Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 26th, 2026

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you to our leaders for giving us testimony today.

Chief Barb Joe, I'll respectfully start with you for a question.

Certainly, I hear you. How many years has it taken to get here? Is it 20?

[Chief Barb Joe]

It's been over 20 years.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

A large group of nations, from Inuit to east coast, west coast, north, south, had to come together to do this good work.

As my colleague Jamie Schmale, CIRNAC shadow minister, mentioned, we agree with the principle of what's trying to be done here. You mentioned that the government needs to implement modern treaties. Simplistically, I come from a number of treaties, and my position is, why don't you just do it? Why do we need a commissioner to kick you in the butt to do it? I guess this is the structure of democracy sometimes in Canada.

Here is my question for you. Manitoba and Saskatchewan have commissioners' offices. Looking at the modern treaty maps in Yukon, I see that more than half of the territory is covered in modern treaties. Have you given some thought to just Yukon having its own treaty for the specific unique circumstances that people in that territory face, as opposed to having it jumbled up, for lack of better words, with what's happening in Quebec, on the west coast or in the Prairies at Whitecap Dakota? Those are vastly different communities. Would not a better solution be that Yukon have its own treaty commissioner?

[Chief Barb Joe]

I'll answer the question.

Champagne and Aishihik has been self-governing for over 31 years now. Our treaty is with both Canada and Yukon. We see the obligations from both governments playing a key role in reconciliation. We have to respect that it's the honour of the Crown. There are responsibilities on both sides to implement our final self-government agreements. Those agreements include many things, many responsibilities. I'll give an example.

In the Yukon, we have responsibilities under our chapter 22 that include our representative public service plan. Those obligations have never been met. Those obligations are in the economic development chapter. That chapter speaks specifically to the representative public service plan. We have been working with the Yukon government somewhat to reach potentially a percentage of population in Yukon that's indigenous. It's 23%. The numbers are very low. Canada has not met that. Canada's numbers are very minimal. We don't even have a policy on representative public service.

There are responsibilities across all of government to implement these treaties, and it's our responsibility to make sure the federal government and Yukon are involved, but it has to come from the national level and the federal government. From my understanding, the commissioner for a modern treaty will be an independent agent of Parliament and will report to Parliament to do these reports, the audits, the analysis and whatnot. It's up to Parliament and the elected officials to ensure that these things are done.

There are many things, including our land use planning chapter. We're stuck at this point in time, because we have only two land use plans in the Yukon. We have nine more self-governing nations to do land use plans for. The problem here is that—

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Chief, just a second. I have two minutes left. I really appreciate your answer, but before my time is up, I want to quickly get a question to Chief Jack as well. It was a very good answer. Thank you very much. You helped to explain it for me.

Chief Jack, a common theme of this legislation is that it will mitigate against litigation. You're in B.C. How will this office have the power to help overcome things like Cowichan?

[Chief John Jack]

I think one thing that the commissioner will be able to do is provide information and context in a way that presents a situation that begs action from the federal government, and specifically the executive branch of the federal government.

In a lot of ways, the courts are a last resort for many of us, because the approach here is that we need to get into a room and have a conversation, and we need the leverage to do so. Often, court cases result in the requirement for us to get into a room and negotiate. Well, let's just skip that part and actually go to the negotiation.

The other part about Cowichan is that the Cowichan tribes are not necessarily governed by modern treaties. Modern treaties do establish a high degree of certainty and understanding about what it is we possess as modern treaty nations in terms of our sovereignty and our lands and resources, so it's not really up for debate in the same way as Cowichan may be.

A good example of this is that when I conduct meetings in our neighbouring village of Bamfield, sometimes I joke that we are in the ceded territory, the traditional territory, of the Huu-ay-aht First Nations, because when we selected our exclusive treaty lands, that's what we're doing.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Now we have MP Hanley, please, for six minutes.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you very much to everyone who's here.

Before I get to my questions—I have discussed this with some of the members around the table—I would like to get consent to add an additional witness to this study. I hope that's okay with everyone. There's an important name from the Yukon, someone who can speak very well to this bill, that I would like to add.

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

The clerk will receive the information.

Chief Joe, it's good to see you. You were recently in Ottawa with the Land Claims Agreements Coalition and had several meetings. I know this is one of the topics you discussed.

As a modern treaty nation—as you know, the Yukon is very well represented—can you elaborate on how important this position of a modern treaty commissioner would be in introducing accountability into implementation? Specifically, you might want to address the collaborative fiscal policy process. I know there's been long-standing and slow but important progress toward three chapters in particular that are very important for the self-governing first nations: languages, infrastructure, and lands and resources.

How do you see the relationship between accountability for implementation and the establishment of the modern treaty commissioner?

[Chief Barb Joe]

That's a really good question. I will answer this question by stating that the first nations have been involved with the federal government in creating a collaborative fiscal policy. It's called the green book. It allows the federal government to work with first nations to develop an expenditure base for their departments on how we work.

Most recently, we have lands and resources, infrastructure and language. Those three envelopes have allowed us to figure out what we need internally to run our departments and to run them effectively. Through the effective implementation, there are back-and-forth negotiations.

When things are taken off the table that are important to us, for example, under lands and resources or under our languages, we start to have to fill in the gaps by looking at external funding. We have to look to funding from other agencies, other foundations and other things to meet that goal. For example, on languages, we have a language immersion program that has some federal funding, but we've had to implement the rest of the program with external funding sources. That funding isn't from the federal government or the Yukon government, but from other sources. We've also had to look internally to fill the gap. That's the problem with a lack of implementation or a lack of direction in how we work in implementation.

If we get the commissioner for modern treaties, it's key that they help break down some silos within the departments. There won't be fast-tracking, but there will be better tracking and reporting so that things will be more consistent across the board and we'll be able to work together to figure out what's necessary. First nations know there are too many departments involved in things. When the language and heritage departments were involved, there was CIRNAC and several different departments.

I don't know if I did that justice. I'm keeping in mind that there is timing. It's a longer question.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

You captured it very well. Obviously, it is a lengthy question.

In the remaining time that we have.... In the Yukon, we just had a special summit on Arctic security, and the link to industry and investment. If we look at your role and the role of other Yukon modern treaty nations, and the capacity to participate in ownership, whether it's of energy infrastructure or important resource development, how do you see the link between a fully implemented modern treaty and the ability to be partners in the direction Canada is going in right now?

[Chief Barb Joe]

Currently what's happening is that in the Yukon, we don't have fully implemented land use plans. Under chapter 11 of our final agreement, we have land use planning. For nine of us in the Yukon, including mostly in the southern part of Yukon, those plans haven't been implemented. By creating these land use plans, we'll have certainty around what happens within the area.

The issue we see is that there's a lack of funding. There are many things. There's uncertainty about the whole land use planning commission. As nations, we're looking at developing and being involved with energy and the energy equity topic about ownership of energy in the Yukon, but how can we start developing these power lines across to the territories with no land use plans? That's just one part of it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Lemire, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Chief Jack, first of all, thank you for reminding us in your opening remarks, which included very pedagogical and historical elements, that we're talking about a bill that was drafted and developed in a collaborative and non-partisan manner, and that it reflects two decades of work which address structural problems that modern treaty first nations were often left out of. We're bringing clarity to this process.

We met in my office several weeks ago. At the time, I was still the Bloc Québécois critic for indigenous relations, and I had the opportunity to give a speech at second reading of the bill. It was important for me, as well as for my assistant at the time, to whom I tip my hat, to pay tribute to Jim Aldridge in this speech, and I'll explain why.

During the last Parliament, when the bill was known as Bill C‑77, I had the opportunity to meet with representatives of the Land Claims Agreements Coalition. Jim was in that group, and he had the aura of a spiritual leader. He was a very important person, and he made major contributions, not only to the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, but also to a number of other indigenous and social issues, as well as to a number of individuals and first nations.

I wanted to pay tribute to him in the House, and it left a mark on you. You wanted to meet with me, and we had a very cordial exchange. So I'd like you to tell me more about how Jim left his mark on your life and why it's important to pay tribute to him.

[Chief John Jack]

Jim was the main experience I had when I first came to the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, back when I had less grey hair. Jim was someone who was a titan of treaties and such agreements across Canada. He touched the north. He touched British Columbia. His wife even translated the Maa-nulth treaty into French.

Jim is important to me and to our nations, because he was very central in this specific initiative. Unfortunately, he passed away a couple of years ago. Thank you to those of you who attended his memorial service a couple of years ago. He was central in making sure that all of us in leadership understood just how much work had happened since 2003. When we talk about over 20 years ago, that's how long it goes to. Jim passed away and was not able to see Bill C-10—or, as he knew it, Bill C-77—come this far. His memory should be honoured as a result of that.

I thank you very much for speaking his name in Parliament. His contributions were so major that they bear mentioning. Thank you very much for that.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

It's sad for me that I wasn't able to get to know him better. I also had good discussions with his wife, Guylaine.

Would this bill have been possible without Jim Aldridge's historic contribution?

[Chief John Jack]

I don't know the answer to that, but it is very likely no, given how important his contributions were so early on, when we were meeting about various aspects of this bill. I think his contributions were major, and they are continually seen in the wording of the bill and in the spirit of the bill.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I would like to make a proposal to the committee when the time comes to consider amendments. I've always been a little surprised that committees have the power to change the title of a bill. That said, I think it would be entirely appropriate to suggest that the bill be called the “Jim Aldridge Bill” because he is more than just a symbolic figure. He was someone who had a particularly significant impact on the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, which pushed for the co-creation of this bill and for all the negotiations over 20 years.

Would you welcome this change to honour someone who left us far too soon?

[Chief John Jack]

I think anything that can honour Jim's memory, without.... I don't know how that works. I'm trying not to cry. I think that would be significant. That would be very powerful. I don't know how complicated that is, and I wouldn't want to have a monkey wrench thrown into what you're doing here today, but I think that would be worth considering.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I sincerely thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

I didn't know him, but listening to that exchange, I wish I did. Thank you very much for that.

Now we have MP Morin for five minutes, please.

[Billy Morin, Conservative, Edmonton Northwest, AB]

Thank you, Chair. I'll go back to Chief Barb Joe for my next question.

Twenty years is a long time. No bill is ever perfect, but we can't let perfect get in the way of progress. We must always try to make things better and never be satisfied, in a good way, and try to find the balance in all of that.

Out of curiosity, in your opinion, can you name the best commissioner's office or accountability office in any government structure—there's obviously the Auditor General for comparison as a similar type of role—that you saw as completely effective and that this commissioner's office should be modelled after?