities. Modern treaty making, however, was not included among those priorities, leaving many in the process to wonder where comprehensive claims fit into the government's commitment to reconciliation. Of the approximately 75 land claims at various stages of negotiation, there are, in my view, probably only eight or 10 that have a realistic chance of coming to a successful conclusion. My point is that Canada should identify priority tables and focus resources on completing those negotiations. I do note that the most recent mandate letter from Minister Bennett now identifies accelerating the process in the comprehensive claims process as one of her priorities.
A consideration, at the same time, should be placed on sunsetting the comprehensive claims process. Any of the indigenous communities that are interested in negotiating a modern treaty have been in the process for at least a decade. There isn't a lineup of indigenous groups waiting to get in. That's why it's important, in my opinion, for Canada to look at other options for reconciliation for those communities that either aren't interested in the modern treaty process or aren't capable of completing a modern treaty.
I do want to acknowledge that in May 2016 Canada endorsed a series of proposals for improving and expediting the treaty negotiation process in British Columbia. That is a helpful and important initiative. As well, Canada in recent years has demonstrated that it is prepared to be flexible and creative in addressing the interests of indigenous groups outside of the treaty process. There's been a wide ambit to that initiative. I'll give two examples that members of the committee may not be aware of. The first is the establishment of the major projects management office in British Columbia, and the work that has ensued by that office. Second, the participation of NRCan, Environment Canada, and Transport Canada was a very successful initiative in terms of addressing aboriginal interests in the development of infrastructure on the north coast of British Columbia, and specifically with the development of natural gas pipelines and LNG plants.
I appreciate that the Government of Canada is a difficult ship to steer, and that's why all departments need to demonstrate an interest and an ability to participate meaningfully in reconciliation. That leads to my second point, which is this. In my experience, the most tangible and immediate contribution that governments can make to the process of reconciliation is to support and promote capacity development in indigenous communities. That observation comes from my work as a lawyer in private practice in British Columbia. Over the past decade, I've acted for first nations communities, governments, and industry in the negotiation of modern treaties, reconciliation protocols, and impact and benefit agreements.
While those negotiations provide tremendous opportunities for aboriginal participants, they are also overwhelmingly challenging. I think it goes without saying that change is difficult to manage, and that's the case even more so when community leaders lack experience in complex negotiations.
It's also important not to lose sight of the fact that these agreements often change the dynamics of long-standing adversarial relationships. In many remote parts of British Columbia and the Yukon, where I work, community members are simply not ready to take up the range of employment and contracting opportunities that are offered by resource development.
That leads to this point. There are areas where I believe the crown has a role to build and develop capacity. Those include, for one example, adult education, ensuring that community members have basic numeracy and literacy skills so that they're job ready. Second, the crown has a role in funding social supports to address issues such as substance abuse, addiction, child care, and housing. Somewhat remarkably, the lack of driver's licences is a significant impediment to first nations employment in many remote areas of the province. That's an area where I believe the crown has a role in developing capacity.
Then there's a more overarching concern about governance capacity for first nations community leaders. I believe this can be accomplished by the government supporting the exchange of experiences between first nations leaders in different regions. I have done a lot of work in the oil and gas industry. There's certainly a role, I think, for the leadership of Alberta first nations communities to provide British Columbia first nations leaders with examples of how they've been able to address oil and gas developments in their area.
Mentorships and other initiatives are also important in terms of governance capacity.
Comprehensive community planning and the development of training and employment strategies are, in my experience, essential tools but require government support and funding. By default, it's fallen in large part on industry to address these needs, and it's an area where I believe that governments need to step up.
I want to make the point that the emphasis that government's place on initiatives such as modern treaties and implementing the United Nations declaration don't mean much in communities that struggle with chronic unemployment, poor educational outcomes, and pervasive social issues.
My third point relates to the implementation of modern treaties, and this will be my last point, Madam Chair. Although I wasn't asked to consider treaty implementation, when I prepared my report in 2014, it quickly became apparent that Canada has fallen behind in implementing treaty commitments. To illustrate this, many of you will be aware of the implementation problems with the James Bay and Northern Quebec agreement, which led to civil litigation and ultimately a settlement in the amount of $1.4 billion. Treaty implementation is a problem. The Supreme Court of Canada has made it clear that the honour of the crown must inform the interpretation and implementation of modern treaties.
I know that you heard from Marg Rosling, who is a Vancouver lawyer who acts for the Nisga'a government. She made submissions to you on treaty implementation, and I concur fully with the submissions you've heard on that point.
I'll conclude on the point that modern treaty making is a complex and challenging undertaking. For any of you who are interested in the history of modern treaty making, all you need to do is look at the initial policy that was released in 1973 by Jean Chrétien, who was the minister of Indian affairs at the time. It's a two-page document. Events have quickly demonstrated that the challenges for governments and for first nations communities are, in many ways, overwhelming.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and members of the committee. Those are my opening comments.
