Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 4 - Evidence - Meeting of February 13, 2008
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 13, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:15 p.m. to examine and report upon the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples and on other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, we are ready to proceed. I understand we have an elder who is prepared to say a prayer. Please go ahead, sir.
[An elder delivered a prayer in his native language.]
The Chair: This evening, we continue our study of the implementation of comprehensive land claims agreements. After the public hearing, senators, we will go in camera to discuss administrative matters.
The land claims process in the Yukon began in 1973. Since then, 11 of 14 Yukon First Nations have settled their outstanding land claims. Each of these land claims agreements are accompanied by implementation plans that identity the parties' obligations under the agreements. They also require that the parties conduct a review after five years and again after nine years to determine the adequacy of the funding and provisions provided under these plans.
As committee members know, we decided that this was an important area to tackle and that there are certain areas within the implementation process where progress has been frustratingly slow. It is our hope that this committee, with the help of our various witnesses, will be able to shed light on these deficient areas with a view to recommending improvements.
To assist us in deepening our understanding of the issue, we are fortunate to have with us representatives from the Council of Yukon First Nations, the Yukon Self-Governing First Nations, the Ta'an Kwach'an Council, and the Champagne & Aishihik First Nations.
Over the past few years, the Council of Yukon First Nations, along with the federal and territorial counterparts, have been engaged in implementation reviews with respect to several of the agreements. Inadequate funding and inconsistent federal policies and practices have been identified as ongoing issues impeding the ability to implement agreements properly.
We hope this evening to benefit from our witnesses and their experience, and to gain a better understanding of what works, where progress has been impeded and what areas must be improved if land claims arrangements are to be properly implemented.
The witnesses will each offer a presentation of approximately five minutes, which will be followed by questions from senators.
We have before us as witnesses this evening Chief Joe Linklater from the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nations; Chief Ruth Massie from the Ta'an Kwach'an Council; Fran Asp, Senior Official for Intergovernmental Affairs with the Champagne & Aishihik First Nations; and Albert Peter, Senior Official for Intergovernmental Affairs with the Yukon Self Governing First Nations.
Colleagues, guests and witnesses, I will now introduce the senators who are with us tonight.
First, I will start with Library Parliament analyst Tonina Simeone, who is always here working. We have with us Senator Hubley from Prince Edward Island, Senator Peterson from Saskatchewan, Senator Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories, who is the committee's deputy chair, Senator Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick and Senator Dallaire, a man who does not require any introduction because of some of the good works he has done in this country.
With that, witnesses, you have the floor.
Joe Linklater, Chief, Vuntut Gwitchin First Nations: Thank you for your interest in this matter, which is very important to people in Yukon and, indeed, to the people in Canada. I would like to begin by introducing our staff by saying a few words about our staff.
Fran Asp is one of our senior officials. She has been very involved in the implementation review of our agreements. She is from the Champagne & Aishihik First Nations. Albert Peter is from the First Nation of Na-cho Nyak Dun and has also been very involved in the review of our agreements. They have come along to answer any detailed technical questions, the answers to which may not be apparent to us at the political level. My colleague Chief Massie, from the Ta'an Kwach'an Council, is also here. Hers is one of the few urban First Nations in Yukon.
I would like to begin by reminding many of the senators and people in the audience that we are on the eve of the thirty-fifth anniversary of the group of chiefs that came down to Ottawa to deliver a document to the Prime Minister of Canada at the time. It was called Together Today for our Children Tomorrow, and it laid out a number of issues that the First Nations wanted to be dealt with through a comprehensive claims process. High among those priorities was the issue of self-sufficiency and self-determination, what is known now as self-government.
It took 22 years for the first four final agreements to come to fruition. On February 14, 1995, the first four treaties came into legal effect, followed three years later by three more; and recently, over the past few years, we have had four more treaties come into legal effect.
There have been many challenges in implementing the treaties. As Senator St. Germain has mentioned, among those challenges have been the policies of the federal government that limits them in fully implementing the treaties. As partners in this, by extension, it limits us as Aboriginal governments.
Part of the reason for negotiating self-government was to get out from under the oppression of the Indian Act so as to be able to participate fully in the Canadian economy and way of life. Unfortunately many of the policies of the Indian Act have followed us as we have moved away from the act and have limited us, as the reviews have found.
In negotiating the drawdown of programs and services, we found that the programs we have drawn on were inadequate to begin with. We have drawn down programs that were underfunded and, as a result, through our self- government agreements, we took on underfunded programs and applied them to more people.
The Indian Act does not recognize non-status Indians as a group the government funds; yet, as self-governing First Nations, we do fund status and non-status programs. We have taken down underfunded programs and funded others, in some cases doubling the numbers.
We have brought with us several documents we wish to table with you, including the original document — Together Today for our Children Tomorrow — and the implementation review report.
There are more documents to come. We have just completed the financial transfer arrangements report. We are going through what is known as a gross expenditure-based exercise to determine the exact levels of shortfalls that we feel are occurring with the agreements, thus limiting our ability to fully implement the agreements.
I should mention that we have had many positive visits over this past week with various members of Parliament and with members of cabinet. They have all agreed that our agreements are not with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development but with Canada.
We come before you not as First Nations groups but as governments. We are self-governing and we are governments. We have come to Ottawa to speak to the Government of Canada on a government-to-government basis.
We have had tremendous support from the Yukon territorial government. The premier has joined us at every meeting, has introduced the topic and has graciously allowed us to represent ourselves as a government. They recognize in Yukon that we have the law-making authorities and the legislative rights of any government. We conduct our business on a partnership basis in Yukon, on an intergovernmental basis, as cooperative governments working together to try to move Yukon in a more positive direction economically, socially and environmentally. I think we have many successes that we can share with the Senate and with the Canadian public when needed.
There have been many challenges. Part of the reason is that this type of self-government has never been done before in Canada. As a result, at the beginning of the implementation of self-government, we decided to do reviews of the implementation process. The first review was done at the five-year period and the second one was done after nine years.
The nine-year review has taken us four years. It has been absolutely comprehensive, looking at every aspect and detail of both the self-government agreement and the final agreement, as well as the implementation plans for the self- government agreement and the implementation plans for the final agreements and for the Umbrella Final Agreement, which is a document that covers the entire Yukon.
Maybe I am being optimistic, but many of the findings were agreed upon unanimously, meaning that the territorial, federal and First Nations governments agreed on the recommendations. We look forward to beginning the implementation process on those issues.
The recommendations that were not unanimous will be the ones that we bring to the negotiating table. Part of the purpose for our trip to Ottawa has been to inform the members of cabinet as to what exactly is in the recommendations and what needs to be done. The next step for us in this process is for the federal, territorial and First Nations governments to inform their mandate based on the findings of the implementation review process. That mandate will reflect what is in the implementation review and will be used to renegotiate the financial transfer arrangements that fund the implementation of our self-government and final agreements. This is where we will hopefully deal with the inadequacies of the funding and where we will be able to address many of the policy issues that inhibit the proper and full implementation of the self-government agreements.
We feel that the self-government agreements are an important aspect to the health and well-being of the people of the Yukon, in particular the self-governing First Nations people of the Yukon. From my experience as a chief over the past 10 years and implementing the agreements over the past 10 years, it is fair to say that the quality of life of our people and our communities has increased. Even though we have underfunded programs, the difference is that the programs are no longer directed from Ottawa or Whitehorse. They are directed by the community. The community holds the leadership directly accountable for the delivery of those programs and services. Furthermore, we are able to direct the limited program dollars to areas where they are most needed. We will determine the priorities in our community, and we will determine the health of our community by directing the resources where they are needed. Unfortunately, the dollars do not go far enough.
We have heard about the cross-Canada issues of poverty, the level of physical and spiritual health of Aboriginal people, the deplorable housing conditions, the deplorable conditions of drinking water, and the list goes on and on. We feel that through the proper funding of our agreements, we, as Aboriginal governments in our communities, can address those issues directly. We do not need the federal government to address them for us. We will be able to do that on our own.
Part of the challenge I mentioned earlier in the implementation of our agreements has been the policies that limit us. We have drawn down programs and services simply because the policies have not allowed us to do what is needed in our communities. Although the programs were underfunded, we were able to draw down the programs and change the policies because the money now belongs to us. We were able to change the policies in the way we felt they needed to be changed, and we have witnessed great success in the programs and areas that I talked about.
I want to mention one more thing. The shift in attitudes toward self-government has been a positive one in the Yukon. That shift is happening a bit more slowly in the capital, here in Ottawa. However, it is beginning to happen and it is positive change. I believe that the self-governing Yukon First Nations are far ahead of other First Nations in their experience in implementing self-government. The report that we tabled with you is a detailed study of the last 10 years of self-government in Canada, and I believe it proves many successes and also has a potential for many more successes.
We look forward to answering your questions, but before we do, I would like to say that my colleague Ruth Massie is chief of a First Nation that has yet to do an implementation review. Therefore, many of the findings in our review will help Chief Massie, and other communities that have yet to do the review, to build upon the work that has been done and to improve on many of our implementation findings.
The Chair: What region of the Yukon are you from: north, south east or west?
Mr. Linklater: I am from the very north of the Yukon, a community called Old Crow, and we are the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation.
The Chair: Chief Massie, where do you come from?
Ruth Massie, Chief, Ta'an Kwach'an Council: Our traditional territory encompasses the City of Whitehorse. We are an urban-based First Nation right in the City of Whitehorse, along with Kwanlin Dun First Nation.
Our First Nation is one of the final four that has signed a self-government agreement, and we are next up for review regarding the financial transfer agreements. At the end of five years, we are required to have a review, and we have a vested interest in the nine-year review. That is being presented to you today by the first seven First Nations. Our First Nation is the first of seven in line to be reviewed.
We will capitalize on the nine-year review as all the work is already done, but as an urban First Nation, we have a few issues that are not included in the community-based nine-year review. We are anxious to have a new mandate going forward.
Mr. Linklater: With that, I would like to thank the senators for their time in hearing our presentation. As a chief of 10 years, I learned over time that we need to hear from you, and we are more than happy to answer any of the questions you may have.
The Chair: On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank you for travelling all this way to be with us this evening.
We were to hold our hearings tonight downstairs in another committee room that accommodates the televising of committee proceedings so that people back home would have been able to see what was going on, but unfortunately the technology failed us and we could not repair it in time. As a result, we have had to move the meeting to this room, for which we apologize. Hopefully, you will come back another time.
Senator Sibbeston: I also welcome you to Ottawa. Quite a few people from the Yukon are here tonight and I welcome them as well. I hope in a small way we can make you feel welcome and that you will know that we are your friends and will do everything we can to help you.
Throughout the decades, many people from the North — the Northwest Territories, the Yukon and more recently Nunavut — have made trips to Ottawa, and they have had varying degrees of success. However, I have often felt that the success was not there. Ottawa is so big and many issues occupy the government. While we from the North feel that our issues are very important, in the grand scheme of things in Ottawa, sometimes they are not seen as very big, so we have had that trouble. I am therefore glad to see that you come here today smiling. You have said that your meetings with the government have been positive. It is unusual, but it is nice to hear. Perhaps things have changed, or maybe for some reason you are successful. I would like to hear about your success because our study concerns problems with implementation.
Since the 1970s when the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was made and there were all the subsequent land claims agreements in the North, as well as some in the South, there have been implementation problems. As the land claims alliance told us, Aboriginal people make agreements with a great deal of faith and a lot of hope. When agreements are made, Aboriginal people in particular look to the future with the hope that the government will live up to the agreements. However, there have been instances where this has not happened. Now, there is a coalition or alliance of land claimants unhappy with the fact that implementation has not been as good and effective as possible.
That is the problem we are looking at. We have land claims, but the government has not lived up to the agreements or has not implemented them according to the agreements.
The committee would like to hear why you are happy. Tell us about your experience with implementation to date so we can understand your situation.
Mr. Linklater: As I mentioned, tomorrow will mark 35 years since we first put forward the document Together Today for our Children Tomorrow, which we are proud of. The First Nations put together the document to present to the Prime Minister of Canada. It took 22 years to negotiate the first four agreements. We have experienced 10 years of hard slogging, back-breaking implementation and four years of reviews. In that time, we have given up literally hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of square miles of land to get self-government. In 1980, the Government of Canada put $600 million on the table and several thousand square miles of land to settle the comprehensive Yukon land claims. I do not know what it takes to walk away from $600 million, but our elders and leaders did just that because there was no self-government or ability for self-determination.
As I mentioned earlier today, it costs us more than a plane ticket to come down here, and we have worked hard at it. We have demonstrated that we are not going anywhere. The Yukon is our home. The issues carried by past leaders are carried by present leaders and will be carried by future leaders. That is why we have such confidence that we will get to where we need to be in terms of the implementation of our final agreements. We will not give up on this. Our people have this vision and we carry it with us today.
In terms of experiences, we can start with the implementation review report as a positive experience. When we first began the review, the government did not want us to look at funding or other policy areas. We managed to pry this open. The review was supposed to take one year but has taken four years to accomplish. It has cost us a lot of money because we have had to extend our financial transfer agreements in increments and we have lost opportunities. We have had to pay for the reviews. Sometimes we did not get what we wanted, so we had to extend them. At the end of the day, we have a complete comprehensive document that cannot be denied. These are the issues and the challenges.
It is said that if you can find the cause of the illness, you are halfway to a cure. We are halfway there. We have had positive responses from the federal government. We see an opportunity for the federal government to model our type of self-government so that other First Nations who are in more dire circumstances can work out their own problems without having someone in an office building in Ottawa trying to figure out how to resolve an issue on a reserve.
As another example, we have the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act. Given the new authorities and land regimes in the Yukon, new environmental assessment legislation had to be written for the Yukon, which is federal legislation. It took us a number of years to write that legislation. The Yukon government and the Yukon First Nations helped to write that federal legislation, which was most unusual. As a result of self-government, which was fully supported by the Yukon government at the time, we have law-making authorities on settlement land. Those authorities supersede all Yukon laws, and the Yukon government supports that position.
As a result, we have real influence in the Yukon. The Yukon government comes to us in a cooperative manner and not only consults with us but also helps us with the drafting of legislation. They know that if their legislation does not satisfy all the Yukon First Nations, the Yukon First Nations have the ability to write their own legislation for their land. Our self-government agreements state that to the extent there is any difference between First Nations legislation and Yukon legislation, the Yukon government must amend its legislation, which puts us in an extremely powerful position.
The Yukon government continues to support that fact today. Cooperative governance legislation applies to the Yukon legislature. Any future government that wants to break that relationship will have to stand up in front of the Yukon Legislative Assembly and take down that legislation, which is not a wise thing to do.
We have experienced good economic growth in many of our communities. Economic development is positive right now for many of the self-governing First Nation communities. Through a compensation fund, we have money to invest and to partner with other businesses.
My First Nation has a for-profit development corporation. We set up a business trust that is a separate governing institution so that the political arm cannot interfere. We invested in an airline that flies out of Vancouver, Edmonton and Calgary, and it flies north as well. We are learning about not only the business aspect itself but also the airline industry, which provides job and career opportunities for Aboriginals and Yukoners. Others have invested in real estate and other businesses, which has certainly helped to buoy the Yukon economy and provide jobs for all Yukoners, not just Aboriginal Yukoners. There have been good experiences.
Senator Dallaire: The process of implementation is of particular interest to me. You have achieved levels of self- governance and achieved land claims agreements separately. Funds in these claims were one-time amounts provided to individual nations. You have the money and the land areas have been surveyed. You are into the implementation phase.
When you were negotiating the agreements, there was a series of components for implementation: social requirements, development and so on. At the end of any of those line items, did the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which I believe was leading this exercise, articulate a cost-analysis on all of these components?
Mr. Linklater: That was one of the first challenges we had in the implementation process. The first offer, if you want to call it that, was a take-it-or-leave-it offer from the department. Their policy was that there would be no new money for programs and services. As I mentioned, many of the programs were underfunded to begin with. Canada was running huge deficits at the time and had to cut back in many areas. Of course, Indian and Affairs was no exception.
The policy at the time, and perhaps still is today, was that there would be no new money for programs and services. Further to that, the estimates for programs that we drew down from Indian Affairs — social assistance, for example — were based on the number of status Indians that collected social assistance. In our self-government agreements the wording is that we are responsible for our citizens, and our citizens include non-status Indians.
The challenge was that we drew down underfunded programs for status Indians, but then we added non-status Indians to our population. We identified that fact early on and pointed it out, but, as I mentioned, the comeback from the federal government at the time was that this was a take-it-or leave-it offer. The policy was that there was no money.
Senator Dallaire: You stated that there are policies that limit the federal government to implement the implementation plans. I am a bit of a stickler. You made an agreement. There was an amount of money for the agreement and then there was an implementation plan with no end date; it was forever and ever.
No process was identified in which Indian Affairs, and whatever other government departments were involved, had a specific line item of responsibility for guaranteeing funding for implementation by you forever and ever. Are you saying that was the way it came to you: ``The programs are there; we will adjust them and you will get parts of them, but that is the best we can do''? Is that essentially how it came about?
Mr. Linklater: Yes. You put your finger on the point exactly. We have final and self-governing agreements. The final agreements are constitutionally protected, so they are part of the Canadian Constitution. The Constitution supersedes all laws and policies, and this is the problem. We thought we had dealt with that issue within our agreements. One of the clauses states that we will be able to provide programs and services comparable to other governments within the Yukon and that we will be able to implement that clause with our partners, including the federal government.
The Yukon government has been very supportive by providing information on the cost of governing in the Yukon. However, the problem is that no one seems to acknowledge that our agreements have constitutional authorities. Senior officials and bureaucrats live on policy; policy guides their every move. When the policy says there is no new money, and a constitutionally protected agreement says that we will be able to provide services comparable to any other government in the Yukon, the problem is not with us; it is with the policies. That is why we say that the policies need to be changed.
Our technical person, Mr. Peter, can shed more light on that issue.
Albert Peter, Senior Official for Intergovernmental Affairs, Yukon Self Governing First Nations: The chief is correct. I was involved in the process when these negotiations were going on. Basically, our agreements have an implementation chapter, which we thought would give us greater certainty in terms of the long-term fiscal relationship. We did begin the process of identifying the responsibility, the timing of it and who was responsible, with the idea of generating a cost associated with those line items, as you mentioned. Unfortunately, the government of the day just picked a number out of the air and, as the chief said, it was take it or leave it.
The leadership of the day decided that given the provisions we had built into the agreement for future five- or nine- year reviews — the ability to draw down extra program responsibilities, which would bring funding as well, and our ability to raise our own revenue and to pay for our own government — the risk was worth taking.
We have come full circle after more than 10 years of experience. The review points demonstrates that there were insufficient funds to fulfil the obligations. Remember that the programs that were transferred were based on status Indians living on reserve. In the Yukon we have a limited number of reserves, and under the treaty we now have responsibility for all of our citizens, including non-status people who were not considered in the Indian Affairs programs. Some of our people were not resident on the reserves or on the land set aside that we see in most of the communities in the Yukon, so they could not be counted in the formula, if you will.
As to policies, there are new initiatives that are restricted to either status Indians or reserves. In the Yukon, we have citizens and we have settlement land, so in some cases we are not eligible for some of these new initiatives and ongoing programs, although we thought we had provisions in our agreement that allowed us access to those things.
You mentioned funding. The government was able to calculate one-time funding. There is ongoing funding related to some of the co-management bodies that we have agreed to, but those do not flow to First Nations; they are to fund those co-management bodies that we as governments agreed to work with and accept recommendations from.
There is also the ongoing funding for our governments. Again, because the Yukon was breaking trail, there were no examples or any way of determining what it costs to run a First Nation government. As the chief said, we have now completed the nine-year review. In that process, one of the exercises we engaged in was what we refer to as a gross expenditure base. We were using the territorial government's figures for salaries and other costs for running of their government so that we could base it on reality in the Yukon.
Another challenge is that even in the Yukon there are many vast differences between the communities. Chief Linklater's community is a remote fly-in community. Most of the others are linked by roads. We have geographic differences and the makeup of our communities are different. Some have a majority of First Nations people and others are mixed native and non-native. All of those variations cause challenges for us in terms funding our government.
I hope that answers your question.
Senator Dallaire: That is an outstanding explanation.
I have two points on this issue: First, there will be a budget in the next few weeks. Has anyone told you that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is re-aligning funds to meet the requirements of your four- year review in the budget that is coming up? Have they said, ``We have put in a line item to meet what we have agreed upon,'' or will they put it into your two-, three- or four-year review? Have they gone that far in discussions with you on your review?
Mr. Linklater: No. We have positive signs, but we still need to complete the gross expenditure-base review. At this point, the main item that we are seeking, if there was only one to choose from, would be the mandate.
We are not here in Ottawa to predetermine any negotiated settlement. We want a mandate from the federal government that reflects the findings in the review. That mandate will then be a negotiating mandate to negotiate a new financial transfer arrangement. Our financial transfer arrangements with Canada run out in March 2009. We need to complete that negotiation by that date.
At this point, we are not trying to predetermine any negotiated number. We want them to do so.
Senator Dallaire: What is your estimate of the gross delta that you have been absorbing? I know you do not have the end figures — a number might be easy enough — but what is the impact on your people with regard to not having the funding to meet what you consider to be the implementation responsibilities?
Have you actually seen a degradation? You talked about some programs being reduced, but, holistically? By way of example, have you gone from country No. 162 in the UN list of best places to live to No. 195 or something of that sort? Is it demonstrable? Do you have a sense of how the quality of life within your nations has degraded? Has it degraded substantially?
Mr. Linklater: No. Since self-government, I think the quality of life has improved. Once we have drawn down the programs, we can then develop policies to put the limited resources in areas where they will have the most impact. That was not the case previously.
The negative impact to the communities has been the lost opportunities. If we were adequately funded, for example, we may have been able to set up programs that would have helped to protect our culture and languages.
Senator Dallaire: That is a significant delta. You are above survival mode, but you have certainly not attained the steady state of a society, is that right?
Mr. Linklater: That is exactly right.
Senator Hubley: We were represented by a wonderful senator from the Yukon, Senator Ione Christensen. She was a great supporter of the Yukon and brought a great deal of knowledge to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples which she loved dearly. If you know her, please say hello from us.
What is the makeup of the implementation review group? Who is on that review committee and what does it constitute?
Mr. Linklater: The implementation review group is made up of senior officials from the Yukon Self Governing First Nations. Their financial transfer arrangements would expire in 2009. That is seven self-governing First Nations, which would include the first four and the following three. They have joined together to do that. It includes the Yukon territorial government, senior officials from the Land Claims Secretariat and senior officials — in some cases not-so- senior — from Ottawa and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Section by section, they have gone through the final and self-government agreements, the Umbrella Final Agreement and the implementation plans, and have made recommendations on how things might improve and have made some comments on the agreements and the implementation plans. As I said, they have done so for about 40 years now.
Senator Hubley: Having said that, are timelines involved? If the implementation review group brings forward recommendations or concerns, I assume that they brought forward to government. Are there timelines? Does government have a certain amount of time to respond to those or are they just brought forward and dealt with as time will allow?
Mr. Linklater: The first timeline was at the nine-year review, which would have been 2004. That was supposed to take approximately one year. It is now in its fourth year. A mandate was come out of that review reflecting the findings of the review. That has not come about as of this point. That is part of the reason we are down here in Ottawa, talking to the Minister of Finance and various other departments in cabinet who will help to determine the mandate.
There was no timeline on when the report would be accepted by governments or transmitted from the working group to government. That way, we can, at that point, begin discussing at the political level the findings of the report. That has been done, but there was no specific timeline.
We are hoping that all the work that has gone into the front end — studying the reviews, the implementation and the agreements — will shorten the negotiating time needed because we will have done all of our homework.
I believe Ms. Asp has an additional comment.
Fran Asp, Senior Official for Intergovernmental Affairs, Champagne & Aishihik First Nations: Good evening and thank you. It is an honour to be here.
As the chief said, the reviews took four or five years. One of the things that happened during that period was we had to negotiate an extension to our financial transfer agreement. We had to do that due to the length of time it was taking to get through the reviews.
The reviews were done in June of 2007, and they have been transmitted to the Government of Canada and all the parties. One of our issues is that Canada does not have a real, set way of dealing with these reviews. We did the five- year review five years after we signed our agreements. Those reviews had recommendations as well, but they did not really go anywhere. When we were engaged in the nine-year review, we raised issues that had not been dealt with in the five-year review.
As I said, we had to negotiate a two-year extension to our financial transfer arrangements. Our extended financial transfer arrangements are now due to expire again in March 2009. Between now and then, we need to be able to negotiate new financial arrangements. That is part of the push regarding why we came down here.
We are finding out that a lot of the obligations in these agreements are not just with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; a lot of them are with other government departments. They represent Canada. We figure that many of these departments are busy and do not fully appreciate the extent of their obligations.
Part of what we have been doing this week is meeting with these departments and their ministers to educate them as to what these agreements mean to us. It is important to impart to them what rides on getting a mandate for these negotiations so that these self-government arrangements continue for the next five years.
Senator Hubley: It is disappointing to hear you say that you have to convince departments of our government that what you are doing is legitimate. There is obviously some disconnect between yourselves and certain departments. It must be very frustrating for you. We have heard that message, and I thank you for your wise answer.
Senator Peterson: To put this matter into perspective, you signed the agreement 13 years ago. You started 35 years ago, and I think you indicated that you are 50 per cent of the way home. How long do you think it will take to bring this home?
Mr. Linklater: The first delegation of chiefs came down 35 years ago to present the document Together Today for Our Children Tomorrow to the Government of Canada. Twenty-two years later, we signed off on the first four final agreements and self-government agreements. Ten years later, we began a review process. Four years after that we find ourselves here today.
The implementation of those agreements will never end, as Senator Dallaire mentioned. It will continue on and on. We will continue to find, I am sure, shortfalls and obstacles. As governments in the Yukon, we are striving to develop a partnership with the other orders of government in the Yukon so that when we do face those challenges, we are able to deal with them in a much more efficient and effective manner. We do not want it to take another 22, 10 or 4 years to resolve these issues. Then we will able to sit down and have dialogue on a government-to-government-to-government basis.
Within the next six months or so, I would hope that we would have a mandate from the federal government to begin to address these issues and negotiate adequate levels of funding.
Of course, there is still the issue of policies. These Indian Act policies followed us as self-governing First Nations. They do not apply to the Yukon or provincial governments, but they somehow apply to us as governments. I do not think that is fair and we need to find a solution. We can only do that through dialogue with people who have a vision and who feel a need for change in this country.
As I said, we are not going anywhere. We hope that at some point in time we will be able to address those issues. Either put the Indian Act policies back in that act, leave them there and allow us to run our governments, or amend the policies so that the federal bureaucracy is able to deal with these Aboriginal issues much more effectively and efficiently.
As to your question, we are not going away and neither is the implementation of our agreements. We will continue for as long as we are on this earth.
Senator Peterson: The issue at this juncture seems to be money. That seems to be the biggest obstacle, and it makes one wonder whether you should be under INAC or the Treasury Board.
What is the structure of your government? You say there is self-governance.
Mr. Linklater: There are different structures, as mentioned by Mr. Peter. We have eight language groups within the Yukon. If we take the Teslin Tlingit Council as an example, their structure is based on their traditional governance structure. There are different clans, and each clan has a speaker that represents the clan. Out of those speakers they pick one speaker who would be the equivalent of a chief. That would be their governance structure.
The governance structure for the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation is based on public governance. We have taken the Financial Administration Act of the Yukon government and made that our government legislation. We have a process where we have legislation. We do three readings, and after the third reading we pass the legislation.
In the absence of an opposition party, we take our legislation to the community. we read our legislation and go through the process of passing it in front of the community. The community is able to comment on the legislation as we go through it. If there are any significant concerns, we take that legislation back and amend it until it is satisfactory to the community.
Right now, for example, we have our Appropriation Act. Our budget is passed in front of the community. The salary of the chief and the salary of council members is a matter of legislation. If anyone on council wants to increase their salary, they do not do it behind closed doors, as was the case maybe five years ago. They have to go to the community and say they want to amend the legislation to increase their pay.
The entire process is very accountable, transparent and community based. The community has a great deal of involvement. We hope to educate our community on the issue of governance and raise the level of knowledge for our people on the makeup and structure of our government.
Senator Peterson: With regard to your revenue stream, on a yearly basis, how much would be related to government? You said you have corporations that make money. How much would that be, roughly?
Mr. Linklater: The financial transfer arrangement for our community is approximately $5.4 million. We have a community of 300 people and a beneficiary list of over 800 people. Some of that money is meant to fund people living in the Yukon, and some of it is just for people living in the community of Old Crow on settlement land.
Our yearly budget is around $10 million. As a self-governing community, we have to write proposals for and to compete for almost half of the budget, sometimes against each other. I do not know of any other government that has to do that. We have to write proposals and go into contribution agreements and report back on that money, which is unfair.
We have three separate governing institutions: our political body, our business trust and the trust that invests our compensation dollars that flowed out of the settlement agreements. We have invested that money well and have done well in our businesses.
I cannot speak for other communities, but my community had a balance sheet of approximately $56 million last year. There again, we have proven that when we take on the responsibility it means a whole lot more to us. When we have that responsibility and accountability, we are able to generate very positive results.
However, on the government side of things, we have to make difficult decisions about operating in an accountable manner and balancing our budget. If we have to balance our budget, that means certain programs and services will not be fully realized.
There has been much sacrifice in becoming accountable governments. At the same time, we take pride in the fact that we are able to demonstrate that we can manage our affairs. Unfortunately, we cannot manage them to the extent that we need to do so, in some cases because of the inadequate levels of funding.
Senator Peterson: As they give you the money they rightfully owe you and you narrow that gap and generate all the funds yourself, then would you see yourself as self-governing? Is that how you would view success?
Mr. Linklater: We are self-governing.
Senator Peterson: I know you are, but I am referring to when you will no longer need their assistance and money. Will you always need the money?
Mr. Linklater: Yes. Again, I can only speak on behalf of my own community. We view success as a healthy community, one that includes a proper education system, good economic development opportunities, young people who make healthy choices, physically, mentally and spiritually and a good land base. Our definition of success includes economic development, economic success and wealth. From an Aboriginal perspective, we would have to have a clean environment and healthy fish and wildlife populations.
At the same time, we want our children to have all the opportunities of the world, so we want our culture to be strong. We want their identity to be strong. We want our languages to survive because that is a big part of the culture, but also we want our children to have a good academic education.
We strive for all of these things, but we are quite limited by the resources at our disposal. For example, we are limited by the people we are able to hire to make some of these things come to fruition. If we are to implement these agreements to their full extent, we have to hire the people to do it. In order to hire the people, we must provide office space for them. This brings up the issue of capital, and we need to take care of that side of the equation. Then there is the issue of housing. We need to be able to house the people that come to work for us.
You can see how inadequate levels of funding do impact us. It is not just about providing programs and services; it is about providing people who need a place to work and a place to live. Inadequate funding does create quite a snowball effect.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: What do you think the ultimate agreement would be to solve the problems encountered by First Nations?
Mr. Linklater: I might be a little biased in my answer, but I think we have pretty close to that right now. It is really difficult to say because we have not been able to explore the full potential of our final self-governance agreements. However, the successes we have experienced in the Yukon, even having the Yukon government create a forum in which we can come together to discuss how to move the Yukon agenda forward, demonstrate the potential of these agreements. If we are able to address these two main issues of policy and adequate levels of funding, I see endless potential in the Yukon.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Do you partner with businesses outside of your communities? Do you have partnerships?
Mr. Linklater: Yes, absolutely. I believe all the self-governing First Nations have partners, not just with each other on various projects but with other business. There is mining and oil and gas exploration. Again, because of our authority in the Yukon, these industries feel the need to come to the First Nations to make sure that we are satisfied with the level of consultation and economic opportunity. They invest millions of dollars and want to make sure that nothing interferes with that investment. When they see the authority we have, they believe it is a good investment of their time and money to come to the First Nations and make sure that we are satisfied with their involvement.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: You have plenty of land base to incorporate other communities, other places to invest. You have a lot of land there. Do you rent it out? Is that how you partner?
Mr. Linklater: Yes, but it is not just the land that is of interest. As I said, we have compensation dollars. We have put those compensation dollars to work for us, and many First Nations have had successful investments. I would say that the majority of self-governing First Nations have not touched their land for industrial purposes and still make good profits.
For example, we have not had any industrial development on our land, but we are still creating good revenue streams by diversifying our businesses and by investing our compensation dollars in the national and international markets to create good returns. That money is held communally. We will not divide that money up, and any returns on investment for our community are put into enhancing education programs or land-based programs. For example, we put money toward the hunter and trappers association in our community, as well as cultural programs such dancing and languages. We are taking the return on our investment and investing it in our people to ensure that we can provide our own programs and services.
The Chair: We just came back from a trip to the United States where we visited the Mescalero Apache, the Pueblo in Albuquerque, and the Navajo. It was an interesting trip. You say you negotiate government to government. Joe Shirley Jr., President of the Navajo Nation, which is 300,000 people, said he negotiates nation to nation, not government to government. He says he is not an Indian but rather a Native American. He said he does not live on a reserve but on traditional lands. He elaborated further, which I will not take the time to do, because he says reserves are really for animals.
You said you had to hire people to do the implementation. Why is this not just automatic? To me there is too much money going to consultants and lawyers in this world in respect to First Nations people, when monies that should really be going to the people who are on the land or to the membership of the various communities.
The Auditor General examined three land claim agreements: the Nunavut, Gwich'in and Inuvialuit, and in each case she came up with the same reviews that are in your review.
If implementation does not take place, besides coming to Ottawa with your cap in hand and pleading with a bunch of bureaucrats and a department that is often dysfunctional, in my view, what other recourse do you have? Here again, in all likelihood you are incurring costs for lawyers and specialists who can penetrate the wall of the bureaucracy. Can you respond? Perhaps Ms. Massie will want to respond as well. If we do not tackle this issue, I do not think we solve the problem.
Mr. Linklater: We live in a legal world these days. I can tell you that in speaking to our elders, they have an inherent understanding of government. Government is not something new to them. They know how far they can go. What we sometimes require — and any government, any business requires it — is due diligence.
Yes, we hire lawyers and consultants from time to time. We use them strategically, I think. There is nothing wrong with that. We are a government, but we are realists as well and sometimes these things are necessary. In the Yukon we are proud that we have not had to go to court to seek a resolution of our issues.
On the advice of our elders, we have gone and talked to governments as a government. We have sat down and had discussions with them like any other government, whether a foreign government or a local government. We have sought resolution through dialogue. We do not think that the courts can produce anything that we cannot produce in those instances. We feel that it is not a good expenditure of our time and resources.
We look at this trip to Ottawa as an investment in the future outcomes of everything we have worked towards.
I just want to finish by saying that the Navajo are Athabaskan people, so it is not a surprise to me that we think alike.
The Chair: I have one other quick question with respect to status and non-status First Nations. What about Inuit and Metis? Where do they fit into the program, or do they? Are they dealt with separately? Do you have these people in your traditional territory?
Mr. Linklater: No. When the whole land claims process began, the so-called Metis in the Yukon joined with the Yukon Native Brotherhood. I believe that is what it was called at the time. In our minds, that is where we got rid of the whole status/non-status issue in our minds. I probably would have been considered Metis if that had not happened, but I am now considered Vuntut Gwitchin. There are no status/non-status/Metis issues there. It has all been amalgamated.
We went forward based on the principle that we are either Vuntut Gwitchin or we are not. That is how we proceeded from the very beginning, and we have not deviated from that at all.
There are no Inuit communities in the Yukon. There is Inuit traditional territory along the north slope of the Yukon but no communities.
Ms. Massie: Our community is very much like those of other First Nations. We have a constitution that governs our First Nation. It contains a citizenship code that defines our citizens. We do not make any distinctions among anyone who qualifies as a citizen of the Ta'an Kwach'an Council because our citizen base is our ancestry.
Senator Gustafson: In regard to land resources, you say that you have mining and oil and gas. Is there traditional hunting? How far along are you on the issue of resources, and what resources are there? I will use Saskatchewan as an example. With respect to uranium, oil and gas and potash, we may see our day in the sun one of these days. I am certain that you monitor that closely so that you get your share out of what is happening in the resource-based lands, because that is very important.
Mr. Linklater: I will explain an important aspect of what is going on in the Yukon before I get to the first part of your question.
In 1999, the Government of Yukon, with the support of the Yukon First Nations, signed a devolution agreement with the Natural Resources Canada. As part of that devolution transfer agreement, they are able to collect some of the royalties within the Yukon. It is not the best royalty regime out there. It is a very small percentage of the overall royalties that are collected, the majority of which goes to Canada. However, in that agreement we, as Aboriginal people, have a royalty sharing component with the Government of the Yukon, so there is a small incentive to go ahead and develop.
Senator Gustafson: As an example, do you get every tenth barrel of oil or every twelfth barrel or a percentage?
Mr. Linklater: I do not have the numbers off the top of my head. Maybe Mr. Peter does. We get a percentage of the money collected, and it is disbursed among the self-governing First Nations and the Yukon government. It is shared. I think it is 2 per cent.
Mr. Peter: It varies depending on the amount of royalties collected. This deals with the gas royalties out of southeast Yukon. I think the share for First Nations is up to $2 million of whatever percentage the territorial government gets. It is obviously split with the federal government.
Your question is a good one because it highlights an anomaly we are facing where we have agreed in principle that we would fund our own government, and over time we would have to grow into that capacity. One way we thought we could do that was by negotiating a share of not only royalties but also tax revenue from resource development that occurs within our traditional territory.
We are not able to currently negotiate a share of the corporate income tax. For example, we have one community where a mine is on settlement land. It was grandfathered because the land was staked prior to our settlement, and we respected that decision. However, because we are not able to negotiate a share of the corporate income tax, we are not able to gain access to resources that are coming from our own lands. We hope to address those anomalies over time and have alerted the federal government.
The chief may want to answer the second part of your question.
We do have harvesting rights throughout our traditional territory. In some cases, we have exclusive harvesting rights within our own settlement lands. It is managed, of course, by us, and any other person can harvest off those lands with our permission. It is a management tool.
That answer refers to a previous question about the recourse to no implementation. We try to protect our land so that our people have a choice. They can engage in the modern economy, the modern way of life, or they can continue with the traditional way of life. That is why we highlight the importance of our land base, protecting the environment and the culture and education of our people.
Senator Gustafson: What percentage of your people work on oil and gas and mining projects?
Mr. Peter: It varies from project to project. However, as the chief indicated, because we are in a position of self- government and we have our own authorities and land base, we are now finding that development companies are coming to us and beginning to engage in negotiations of benefit agreements, which would deal with employment and other benefits related to the development project, such as training and, in some cases, scholarships for other people. It varies according to the agreement negotiated with each specific company.
This is one of the successes we can highlight. In the past when the federal government had the jurisdiction or the management authority over the lands in the Yukon, companies would just ignore us and go to the federal government for permission to conduct their business. Now they come to us, and in some cases they come to us before they go to other governments. I would think that is a success that has resulted from our settlement.
Senator Gustafson: It seems to me that our Prime Minister has a northern vision. I can imagine that with development these vast lands will bring forth resources that we cannot even imagine at this point in time. It will be very important that you have agreements in place to give you a share of those resource and the resulting income.
Mr. Linklater: As I had mentioned earlier, the definition of wealth and health is determined by our people. In our agreements, there is the requirement of government and industry to consult at various levels. Some people call it large ``C'' consultation and small ``c'' consultation. There are those types of agreements.
We also have law-making abilities on our lands. We have our own vision for the future of the North, and I think that needs to be discussed at a political level before we determine ultimately how the North will evolve. I think that was the original intent of pushing for settlements in the North.
Senator Sibbeston will remember the days when we said that we wanted to determine how the North will evolve and how it will ultimately become part of the Canadian fabric, and I am hoping we are well on our way.
The Chair: On the lighter side, that was an electrifying response.
Senator Sibbeston: You have undertaken the implementation review process five to nine years after the agreement. You entered that process with a view to dealing with problems and shortfalls that exist in our claims agreement. Are you reasonably assured? What signs are there that the federal government will respond positively to the report?
Mr. Linklater: As we go through this exercise, I hope we are demonstrating that we have a reasonable response to the Canadian government's question of what we do about Aboriginal issues such as poverty, housing, healthy living standards and so forth.
The answers for us in the Yukon are in the final self-government agreements and the identified shortfalls in achieving the full success of those agreements and tapping into them. I am hoping that after 10 years of beating on the door, someone has finally heard us and said, ``Let's try this.'' I know of no other model in Canada where we have 10 years of experience on the ground implementing self-government and looking at not just the successes but also tapping into the potential of self-government to address these issues.
If this government is sincere about Aboriginal issues in this country, they will look at adequate funding for implementation, be it programs, service or the potential of the agreements.
Senator Sibbeston: You are very positive. It is nice to see people come to Ottawa and have a positive attitude, a feeling that the government will respond.
What indications are there that the federal government will give you the money that the report says you need? Have you spoken to the Prime Minister? Have you spoken to Mr. Strahl? Have you spoken to your MP? Has he assured you that everything will work out well? That is not the usual experience.
You are awfully happy, buoyant and optimistic. Will you get the money in the end, or will you come back in a few years sad and long-faced saying that you cannot get it because it is not working?
Mr. Linklater: We will get the money in the end, and we will get changes because we will not give up. We have dealt with this thing. Beginning with the self-government agreements, we have broken new ground and we continue to break new ground. We have busted open the door even on the implementation reviews.
The federal officials went beyond their mandate to even say they want to talk about adequacy of funding. We have broken down those barriers, and the next barrier is the cabinet. We will be meeting with the Minister of Finance two weeks before he delivers the budget. We have a half hour of his time to engage in dialogue and get positive responses. This is the first time he has heard from First Nations, so he is not fully prepared to say he can do this, but he says we will continue this dialogue.
We got a letter from Minister Strahl saying he is engaging his cabinet colleagues and has directed his senior officials to do the same to have the mandate reflect the findings of the implementation review. Those are very positive signs, and we have that in writing. We have direct contact with the government. We are coming to them as governments. What makes the Premier of British Columbia so positive is that we are dealing government to government.
We have a lot of experience. Our elders have taught us well, and we know just how far we can push things. We feel that this is a great opportunity. The momentum has definitely shifted and is moving toward proper implementation of self-government.
Senator Sibbeston: I appreciate your positive attitude.
Apart from these implementation provisions and the review, once these things have been done, are there any review mechanisms beyond this stage?
Mr. Linklater: Not at this point. We have made a commitment with the territorial government and with Minister Strahl's office to do up a work plan. One thing we want to contemplate is a future review because this is a unique exercise that needs to be studied. I think this nine-year review, the implementation report, is exactly that. It is a study of the last 10 years of self-government. It makes several excellent recommendations.
Senator Sibbeston: I think this business of implementation review provisions are very important and, as you see, very relevant. We are studying the implementation of land claims agreements because most of the First Nations that have such agreements are finding that after a number of years there is a real weakness in the implementation process.
Last week, a Senate committee dealing with the Nunavut claims agreement recommended that there be a review after 10 years. We amended the legislation. It went through the Senate to the House of Commons, and the government accepted it. That is a real breakthrough because if there had been a review of the implementation provisions in the Inuvialuit and the Gwich'in claims, that would have helped very much. If every land claim that comes before us has a review of the implementation provisions after 10 years, that would make the government accountable. It would make for much more success in these agreements. I am beginning to think this is the answer.
Do you feel that these implementation review provisions have saved you and made it possible at this stage to really take another look at the situation, which you did not really know when you were signing the agreement? How significant is this review?
Mr. Linklater: In my mind, part of the reason for — not failure — the shortfalls in the implementation is that the federal government in particular has a measure of uncertainty. These modern claims are an experiment in self- government. The type of self-government we have in the Yukon is an experiment, and they are not willing to invest fully in an experiment.
These reviews have demonstrated that there is success here, and they are giving federal officials and the federal government more certainty that the money they are putting into self-government is money well invested. It is money that will bring enormous returns.
The reviews are important. We have done a diagnostic test. We can say, ``These are the successes and this is where you need to invest more; these are the policies that you need to change and then you will get success.'' The reviews have given certain departments, officials and politicians the certainty that they need to move forward in a way that will produce better results.
Senator Sibbeston: I come from the Northwest Territories. I was very involved in the 1970s dealing with the government that was in place. Through the land claims process and given the prospects of self-government, it seems like all Aboriginal and First Nations people want to be self-governing. I have often thought that perhaps this is a dream or idealism. We look at self-government in a romantic way. However, having been in government, it is a lot of work to be self-governing. Can you comment on that?
Mr. Linklater: When I was younger I was unemployed for about a year, so I no longer complain about the work. It is better than the alternative.
In the Yukon we say that the federal government did not give us self-government; this negotiation simply was a negotiation for government to recognize that we are self-governing. Yes, it is a lot of work, but it is work that gets me out of bed in the morning. These are my people; this is my life and my future. I want to ensure that when I am old and living on the land that my people are able to protect my way of life. I do not think there is anyone else in the world that I would trust with the Gwich'in way of life other than the Gwich'in people. We gladly do that.
I tell people all the time that these self-government agreements were not negotiated to resources ourselves. They were negotiated to give us the ability to look after ourselves and to be self-determining. That is a lot of work, yes, but at least it is work.
Senator Dallaire: I applaud the extraordinary patience that you reflect toward the Canadian government. The Government of Canada has been at it for 140 years, not necessarily inclusive of the Yukon. If you are arguing that it is still conducting on-the-job training regarding how to work with self-governing nations and the implementation plans of extensive agreements, I refer you to the UN human rights reports in regard to Canada and its First Nations or Aboriginals. I would say perhaps you should be breaking down doors.
I find extraordinary the way in which you have expressed a positive desire to come to a resolved agreement. That brings me to your specific trip here.
You are worried that the policies are preventing you from properly implementing your self-governing capabilities, and you are limited extensively on gaining access. Taxation is not necessarily a process, but there are issues even getting the cash. If you look at Alberta right now and its oil, you guys are way down the road yet. There is a demand for funds for your autonomy and self-government.
You have policies that are hitting against you. You produce this review that you hope will articulate a mandate which will be the basis of a policy that ultimately will bring funding to a whole series of programs until you do another review.
You have come to Ottawa and have seen the people at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. To what extent do you have a warm fuzzy feeling that the Department of Indian Affairs is actually the body with the power to sort out the other departments in an effort to ensure that Indian Affairs can get the funding required to conduct the implementation of a new policy based on the mandate that you will hopefully create from your review?
Mr. Linklater: First, we have to be patient with the Canadian government; they have all the money.
The current and last three ministers of the Department of Indian Affairs have looked at what we were doing in the Yukon, and they all agreed and used the same terminology: ``We have to get it right.'' Hence, it has taken four years to do the reviews to ensure that we have covered off every aspect.
The current minister has taken a look at the reports and agreed that the recommendations contained therein need to form the mandate. We have come down here in support of the minister to speak directly to the federal government. We have reminded each minister that our agreements are not with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development; they are with the Canadian government. Each department has responsibility in implementing, on behalf of Canada, portions of the final and self-governing agreements.
Canada's policy is that they want to deal with Aboriginal issues through INAC. There is nothing we can do about that. That is their policy; we have our own policies and there is nothing they can do about it. We are forced to deal with the issue through INAC. We have also used Mr. Strahl's office to open doors for us with other ministers. I do not know too many Aboriginal groups who in two days have met with the Minister of Finance, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the Minister of Justice, and we are meeting with the Minister of HRDC tomorrow. We have had good cooperation from Minister Strahl's office to push the agenda forward and to represent ourselves as governments to his colleagues. In fact, he has told us that in these turbulent times in Parliament they are talking about the Yukon and the Yukon claims. If we can get that kind of attention and profile in cabinet, I would say we have made some advances.
Senator Dallaire: I was the equivalent of an ADM in government. I was always fearful of a more senior general or political person coming in with a glossy brochure on a new piece of equipment that he wanted, saying, ``I just had a lunch meeting with these guys and I want 15 of them; sort it out.'' I want to be crass about this and ask: Were the DMs at every one of those meetings? Were the ADMs at every one of those meetings? Is the Deputy Minister of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development specifically mandated to lead your review in order to bring every one of those departments online? Is he mandated to cost your review and to take a memorandum to cabinet ensuring that the funding goes to the proposed solution or mandate?
Do you get that fuzzy feeling that someone is running this thing and they have authority to get the cash lines you need to implement these projects, or are they still at the study mode whereby they are receiving your input? I do not want to be nasty or facetious about the politicians, but you told me three guys have gone through. CIDA has had 15 in 10 years; National Defence has had 20 in 3 years. These ladies and gentlemen are pretty mobile. I would be keen on knowing whether or not you feel the DMs and those characters are engaged and have a mandate to sort this out.
Mr. Linklater: As a political person, my job would be to move the politicians. Once we get to the mandate stage, then it is up to senior officials to do it. They need to have the mandate to move things along. Believe me, I am a politician; I know who does all the work and it is not me.
I think we have done our job as politicians coming down here to express our views and opinions. We have received very positive feedback. I think we have done our job to the greatest extent possible given that this is a new topic to many of the ministers. The follow-up will be important. We had senior officials meet all day long on Monday. Many of the ADMs and DMs of the various departments were there. One of the follow-up items we want is for Canada to identify someone to oversee this process for the next six months in order to move from the recommendation stage to the mandate stage.
Senator Dallaire: Yes, and cost it out.
Mr. Linklater: Yes. We are going through a gross expenditure-based process. That will spell it out for us. We are not here to predetermine any negotiations. We want the mandate and then we will leave it up to the officials to negotiate the final numbers. As long as they are fair and open negotiations, I am sure we will be happy with the outcome.
Senator Dallaire: You are absolutely right regarding the political links, but the staff are critical as well.
If I look at the milestone financing that you requested and the cash lines, even speaking optimistically I suspect that you will not see new money until fiscal 2011, or something like, if it is not already established preliminarily. Do you agree with that?
Mr. Linklater: When we did our last cash transfer arrangements, the money flowed fairly quickly. I believe all the authorities are in place; it is just a matter of negotiating.
Senator Dallaire: But you are looking for new money. That is adjusted money within the department. You are bringing forward new money demands, and they have to go and get new money. If that is not already lined up, you will not see that for 10 or 11 years as they bring in the process. That is why your patience is to be applauded, but your officials have really got to beat up on these people.
I think this is an extraordinary suggestion: Who will run this thing within government and who will run with it? We can monitor that.
Mr. Peter: I want to add to the comment on new money. There is another solution in our mind. When you talk about policies, there are significant initiatives introduced by the federal government that exclude us. We are here to say, ``If you include us in accessing those resources, you may not have to look for new money.'' We are here to find solutions. We believe that we have the experience and that we can offer some assistance.
I agree with the chief. He has hit the nail on the head. There needs to be a high-level official pushing the process to keep it going, in coordination with the work of our political leadership. We work at two different levels. We are instructed by the political leadership and then we head into the trenches and get at it.
Our experience has been that if the political will is there, it will happen. The signals we have received this week are that the will is there. That is another reason we are optimistic, aside from the teachings of our elders in terms of patience. We are not going anywhere. We will still be in the Yukon.
Senator Dallaire: Yes, but you do not have to live under conditions that are not necessary after all these years.
I think it is extraordinary. Concentrate the effort; this should not be a shotgun approach. If you do not have someone leading the matrix within government, they will all scatter and say, ``We are not running this thing.'' If would be excellent if you could hold them accountable.
Senator Gustafson: I have a statement to make. If Senator St. Germain has his way, he will break the bank. We works very hard for you. He truly does.
The Chair: My goodness, that would be a good bank to break.
Chiefs and your staff, you exercised patience and expended funds to come here. It is costly to come here. We are appreciative of the fact that you came to Ottawa to be with us tonight.
I have one more thing I would like you to think about. When we did the specific claims study — and it is the people here who did that; we did it together and worked in a non-partisan way, as much as is humanly possible in Ottawa — we established an arm's length adjudicator to deal with specific claims as opposed to the traditional way. Do you not think that a mechanism should be instituted whereby First Nations that have signed treaties can go to someone or something? We have 21 comprehensive treaties now, and we have a number coming from my province of British Columbia.
I would like you to give some thought as to what we could establish as a dispute settlement mechanism that would trigger immediate activity so that you would not have to be dragged through the political and bureaucratic process. It would be something whereby you could say that implementation is not happening. We could then go to this particular switch, or whatever type of body it is.
I do not necessarily want you to comment at this time, but until we get such a mechanism in place, every First Nation that has signed a comprehensive treaty requiring an implementation process will have the same challenge that you have experienced. Unless we have an adjudication system, there will be problems.
Governments change and ministers change; everything changes. I have been here for 25 years and seen good ministers in all governments. I would like you to give some thought to that.
You were very astute, chief, when you said that the one who controls the gold controls the game. We have to develop a system that gives an immediate response when the need is there for implementation.
Again, I want to thank you. I have been to your beautiful, traditional lands. In September, I floated down the river in a Zodiac from the lake right to the bridge. It is the most beautiful place in the world.
Remember, my friends: It is not what we build while we are here; it is what we leave. I think you people will leave a significant mark in First Nations relations with the government. Thank you and God bless all of you.
Mr. Linklater: Thank you very much.
The committee continued in camera.