Evidence of meeting #124 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was gwaii.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
I'm sorry. I'm going to have to stop you right there, Mr. Shields. We're over the time.
At this point, I will turn the floor over to Mr. McLeod for five minutes.
Liberal
Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the minister.
I found myself actually nodding my head in agreement with Mr. Shields, and it kind of made me nervous.
Liberal
Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
I also heard Mr. Shields and you point out that 50 years is a long time. Fifty years ago, we started negotiating a land claim self-government. I belong to Dehcho First Nations. I was in my teens when our nation started negotiating. I just celebrated my 65th birthday, and we're no closer to settling the claim than we were when we started.
We don't have the option of walking away from the table. We don't have the option of taking the government to court. We've been talking and talking and talking, mostly because we don't have very many options. If we walk, then the interim measures provisions are lifted and our land will start to get developed without us. We have no choice. We're sitting there negotiating with a gun to our head. That's no different from the NWT Métis. They have many issues they want to resolve. It's all because we all operate under the comprehensive claim policy.
I listened with great interest as the previous witness talked about negotiating a claim through a reconciliation process, which seems to be different from what some nations are forced to operate under. I think there's opportunity there.
I would like you to explain the differences between the two and the benefits of what's happening here and what maybe could happen in other areas and why. Maybe tell us why it doesn't happen. Why am I sitting here 50 years later still waiting for our nation to move forward on land tenure and governance?
Danielle White Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
Thank you for the question.
I think what you're describing is very much the reality that motivated some of the policy shifts we've seen over the last number of years, beginning in 2017 with the recognition of rights and the self-determination process and those tables. This is where the Haida agreement emerged from. This was recognizing that the comprehensive claims policy, which has been in place since 1986 and amended a few times along the way, wasn't meeting the needs of partners. Many groups were not coming to the table in the first place. The Haida entered the treaty process in 1986, I think, and the B.C. treaty process in 1993. They weren't making progress, so their litigation was filed in 2002. At the time, the federal policy was that either you negotiate or you litigate; we didn't do both.
With the rights recognition approach, with the passing of UNDA, federal policy approach has shifted where we are now moving towards incremental approaches and the possibility of being able to negotiate some things—not everything—while litigation can continue. It's something that partners, AFN and others, have called for, the repeal of the comprehensive claims policy. There was an effort in 2017 with the framework, but we're still working on it. It's difficult to get consensus on an issue like that at the national scale, but working with willing partners at the various tables, we are able to make some incremental progress.
What we're seeing here with Bill S-16 is something that's never been done before. It is a novel approach among the approaches we have. I think now we have over 125 recognition of rights tables across the country where we are piloting interest-based approaches to negotiations, which will get away from some of those barriers that communities have faced in the past.
Liberal
Michael McLeod Liberal Northwest Territories, NT
In the Northwest Territories, our nations want to be on par with other governments. We have probably a unique situation. We have the indigenous people holding 50% of the seats on the regulatory process. We have resource royalty sharing. We have a number of things that are probably not available to nations in other parts of Canada. It is probably not as important for us to have UNDRIP, but UNDRIP was a fairly important milestone when it was passed.
I wanted to ask about how Bill S-16 aligns with the commitments the government has made under the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Sorry, I'm going to have to ask for a short answer, if possible. I know it's hard to give a short answer to that question.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Article 4 of UNDRIP essentially enables indigenous people to recognize and to authorize their own government.
In this case, this legislation essentially recognizes the Council of the Haida Nation as the government of the Haida people in line with UNDRIP.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. McLeod.
We'll now go to Mr. Lemire.
You have two and a half minutes.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, on the one hand, you say that the bill does not necessarily set a precedent. Nations that aspire to the self-determination set out in Bill S-16 won't, therefore, be able to hope to achieve this. On the other hand, you say that things are speeding up and that there is now a process in place. Will that process be robust enough to withstand a change of government?
I'd like to know whether we'll ever see a bill that finally recognizes the Red River Métis government, and that provides clarity and closure to 154 years of negotiations.
Bill C‑53, which affected other Métis, was clearly a strategic error on your part, as we can see that funding is not going to the groups that should be receiving it.
I must remind you that the Government of Canada made a promise to Louis Riel. Will the Red River Métis also get their bill, and more importantly, when?
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
We are working with a range of different partners to ensure that there's a path to self-determination, and we look forward to concluding the work with the Red River Métis.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Is a bill in the pipeline? I hear that negotiations are quite advanced. When can we expect a bill recognizing the rights of the Red River Métis to be tabled and debated?
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
We're in the process of concluding discussions. It would be premature for me to give you a timeline, but I can commit to bringing forward something that is in line with our discussions at the earliest juncture.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Lemire.
With that, we'll go to our final questioner in the second round for the second panel.
Mr. Bachrach, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Minister, there's now a bit of an asymmetry between British Columbia's recognition of Haida title and the federal government's posture on it. Does that asymmetry create any potential legal confusion or challenges when it comes to the interpretation of what British Columbia has done?
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Okay. I have four and a half more minutes.
In terms of the incremental approach that your government has taken—and you've laid out the advantages of that approach over the all-or-nothing approach from the past—I wonder if the Haida have identified, alongside your government, areas of jurisdiction or issue areas that are priorities for them when it comes to moving forward in a way similar to that of the B.C. government.
Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs
As the previous witness indicated and as we've talked about today, there is a lot of interest in pursuing title recognition as the next step, and discussions are under way. The recognition of government opens up a range of other jurisdictions that can be pursued down the road.
We don't have any specific jurisdictional discussions under way, but it could involve anything from child and family services to talking about moving away from the Indian Act or gaining control over citizenship and membership. I think once this foundational piece is in place, we'll be able to engage in those discussions.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
One of the interesting things that I've picked up on in previous testimony is that the two-band council membership is different from the Haida council membership, which essentially talks about the notion of citizenship. This is something that I think we will need to address here as well.
NDP
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
It seems to me that this work on reconciliation, this important work, moves at the speed of social trust. You mentioned that it will take years. I think that's probably frustrating to hear for people who have been waiting for over a century.
I want to ask you about the responsibility we have, as lawmakers, to ensure that our constituents understand the legal imperative of this work and that misconceptions are dealt with productively. We had a situation in British Columbia, shortly after the Haida lands act was passed, where lawmakers went out on the lawn of the legislature and made videos for social media telling British Columbians that their private land was threatened. Clearly, as we heard in the testimony today, that was false.
What responsibility do elected representatives have to ensure that the public has accurate information and that the work has the trust of the people of Canada as it moves forward?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
I'm sorry, Minister. I'm going to have to ask for a short answer, as we are over time here.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
I think we all have that collective responsibility. It's important that the information we share with our constituents or in a public domain is in line with the facts on the ground and not misconstrued.
There are times when people are confused, especially when we talk about property rights. It is something that is core to many, including indigenous people. When we talk about aboriginal title, we're talking about something historical, inherent and recognized by the Canadian courts. It is awfully emotional and something at the core of who we are. I think those conversations need to be responsible and in line with reality.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Patrick Weiler
Thank you very much, Mr. Bachrach.
That concludes our second panel. I want to thank Minister Anandasangaree, Ms. White, Mr. Dyck and Mr. Hamilton for joining us and providing testimony today.
I remind members that the deadline for submitting amendments to Bill S-16 is tomorrow at 5 p.m. We will resume clause-by-clause consideration on Thursday at 8:15. I look forward to seeing you all then.
Is it the will of the committee to adjourn?
