Evidence of meeting #24 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 c-10.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
President, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated
Qujannamiik. Thank you for this question.
When you look at the reports from the Auditor General, a lot of times you don't see follow-ups or reviews. If we had this commissioner in place and strictly looking at modern treaties, I think that would go a long way toward building the relationship we have with the federal government when either party is in power.
That's why we've pushed so hard to have this commissioner recognized. We need a dedicated person looking just at our treaties and at what kinds of improvements need to be made and what needs to be implemented.
I hope I've answered your question.
Chief of Behchoko, Tlicho Government
When it comes to implementation, it depends on the topic. You deal with the departmental people. You go from department to department on whatever the issue is. There is no consistent one-departmental approach.
Before, Indian Affairs used to oversee discussions. Now when it comes to health, you have to talk to Health Canada. When it comes to procurement, you have to talk to procurement people, Public Works. If you want to talk about an RCMP issue, you have to talk to them. There is no consistent approach. Because of that, there are no reporting requirements in a lot of cases.
We do try to do our own thing, to make sure that as treaty partners we're consistently making sure that we have a whole-of-government approach, but when your treaty partner doesn't have that, it makes it very difficult. It prolongs things. There's misinterpretation, and you're up against different policies and procedures.
With a treaty commissioner to help oversee some of these things—to make things more efficient and effective and to deal with things in a timely and expeditious manner—I think you can avoid litigation in a lot of cases. It's really the things you go to litigation over—the misunderstanding, the misinterpretation and the policy questions—where a lot of departments don't understand their treaty obligation because it's a whole-of-government treaty. Some of these departments don't really understand that they have obligations in the agreement and that they should be at these tables in discussions with us.
These are the kinds of things we are hoping to alleviate as much as possible, along with avoiding litigation, because it doesn't really solve anything other than.... I have nothing against lawyers—I'm a lawyer—but you know....
June Shappa Chief Administrative Officer, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated
The purpose of the legislation is to, number one, strengthen the relationship between indigenous treaty holders and Parliament. The second purpose of the legislation is to help fulfill some of the obligations that are contained in our treaties. The third purpose of the legislation is to uphold the honour of the Crown.
In the way the system works, we believe it is the responsibility of Parliament to uphold the honour of the Crown.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan
Thank you very much. I appreciate that.
MP Gill, you have six minutes, please.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
I have to say that, given all the testimony we've heard over the past few weeks, I would like to think we're ready to move forward. That's what we've heard from every witness, and we're hearing it again today from you.
Chief Rabesca Zoe, you read my mind when you explained the difference between what an Auditor General does and what a commissioner does. You explained it very well. I know I'm adding a layer to the discussion, but can you share an actual case that illustrates what a commissioner would have been able to do in a complex and difficult situation that occurred in the past?
The question is also for you, Mr. Irngaut, if you can answer it.
I'm asking for two examples.
Chief of Behchoko, Tlicho Government
As I stated, the Auditor General has a broad mandate, a whole-of-government approach, to deal with federal spending and operations. It's not going to be able to provide continuous...specific to the treaties.
A commissioner is going to require expertise. They're going to be able to bring in expertise and build partnership engagement. Bringing that knowledge and experience to the role is going to be very crucial, because modern treaties are special kinds of treaties.
In some cases, as in the Northwest Territories, it's a three-party agreement, so it's with the territorial government as well. I think the specialization and the implementation of that are going to be very crucial. We don't see the Auditor General being able to provide that. This treaty commissioner would certainly have that expertise and knowledge.
Bloc
Marilène Gill Bloc Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan, QC
You're clarifying your position again, but perhaps part of my question wasn't interpreted. Do you have any concrete examples of a specific case where the commissioner's intervention would have changed things, particularly in terms of the time it took or of avoiding litigation, as we discussed?
Chief Rabesca Zoe or Mr. Irngaut, do you have a concrete example of this?
President, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated
Thank you for that.
I think a good example, which I mentioned earlier, is the fisheries. If we had this commissioner, it would provide background information to the ministers of the day on their obligations. None of these litigations would come forward if there were more information provided to the minister of the day. I'm talking about the fisheries.
It clearly states in our agreement that adjacency is very important and that we need to benefit from any economic opportunities. It clearly states in our agreement that we have to benefit in order to build our own fisheries. That's one of the examples I can give.
Alastair, do you want to add to that?
Alastair Campbell Senior Policy Advisor, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated
I would just add that of modern treaties this century, there have only been three reviews by the Auditor General. Those are the Nunavut agreement and the Gwich'in agreement in 2003, the Inuvialuit agreement in 2007 and the Nunatsiavut agreement in 2015.
If you look in the schedule to Bill C-10, you see there are 30 parties to modern treaties, and only three of them have been reviewed as such by the Auditor General this century. What we want is something that would be consistent and carried out.
To clarify that a bit, the reviews that were done in those years pointed out real faults that the government was showing in the process of implementation. The Auditor General or a commissioner of this kind has access to data that we don't normally have. We don't have the resources to spend on this. Our job is to implement agreements, not to review what the department is doing. Because of that, these kinds of reviews can give us a lot of information as to how things can be improved.
In terms of where it goes next, subclause 9(3) of the draft bill makes it clear that a review of performances is not a substitute for the dispute resolution process that's provided for in modern treaties. We have that option as well.
It may lead to, in some cases.... For example, with the Nunatsiavut agreement, in 2015 the Auditor General said that such and such needed to be done with a particular fisheries case. In the fisheries department's response, to all the findings of the Auditor General the department said yes, yes, yes, with qualifications. One of these qualifications was that it could then be reviewed by the dispute resolution process.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Thank you, Madame Gill.
We are running a bit late, of course, because of the votes.
Is it the will of the room to continue with the next panel? Does anyone have any quick questions or follow-ups?
Ms. Idlout, you have a quick question.
Conservative
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
That's even better. We can all take lessons from you. I love it.
NDP
Lori Idlout NDP Nunavut, NU
I'd like both witnesses to respond. Other than the courts, whose job is it to ensure that the honour of the Crown is being upheld?
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
I believe you said they can respond in writing. Is that what you said, Ms. Idlout?
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
I'm being flexible here. Do you want to hear a response, as long as it's quick?
Conservative
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Jamie Schmale
Excellent.
Thank you very much to our panel for the testimony. All of it has been very helpful and useful information.
In the meantime, we will suspend briefly to get ready for the next panel and will be back momentarily.
