Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 25th, 2011

[Sophie Pierre]

I could add one thing in particular to that. I mentioned how we need to have a firm mandate on negotiating fish. I mentioned we have all these studies that have been going on forever, and that has made it difficult to have a mandate on fish.

In January 2010, then Minister Strahl came to the principals' tables--the principals being the province, the first nations, and the federal government--with a position on carving out, and he used that language, “carve out”, the fish so we could finalize agreements and we would carve out fish. It's always going to depend on the fish. It's not going to depend on us how much fish is going to be out there; it depends on how much fish is available. It's one that is better served if it is fluid.

So we have this carve-out language, and we were very supportive of that. Unfortunately, we've never seen the carve-out language hit a table, and this is 16 or 18 months later. So where's that carve-out language? Get it to the table.

It's the same thing...we have recognition language that has gone to one or two tables that we know of. Why isn't that made available? It goes back maybe, David, to your question about transparency and about clarity, that when you have that language--and when it's recommended we're going to have that language--it's made available so the negotiators can start dealing with it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Phillips.

[Robert Phillips, Commissioner, BC Treaty Commission]

Just briefly, along with that common table, and not to throw in a name, but Barry Dewar was the federal negotiator at that table, and he certainly had a full mandate and he certainly knew how to negotiate in terms of representing the federal government at that time. That's why it was...along with B.C. and the first nations summit.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you so much.

Mr. Genest-Jourdain, you had a short question. Any time left over will be shared with your colleagues.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Madame Pierre, bonjour.

I have a brief question with regard to first nations not currently negotiating a treaty, 18 of them, as I understand. Are those nations now hostile to the treaty process?

[Sophie Pierre]

“Hostile” might be too strong a word, but maybe not. They certainly have lost faith in the treaty process.

[Jonathan Genest-Jourdain, NDP, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you. It was quite short.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. Duncan, you had some follow-up questions.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Yes, thank you.

I want to go back to the overlap. I have two issues.

One is if you could outline if you see a role or a responsibility on behalf of the federal government to ensure that the overlaps are resolved, because if the end result of a particular treaty is a great advantage to one party, why would they bother sitting down and negotiating with the other? Surely there is a responsibility on the federal government, who is signing off on these treaties, to ensure equity and reflection of traditional practices, history, and fairness. I'm surprised that resolution of the overlap is not a prerequisite to a final agreement. Would that not spur the recalcitrant party to come to the table and start being more reasonable?

[Sophie Pierre]

I think it is incumbent on all three parties to be very aware. It's not just the federal government; it's the first nations in particular. When they put forward their statement of intent, there is a requirement through the B.C. treaty process that they identify their overlaps and that they identify they're dealing with it. It doesn't say they have to have it dealt with, but that they are dealing with it.

There are a couple of reasons why that hasn't happened immediately. As I stated, if you enter into the process and you don't get a land offer until 10 or 12 years into the process, what land are you going to be talking about? That's why you need to have that land offer much sooner. When you have that land offer, then it is incumbent on that first nation, if they want a treaty, to work it out with their neighbours.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

If the party is getting everything they want but they are hurting the rights and interests of another one, that doesn't solve the problem.

[Sophie Pierre]

Yale isn't getting everything they want.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I'm not singling out anyone. I don't want to necessarily single out...I don't think this is the table to get into that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I believe that Mr. Haggard or Mr. Phillips had some comments with regard to that as well.

[Dave Haggard]

Just on that, without naming any nations, we're dealing with at least six. Some are just as sensitive as the one that slipped out of Sophie's mouth a few minutes ago, and the same results.... But if a small nation with a major interest in getting to a treaty for their economic benefits and other issues has a large nation right beside them that has no interest in finalizing a treaty, then the reverse of what you suggest becomes true. The large nation just stalls everything because they don't want a treaty and the small nation gets frustrated. They can't get there, because if they follow what you're suggesting, they would have had to resolve the overlap issue before.

Where we find more success is in the way it happened with such first nations as Maa-nulth and Tseshaht on the west coast of Vancouver Island. Tseshaht is really not in the process any longer. For Maa-nulth, it was four days before they finally had the celebration for their implementation date; we finally managed to get an agreement, because they were overlaid on top of each other in the broken group of the Barkley Sound. We got an agreement two years after the treaty was passed through the federal government, the provincial government, and the first nations. We would never have got that accord signed if it wasn't in the best interest of both nations to get there.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I understand it's really important to sign off, because then it looks like we have success, but it may not be success for the one who is prejudiced.

One other question I have, briefly, is on third-party interest. You've raised the issue about transparency and openness. Of course, we all know that a lot of third-party interests who are opposed to the whole treaty-making process may perhaps be less prejudicial if they knew what was going on. And if there was some kind of engagement on how that might benefit--for example, your presentation about the economic benefits....

We had a previous panel talking about that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. Duncan, you're running out of time, so maybe just get to the question.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I would be interested to know how you resolve that, or do you have recommendations to resolve that?

[Sophie Pierre]

It's definitely a part of our mandate--public education and public information. We take that very seriously. Just last month we were at the Union of B.C. Municipalities specifically for that purpose, to talk about the relationships that need to be built amongst the local governments, municipalities, and first nations. We do that on a regular basis because the rest of British Columbians, and the rest of Canadians for that matter, need to understand the benefits of finalizing these treaties. Both the federal and provincial governments need to pick up a little bit in terms of their support for those third parties.

When we started this process, there was a lot of activity, and we had treaty advisory committees or groups. These were made up of the general public, so they had a place to go for answers if they were hearing about treaties and were getting concerned about their own business or livelihood, or their land. Over the years, with cutbacks and everything else, those have kind of disappeared. It's making it very difficult for the average citizen in British Columbia and in Canada to understand what this process is about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Clarke, for five minutes.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the witnesses for coming here today.

I will give just a little background about the region where I come from. It's in northern Saskatchewan, and about two-thirds of the province is in my constituency. We have the Athabasca chiefs, predominantly Dene; we also have the Métis. But they are dealing with the same issues of the overlap. When they're sitting down talking at the table, they're dealing with the Manitoba provincial government. They're dealing with the Cree in northern Manitoba. They're dealing with the Inuit and also with the Akaitcho in the Northwest Territories.

This agreement process has been going on for the past 10 years. They're actually able to resolve a lot of the overlap agreements and negotiations one on one, from community to community, and doing the process. Unfortunately, right now I think it's stalled because of one provincial government over the overlap issue on land quantum.

Now to get further into this, just to get some further clarification, if you don't mind, could you also give your opinion on how to proceed if agreement cannot be reached or if an otherwise successful negotiation may be delayed indefinitely until an agreement is reached? Or does there come a point when the treaty must move forward without unanimous support?

[Sophie Pierre]

The way the process is right now, there comes a point when the treaty must move forward. But before it gets to that point, we encourage the process as much as possible and provide as many resources as possible. However, the resources that flow to the first nations come from Indian Affairs, through the treaty and aboriginal government section.

Every year we put in our submission. What is frustrating in this exercise is that last year we got our funding in January and we had to spend it by March. You know the usual story. We're worried that this will happen again, because we have the submission in and we don't know yet what kind of funding is available.

We try to give as much support to the first nations as we can, but when it comes to those two first nations trying to sort it out through a third-party mediator, we have no resources until they become available through Indian Affairs. So this may not happen, and that is part of what frustrates the whole thing. If we were able to know that for the next three years we have x number of dollars to hire these mediators to ensure that these questions are dealt with, we wouldn't see ourselves in the situation we are in.

Right now, we do as much as we can internally, as commissioners. But I don't have any training in being a mediator. I am, however, a mom, a wife, and a grandma, so I know about those natural mediations, but sometimes you really need the professional mediator.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

In your 2011 report you touched on the benefits of treaties for first nations.

[Sophie Pierre]

Yes.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Could you give me more detail? What impact will treaties have on the economy?