Evidence of meeting #23 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was treaties.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

Members speaking

Before the committee

Glenn Bennett  Chief Councillor, Kitselas First Nation
Nicole Rempel  Chief Councillor, K'ómoks First Nation
Louise Nattawappio  Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach
Caron  Lawyer, Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach
Barb Joe  Champagne and Aishihik First Nations
John Jack  Chief Councillor, Huu-ay-aht First Nations

9:05 a.m.

Lawyer, Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach

Christina Caron

Yes, absolutely. We live in a world in which the written word is what counts, but we Naskapi are a nation with an oral tradition. So not only are we being put in the position of having to sue the government of the day, but we're also being asked to document what's not working, to put it into words. That is what it has come to.

You can't have a top-down attitude toward the report, because for first nations, someone taking charge of producing the report is a culturally sensitive issue. It's also important to keep in mind that we produce plenty of reports, so it's the government's turn, or rather the future commissioner's, to conduct this investigation.

Producing a report that puts the things that aren't working down on paper will engage the honour of the Crown, and that's usually enough to start negotiations and move forward.

Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Meegwetch.

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

Thank you.

We now have MP Schmale for five minutes, please.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON

Chief Rempel, I don't mean to keep coming back to you. It's just that the testimony and questions that you had previously sparked a lot of questions on my end.

Again, for everyone here, we're just trying to point out where we think the bill falls a little short and where, in our opinion, it could be stronger to ensure that everyone here and those across the country get the results they're hoping for and wanting. Please understand where we're coming from on this side as we ask what can seem like difficult questions. Please understand our goal on this for what we want to see achieved.

During your last round of questioning, or maybe it was two rounds ago, we heard the word “independent” agent of Parliament a lot. Although Parliament gets to vote on this—I do agree that reporting to Parliament is better than reporting to the government—the issue that we've seen is that the government makes the recommendation for the most part, and then Parliament votes on that person. Again, it happens all the time. If there is a majority Parliament, then the government will select the person of their choosing. It will or could—you hope it doesn't, but it could potentially—find an individual who might be a little more sympathetic to the government. Do you know where I'm going with this?

How do we ensure that the person going in is approved by the nations themselves? Is there a mechanism where the rights holders have input on who they would like to see in that position?

9:10 a.m.

Chief Councillor, K'ómoks First Nation

Chief Nicole Rempel

I'm not sure what the construct would be in that appointment. Because the modern treaties are a tripartite agreement, at least in British Columbia, I would hope that it would be a tripartite process for appointing, but I'm not sure that works across provinces. Maybe it's the AFN and Parliament talking together about appointees. I'm not sure.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON

I don't know how you'd go about this. That's the other problem. If the rights holders then had an individual they would like to see and then the government just basically approved it all...but you can't bind the legislature. I get that. It's too bad there wasn't a process. Unless anyone else has a process here that would be an idea....

We mentioned that the reports come out and name and shame. If the government doesn't come to the negotiating table, then unfortunately court is the place we go. Nobody seems to want that.

If there are consequences within a department itself, whether politically with the minister or with the department in its leadership, so that if they're not living up to the word.... The reports have come out and they continue to ignore them, or they continue to say that it's not that big of a deal, there have to be some consequences. I think that's how we're going to have real change in this.

Look at how many education or boil water reports we've had come out. “Well, we haven't met our targets this year, so we'll push them on to next year and then maybe the next year if we don't meet....” Do you know what I'm saying? There are no consequences other than a story in the media for a day or two, shaming them. Then the story disappears, something else happens, and we're still left with issues in the education system or issues with water quality. It seems that there aren't any consequences.

I don't know if anyone online....

Chief Rempel, I know I've been kind of picking on you a lot. That's just because, as I said, you had previous testimony that got my brain working here.

If anyone else online or in person wants to comment or help us along, I'm willing to open it up.

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

You have 20 seconds. Perhaps you could put something into writing to put forward, then.

9:10 a.m.

Chief Councillor, K'ómoks First Nation

Chief Nicole Rempel

For me, it's not a bulletproof solution, but I think it does improve accountability and efficiency, and that's a start. I would certainly like to see things with more teeth to hold all parties accountable.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON

Thank you very much.

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

Thank you very much.

For the next five minutes and the last slot, we have MP Hanley.

Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I'll share my time with the member from Nunavut, Ms. Idlout.

Chief Nattawappio, I'd like to direct a question to you.

I was interested in the aspect that you brought up about the importance of knowledge, education, what modern treaties mean for your nation and how this bill and the establishment of the modern treaty commissioner could help with that.

I wonder if you could flesh that out a bit. How would you tangibly see that as helping your members to be well apprised of what the risks are, what the benefits are and what you need to know about being a modern treaty nation?

9:10 a.m.

Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach

Chief Louise Nattawappio

I think it would help my members understand what happened in the past. As I said, it's important to learn about the history, and then we could move forward with the knowledge, knowing that we have allies and partners. It's to better our community, too. It's to better our community.

Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT

Thank you.

Briefly, Ms. Caron, given your legal expertise, I wonder if you could comment on the scope of the Auditor General perhaps doing this work, periodically examining implementation, reporting and performance versus a dedicated modern treaty commissioner. Apart from the time and the focus aspects, is there a scope difference that you think is important to point out?

9:15 a.m.

Lawyer, Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach

Christina Caron

Unfortunately, I'm not an expert in the mandate of the Auditor General. I would say that, legally, it would have a more direct impact on documenting treaty violations or treaty breaches, but the main difference is certainly the importance that the issue would have in the hands of a commissioner instead of being between the expenses of officers from the transport ministries and all other kinds of examinations. Legally it can be useful to document breaches and relieve the community from that work of investigation.

Brendan Hanley Liberal Yukon, YT

Thank you very much.

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

Lori, you have two minutes, please, for questions and answers.

Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU

Qujannamiik.

Qujannamiik to my colleague for sharing his time with me.

I'll be asking chiefs Bennett and Rempel to respond to my question in that order.

I think we need to think of an analogy between public safety and reconciliation. When we think about public safety, there are different players, like the RCMP, bylaws, security in buildings and CSIS. CSIS has oversight for national security.

Reconciliation also has different players, like laws, policies, funding, land claim agreements, modern treaties and numbered treaties, but I think the commissioner plays such an important role that they should also do oversight. What they would do is make sure that reconciliation is being implemented.

I wonder if you could share your thoughts on that comparison, considering reconciliation, public safety and the analogy of what that oversight looks like for you, Chief Bennett.

9:15 a.m.

Chief Councillor, Kitselas First Nation

Chief Glenn Bennett

I can reflect on my community and the agreements that we have in place when it comes to community policing.

We have a tripartite agreement with the RCMP and the provincial government. I feel it is a stepping stone in moving towards implementing our treaty.

Policing for my community is so important, because we're a small nation. The total population may be a little over 750. Maybe 450 people live on our two main Indian reserves, and to have that agreement in place with the RCMP is so important. It gives us the ability to look at ensuring....

We say that we want our community to be a safe community, so that our families can raise their children and grandchildren in safety. We can do that only with the tools that we currently have, because ultimately, under our treaty, the RCMP will have jurisdiction in enforcing the laws of Canada. It can be done only if we come to the table and share our concerns and what we feel is important to the nation.

We live very close to Terrace and Thornhill. Ultimately, those are the areas that our people live in and around. To have a safe community—

Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU

Thank you so much, Chief Bennett.

I do hope that Chief Rempel can also respond—

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

Excuse me. I have to intervene. We're just over time now. I'm going to have Chief Rempel respond to Lori's question via the clerk, so that we have it, because it's an important question and we don't have the proper amount of time to do it justice.

Thank you very much. Chi-meegwetch.

That concludes our questioning for this round. I'd like to thank all of the witnesses for their very important testimony today.

We're going to suspend. Our next panel will begin momentarily.

Thank you.

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

Welcome back for our second panel.

Online we have, from the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, Chief Barb Joe, and Ian Robinson, adviser. Both are here by video conference.

From the Huu-ay-aht First Nations, we have John Jack, chief councillor, and Brent Lehmann, general counsel. We will proceed with the folks online first.

Go ahead with your presentation, Chief.

Chief Barb Joe Champagne and Aishihik First Nations

Good morning.

My name is Chief Barb Joe of the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations. My first nation is located in the southwest corner of the Yukon Territory. Our final and self-government land claim agreements have been effective since 1995.

We haven't been able to fully implement our land claims agreement. The spirit and intent of the agreements haven't been met. There are many treaty commitments that have yet to be realized. Focus needs to be put on the achievement of the treaty objectives, not just the obligations. We want to see a whole-of-government approach. Treaty commitments need to be fulfilled with proper resourcing.

Our staff focus on the work of my first nation government, particularly working with our citizens, not spending time and resources struggling with treaty implementation issues.

We are a modern treaty holder and a member of the Land Claims Agreements Coalition. We fully support the passage of Bill C-10 on the commissioner for modern treaty implementation. Members of the Land Claims Agreement Coalition co-drafted the bill with the federal government. We are happy with the bill, and it needs to be passed without amendments as quickly as possible.

It has taken us over 23 years to get here. At this moment, the fate of Bill C-10 hangs in the balance. We need you to listen to us and respect our words. We are so close to achieving one of our most important priorities.

We require a commissioner of modern treaty implementation who will independently assess whether Canada is meeting the obligations contained in our land claims agreements and report any findings directly to Parliament. The commissioner will be an important oversight mechanism to help us implement our modern treaties. The commissioner will be able to give their undivided attention to Canada's implementation of our treaties.

We do not believe this critical oversight can be carried out effectively from within the federal government itself.

The implementation of our modern treaties will benefit not just my first nation but all of Canada. We see this as a shared goal for all of us. By working together to create the commissioner for modern treaty implementation, we will improve treaty implementation in the coming years and decades for the benefit of future generations. We will move toward a better, stronger and wealthier Canada. I'm sure that is something we can all support.

Gunalichish. Shäw níthän. Mahsi cho. Thank you.

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

Thank you very much.

Chief Jack, you have five minutes, please.

Chief John Jack Chief Councillor, Huu-ay-aht First Nations

Thank you, chair and committee members, for the opportunity to speak to Bill C-10.

[Witness spoke in Nuu-chah-nulth]

[English]

My name is John Jack. I am the elected chief councillor of the Huu-ay-aht First Nations. We're located on the west coast of Vancouver Island in British Columbia. We're a proud signatory of the Maa-nulth final agreement, one of five nations that have signed. We're very close to celebrating 15 years of self-government, going back to April Fool's Day, 2011.

I want to acknowledge that this bill is the culmination of over 20 years of work and that we appreciate the time and attention afforded to it by this committee here and now. We support Bill C-10 as presented and without substantive amendment. It is a deliberate and non-partisan product of co-development between the federal government and modern treaty partners. This is across multiple government mandates and with multiple parties to address challenges within federal structures.

Constitutionally protected modern treaties establish a comprehensive and enduring framework for reconciliation. They are complex, whole-of-government agreements that create thousands of tasks and obligations that touch many departments and agencies. While we have advanced reconciliation generally together, federal implementation efforts have too often been uneven, inconsistent and poorly coordinated. It is not for the lack of goodwill, however. Rather, the levels of awareness, understanding and sustained follow-through can vary widely across the many institutions and across the many months and years it takes to do the work.

When issues arise, it's not always clear how to resolve them, save through the courts, but we believe that should be the last resort and not the first option. All that takes time and money. It takes it away, and it erodes confidence. The opportunity costs of such are just too high. Treaty implementation isn't just the responsibility of one department; it is for the whole of government.

With many obligations and decisions spread across that vast whole, problems can persist without clarity, context and understanding. A dedicated and specialized commissioner would provide continuous and impartial oversight that could help resolve or avoid problems before they become inflamed, regardless of who is in power.

Such a role is too specific and too intensive for a general approach. We respect the Office of the Auditor General, but its mandate is too broad to achieve the focused and sustained attention needed to oversee and evaluate modern treaty implementation across the whole of government. Success here requires credible and reliable reporting that can assess not just the spending but the consequences of policy decisions, administrative work, and the maintenance and upkeep of the relationships involved. Importantly, the bill does contemplate and require coordination with the OAG to avoid overlap, and we would welcome the engagement of the Auditor General when they have the time to do so.

Bill C-10 provides accountability tools appropriate for the work of modern treaty implementation. Rather than make decisions or carry them out, the core role of this officer of Parliament would be to provide impartial and independent information and evaluation through program reviews, performance audits and other reports. Federal bodies must respond in writing to preliminary findings of the commissioner, and those responses must be included in the final report. This means that Parliament, treaty partners and Canadians everywhere can see the findings, the recommendations and the government's response all in one place.

From our perspective, the work of a commissioner for modern treaty implementation would contribute significantly to the ability of every party to our treaties to spend time on the real work of making our peoples' lives better now and into the future. If we can spend less time concerned about the efficacy of our government-to-government relationships, then we can spend more time working together to address the very real social and economic challenges that our peoples face. Together we can deliver the results that modern treaties were meant to enable and ennoble.

In closing, we ask that Bill C-10 be passed swiftly and without major amendment.

On behalf of my nation and my fellow Maa-nulth treaty nations, thank you for this opportunity. I'd be happy to take any questions.

The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan

Thank you very much.

We are going to proceed to our first round of questions.

We had a couple of other people scheduled. They had technical difficulties on their end. The Internet connections were not working, but they'll be rescheduled to a future date.

We're going to begin with the Conservatives for six minutes.

MP Morin, please, you have six minutes.