Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 8 - Evidence - Meeting of April 1, 2008
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 1, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:34 a.m. to examine and report on 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: Good morning, honourable senators and invited guests. This morning, we carry on with our study of the implementation of comprehensive land claims. We have two panels with us this morning to assist us in this work. On the first panel, we have representatives from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, Finance Canada and the Treasury Board of Canada, Secretariat. The Privy Council Office was also invited to appear on the panel but declined the invitation. The second panel is comprised of people from Public Works and Government Services Canada, Parks Canada and Fisheries and Oceans Canada.
Before we begin, I will introduce the members of the committee. I am Senator St. Germain from British Columbia. On my right are Senator Dyck and Senator Peterson, both from Saskatchewan.
Signatories to modern land claims agreements have been critical of the lack of federal government coordination of its treaty obligations. Although treaties are with the Crown rather than with any one department, signatories must deal with various departments to ensure that obligations are met. Often, this experience can be expensive, time-consuming and frustrating since they can deal with no single department or agency that represents the Crown. The committee is interested in hearing how appropriate the current federal organizational structure is in responding to obligations taken on by the federal government in the treaty process, and what improvements might be made.
From the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, we have Mavis Dellert, Acting Director General, Implementation Branch; and Michel Roy, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Claims and Indian Government. Representing Finance Canada are Yves Giroux, Director, Social Policy, Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch; and Greg Gallo, Chief, Aboriginal Policy, Social Policy. Finally, our witness from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat is Bruno Jean, Principal Analyst, Indian Affairs and Health, Social and Cultural Sector.
Welcome, ladies and gentlemen. If you are prepared to proceed, we would like you to make your presentations. Following that, we will have questions that will be constructive for us in compiling a report and making recommendations.
[Translation]
Michel Roy, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Claims and Indian Government, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving us and our colleagues from the central agencies the opportunity to discuss implementation policies.
Last February 12, I appeared before your committee with Mr. Michael Wernick, the deputy minister, and Mr. Terry Sewell, the director general for implementation. This morning, I am accompanied by Mavis Dellert, the acting director general of the implementation branch.
The committee has undertaken a detailed review of Canada's efforts with respect to the implementation of comprehensive claims and self-government agreements.
I am very pleased that you have set time aside in your examination of modern treaty implementation to hear from several of my colleagues in other federal departments and agencies. It reflects the importance of the fact that these 22 modern treaties in three provinces and the three territories of Canada constitute a new relationship with the Government of Canada. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has an important leadership role but successful implementation is also the business of many other departments and agencies.
We have been following the proceedings of the committee very closely over the past four months. You have now heard from representatives of about two-thirds of the Aboriginal signatories to modern agreements as well as representatives of the land claims agreements coalition, an affiliation of all Aboriginal signatories to modern treaties in Canada as well as others with expertise or perspectives on the implementation of modern treaties.
[English]
During 2007, representatives of my sector held extensive consultations with many of the same representatives that the committee has heard from over the past four months. We also reached out to representatives of the provinces and territories where modern treaties are being implemented. We also heard from our colleagues in other departments, both in Ottawa, where agreements are crafted, and in the regions, where much of the day-to-day efforts to give effect to the complexities of modern treaties occurs. I am certain we will find considerable consistency in the findings from both bodies of work.
[Translation]
I believe we will all agree that implementing modern treaties is complex and often challenging business. It requires substantial coordination and collaboration within the federal family in conjunction with the other parties to agreements: provinces, territories and First Nations. While we do have challenges and difficult issues, we are continuing to make progress.
[English]
We have been collaborating with our colleagues at Public Works and Government Services Canada and Treasury Board Secretariat on new policy and training initiatives to improve our efforts to monitor and report on contracting provisions of agreements. The launch of a learning program for Government of Canada procurement officers in the contracting section in the settlement area is also imminent. It will be launched by the school on April 22.
I am pleased to report that we recently received approval for a new streamlined process by which we can access additional resources required for implementation of land claim agreements in a timelier manner. This new funding framework was the result of close collaboration and support from the central agencies. We look forward to their continued support as we deal with the sustainability of self-government agreements.
[Translation]
Since we last appeared in February, I can report that we are making progress with respect to the land transfer issues under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. In fact, we have reached an agreement in principle on both transfers which each party is now considering within their respective systems.
Also, in relation to economic measures, I am pleased to report that the parties have agreed to a practical approach that will see a consultant undertaking assessment of community economic development potential in each of the Inuvialuit communities.
Canada has contributed over $200,000 to this effort for this fiscal year with a view to continuing this support next year. As Deputy Minister Wernick stated during his appearance, modern treaties represent an enormous step forward for Aboriginal Canadians, fundamental advancements in opportunity and potential.
They open the door to self-governance, to increased capacity and to greater influence and participation in the economic life of our country.
[English]
You heard many of the same messages from Chief Joe Linklater, Bill Namagoose, James Eetoolook and Terry Fenge. We are now at a point where a significant number of completed agreements require our attention vis-à-vis implementation. The agreements cover 40 per cent of Canada's land mass. They involve more than 22 Aboriginal governments and organizations, as well as three provincial and three territorial governments.
Today is the first day of the new fiscal year. Over the course of the new year, I will work with the Land Claims Agreements Coalition, provincial and territorial representatives and my colleagues across the federal government to build a comprehensive framework and action plan to transform how Canada implements land claims agreements and self-government agreements.
[Translation]
I look forward to our discussion this morning and your recommendations on how to improve implementation of modern treaties.
Yves Giroux, Director, Department of Social Policy, Federal-Provincial Relations and Social Policy Branch, Finance Canada: If I may, I would like to ask Mr. Jean to make a presentation similar to the one that was so eloquently delivered by Mr. Roy. Then we will do our best to answer your questions.
The Chair: That is excellent. Go ahead, Mr. Jean.
Bruno Jean, Principal Analyst, Indian Affairs and Health, Social and Cultural Sector, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat: The same situation applies for the Department of Finance.
The Chair: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Dallaire is the first questioner. For the record, we have Senator Dallaire with us and the deputy chair of the committee, Senator Sibbeston. Senator Dallaire, proceed, please.
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: Welcome to all of you. I am pleased to have an opportunity to discuss with you the Auditor General's reports which are sometimes rather harsh in their assessment of the implementation process.
Does the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have a basic philosophy that guides their policies for the development of full or partial Aboriginal self-government?
For example, the Department of National Defence has its own National Defence Act and a philosophy that has been developed by the officers' corps. They follow the rules of war that have evolved over time.
Does the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have a similar philosophy? Is there an institution devoted to studying all issues relating to Aboriginal people within a developed country? Is there an executive development plan that deals exclusively with a study of the Aboriginal world? Are any executives encouraged to, for example, earn a master's degree in anthropology or take some other type of targeted training courses?
I am sorry if my question seems rather long.
Mr. Roy: Thank you very much, those are excellent questions. With respect to the philosophy that guides the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, we are governed by the Indian Act.
However, the entire land claims and self-government process is intended to provide First Nations or Aboriginal groups with the jurisdiction that they need in order to opt out of the Indian Act. This philosophy stems from a continuum based on self-government with various initiatives undertaken throughout the department, in my sector as well as in other sectors.
For example, it is possible to sign a land management agreement with an Aboriginal group that would be outside the purview of the Indian Act. Our aim is to provide Aboriginal groups with the autonomy and the tools that they will need for their own development once they opt out of the Indian Act. That is what guides our approach to land claims and self-government agreements.
With respect to employee training, depending on the sector, we have a number of anthropologists working in our area because we do a lot of historical research. That is why we have employees who are specialized in this field, but we also employ a number of negotiators because we spend almost all of our time negotiating with various groups.
New department employees are also provided with an awareness program to familiarize them with Aboriginal culture. All employees must take part in this process: they meet with Aboriginal groups and they visit Aboriginal communities in order to better understand the Aboriginal reality.
There are various programs and, of course, there is also the fact that we make every attempt to attract Aboriginal people to come and work in the federal public service and in the department.
Senator Dallaire: You say that you try to work around this legislation, which is fundamentally assimilation legislation, in order to meet their needs in the modern age. But there has been no articulation that is rigorous, intellectually defended and studied for decades and taught in formal courses at an academic level to teach your staff how to deal with Aboriginal people in a developed country.
Do you have a training centre where you can send your employees to study for a year?
Mr. Roy: No.
Senator Dallaire: It is learning and familiarization. They bring their specialty and you try to adapt that to meet the needs.
Mr. Roy: Yes. But we also have a research branch in the department. Research is done on land claims. There is also a research branch that focuses on the socio-economic development of Aboriginal groups, and a lot of research is also done into the benefits of self-government.
We look at developments all around the world and the evolution of various communities that have become more self-governing. Studies and research are done, but there is no centre to send our employees to.
Senator Dallaire: At the Department of National Defence — I do not want to draw too many parallels because it is a different structure, after all — they do research and development, but they also develop their staff, they look for people with the skills to play a very specific role in the military world. With Aboriginal people, it is not an easy job, for example, with farmers who have a different approach from our developed society. After so many years, I see that as a huge deficiency, knowing that a million people in our society have needs.
I would like to turn to your colleagues now — I always like the people from Treasury Board. I have to admit that I had a really hard time following. I read it over and over again. I am going to give you an example and you tell me why it is different. New capacities are needed, be it a training or weapons system, so the department sets up what is called a ``project.'' The project has a definition stage, an analysis stage, an approval stage and an implementation stage. When the idea for the project is initiated in the department, resources are identified, for example, the project is going to cost two billion over 15 years, and then they begin to identify the parameters for the entire project. As the project moves forward, approvals are given, and when the time comes to implement it, you have a weapons system for 25 years for which the operating costs have been identified, and then it is implemented.
Here, it is a matter of a treaty and an implementation process.
[English]
I was told that there is no separate cash line to implement this project. It is not new money from a new project, but it may be money taken from within or money that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada does not own. It may be within the jurisdiction of another department and that other department should fund it or should ask for those funds.
As I go into the process, it seems that implementation practices do not have a project nature to them and do not have a funding line. The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs does not have the authority to squeeze other departments to provide the funding lines, nor does the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs have the authority in the name of the other departments to go to Treasury Board to obtain the funds for implementation. Therefore, we see implementation plans that attempt to throw some cash at the project, attempt to obtain a feel for it and then, maybe five years down the road, to decide what to do. That process makes no sense. Surely that is not the process. If not, what is it?
[Translation]
Mr. Jean: You did a very good job of describing the rather long and complex process of parliamentary appropriation. That is the process we are governed by. The Treasury Board Secretariat, as you know, is a central agency that supports the ministers of Treasury Board — which is a cabinet committee — and as such, we are the office that manages the budgets approved by Parliament according to the main estimates and supplementary estimates process.
Treasury Board is responsible for receiving requests from various departments for the initiatives they are developing, such as the ones you mentioned. We ask questions to promote the development of efficient programs and spending plans. The Treasury Board Secretariat does not micromanage departments. Once programs and funding are approved, it is up to the departments to implement those plans. Depending on the departmental mandate, appropriations are granted to the departments according to the legislative mandates governing the overall federal apparatus.
Most of the time, program authorities are time-limited, depending on the initiative itself. Departments have to report to Parliament, produce evaluations and audits. When it comes time to renew program authorities, Treasury Board has to refine and perfect program delivery. That is the role the Treasury Board Secretariat currently plays.
Senator Dallaire: I am trying to understand why Indian Affairs and Northern Development, which, in my opinion, is primarily responsible for negotiating this treaty and also for monitoring its implementation, does not appear to have the authority to bring other departments into line to ensure they have the funding required to implement the treaty. That money should be managed by the three, four or five departments for its implementation. We are told they have no authority over the others. If they are willing to cooperate, that is great, if not, too bad. That seems awfully optional and ad hoc for something so fundamental, in my opinion, to the development of the file.
Mr. Giroux: There is an answer to this excellent question about the apparent lack of coordination of a central role. I would like to assure you that Finance Canada, Treasury Board and Privy Council Office are very active in the implementation of these agreements. When our colleagues from Indian Affairs and Northern Development tell us, for example, that Fisheries and Oceans Canada is very reluctant to use some of its resources for the implementation of an agreement, then Finance Canada and the Treasury Board Secretariat, and sometimes even Privy Council Office, go to work on Fisheries and Oceans Canada and order them to comply with the agreement. To central agencies, as well as the politicians we report to, self-government agreements and agreements in general are very important. Our political bosses do not want to jeopardize the implementation of agreements because some department is reluctant to make way for a program that costs a few hundred thousand dollars. It is part of the policy we are governed by. When cases like that occur, we are pitiless with those departments in forcing them to transfer the money and resources for implementation.
There is no project office overseeing implementation. However, Mr. Gallo and his team, Mr. Jean and his colleagues, as well as our Privy Council Office colleagues, are in daily contact with the people from Indian Affairs and Northern Development. When problems arise, Indian Affairs and Northern Development attempts to solve them with the departments in question, but when there is more tension, we are called in for backup, and in general, it works quite well. Obviously, if they do not want to comply with these agreements, there is always the threat of budget reduction or other disciplinary action.
Senator Dallaire: The impression that we are left with is that we are going to negotiate handing over a lot of money for the territory and think about implementation later. If this does not work, we will be taken to court. The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada feel that they are not powerful enough to maintain offices to follow up on projects 20 or 30 years from now.
This is what our questions seem to be uncovering.
Mr. Giroux: I am surprised that you have that impression, because mine is completely opposite.
Senator Dallaire: That is exactly what we are trying to understand!
Mr. Giroux: To my mind, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has a very good general vision and idea of the implementation of these agreements. Perhaps I am wrong.
Senator Dallaire: We will discuss this with the client!
[English]
Senator Peterson: We have heard from numerous First Nations groups and they say that once an agreement is reached, they have no idea where to go or how to proceed in terms of implementing it. You have indicated in your presentation that numerous agencies are involved. Do you think there should be a single, lead agency and, if so, what agency would this be?
Mr. Roy: I am surprised that Aboriginal groups tell you they do not know where to go after an agreement. We are negotiating an implementation agreement with all those groups. After we reach a land claims agreement, we have an implementation agreement. The main point of contact is our branch in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. We are involved in the negotiations.
When we are at certain points in the negotiations, we bring implementation colleagues into the negotiations to act as the link and to make sure that we negotiate something that makes sense and can be implemented. That is the role of the implementation and it is guided by policies.
I think it is important to keep that link between implementation and the negotiations. It is important when we negotiate any agreement to be informed of what is happening in implementation and vice versa. I think the system we have now meets the requirement of keeping those two links together.
Senator Peterson: In previous presentations, your department indicated it is not the department's responsibility to look into implementation. Why is there a divergence of opinion now? It is in the record.
Mavis Dellert, Acting Director General, Implementation Branch, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs: When Deputy Minister Michael Wernick previously addressed the committee, he mentioned he did not have all the levers among the federal family to implement. I do not think he meant that we were not responsible for implementation.
One important thing to emphasize here is that implementation committees are struck for the implementation of each agreement. Those committees have representatives from Canada. I have the privilege of being Canada's representative on a couple of them. The committees also have representatives from the provincial or territorial government and the Aboriginal groups. Therefore, a body is established according to each agreement that is responsible for implementing the agreement from the perspective of, and for the responsibilities of, all three parties.
Personally, I believe that the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs is well positioned to provide ongoing leadership with respect to implementation. As Mr. Roy said, we negotiate these agreements, we understand them, we develop the relationships as we negotiate them and we have the knowledge and expertise that is key and fundamental to successful implementation.
Also importantly, we have developed relationships with Aboriginal groups. I know you have heard from many signatories to these agreements and that they have made presentations to you that they have signed these agreements with all of Canada. That is exactly right. They also said that, perhaps, someone other than INAC should be charged with managing the implementation of these agreements. As I said, I think that INAC is well positioned to implement the agreements, but I also believe that a different management framework is needed within Canada to ensure those of us who have responsibilities for implementing these agreements are accountable and that the reports and feedback on that accountability are frequent, regular and transparent.
Senator Peterson: Mr. Roy, can you describe the new funding framework that was developed in collaboration with the central agencies? Obviously, funding is critical to these agreements.
Mr. Roy: I can explain that framework quickly, then I will turn to Ms. Dellert to elaborate. Essentially, in the last few years, we were facing difficulties about the timeliness of decisions in terms of funding, for example; what we call the institution of public governance such as the boards in the North, for example, in Nunavut, and the environmental committees. Those kinds of structures are the ones I am referring to.
It was difficult for us to obtain any kind of funding; it was a long process to obtain the funding required to support those boards based on the workload analysis of their needs. We have agreement now with the centre whereby we can access funding under some conditions without a long approvals process.
Ms. Dellert: Perhaps Mr. Jean can help on this question as well. The question is an important one, and it underscores a point that Senator Dallaire made previously in terms of how we fund implementation. Senator Dallaire, you made an analogy to project management and that analogy works, but only in part.
With the implementation of these agreements, we are creating a new relationship between Canada and the signatories to those agreements. Therefore, implementation is ongoing, enduring and evolving. I am excited about this new framework. I think it will provide the flexibility to Canada, not only to INAC but other departments with responsibilities, to be able to react on a timelier basis to changes in the operating environment.
As you know, one of our huge successes under the northern agreements is the creation of institutions of public government that are responsible, among other things, for the regulatory regimes in the territories. These boards need stable, predictable and reactive funding. I believe that this new framework will go a long way to assist with that funding. Of course, that framework will provide benefits not only to the Aboriginal groups but to all the residents of the territories and, indeed, all the residents of Canada.
Senator Dyck: It is interesting that you apparently have undergone numerous meetings over the last year. In your presentation, Mr. Roy, you say that successful implementation of the modern land claims is also the business of many other departments and agencies, and that you are coming up with a new streamlined process where you can access additional resources required for implementation.
Do you think a new streamlined process is superior to the idea that was presented to this committee by the Land Claims Agreements Coalition that there should be a separate body? Can you provide us with details about this new streamlined process? What makes your suggestion of a streamlined process better than, let us say, coming up with a new type of framework or management arrangement?
Mr. Roy: Thank you for that question. There is one thing we need to keep in mind. Regardless of the structure in place, we need a way for all the departments to work together with the central agency's support.
I think the streamlining process that we are now putting in place is a good example of success and how we can work together. We have this other project that we talk about, training for the procurement officers, which will be put in place in a few days. The project is a follow-up of collaboration with the Canada School of Public Service and the Department of Public Works and Government Services to ensure that we develop the tools.
I am not sure that the creation of another body will help that kind of collaboration. As Ms. Dellert said, it is a new era in the relationship with Aboriginal groups. It is also a new era for us in government to work with those governments. I am not sure that a separate body will facilitate that collaboration. It is a matter of working together within the federal family now.
Senator Dyck: To follow up on that point, is there any way to ensure that the process in place now continues? You have agreed to work with each other, but is there any process to ensure that you continue to work well with each other and that you work in a timely manner? What ensures that this mechanism continues to operate as you expect it to?
Mr. Roy: One tool we have, in the context of negotiation of the claims and settlement agreements, is a committee of assistant deputy ministers, ADMs. The committee is a regrouping of central agencies and other departments including the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. That committee is mandated by cabinet to decide, for example, framework agreements in the context of negotiations and to oversee everything in terms of negotiations.
The committee is a group of ADMs who are aware of the issues around land claims and self-government; and we will now extend their mandate to look at implementation. We will use that ADM committee to oversee implementation and keep everyone on track. Of course, we continue to work with our central agency colleagues, because we still have work to do in terms of improving processes and authorities. We work with them, but that committee of ADMs will help in the future.
Senator Sibbeston: I am surprised by Mr. Roy's response that we do not need another body or management scheme to deal with implementation, considering the problems our country is having with implementation. Why are all the Aboriginal groups — the modern land claimants — organizing? Why are they meeting and organizing so that they can deal with the problem of non-implementation? It seems that we have a big problem in our country.
Land claims are made with land claimants and everyone feels good about agreements they have made, but then nothing comes of these agreements. I should not say ``nothing.'' Certain things are easy to accomplish — money, land and so forth are dealt with — but the problem exists in many of the details.
I find it amazing that you tell us today that everything is fine and that there does not need to be any more work done or any other group formed. Your response is that you have a new policy and training initiatives, and you have a streamlined process. You are only doing this work because there is focus on you. You are only doing this work, I suspect, because there is a bit of tension on you these days to do something about implementation.
However, in terms of a government response, what if you die or become sick? You are the guy in charge of this whole process, I imagine. I have no doubt you have goodwill, and that you work hard and mean well, but it seems that the efforts are just yours.
You talked about coordination and said, ``We have been collaborating with our colleagues. . . .'' This is the problem. The department does not have any means, power or mandate to involve other departments and make them serious about the commitments the government has.
You are only a Department of Indian and Northern Affairs person. You are trying to appease the committee by saying we are doing all these things, but everyone thinks more ought to be done. I think you give yourself too much credit. I know that Ms. Dellert says all is well in a sense, but she also recognizes the need for a different management scheme and a new framework. For you to say this effort is sufficient, in my view, is not much.
Mr. Roy: I do not think I am saying that it is enough and this is it. There is always more to do, but we must put everything in perspective. Ms. Dellert will add to this point.
We are talking about a change in the relationship with Aboriginal groups. Up to the signing of those agreements, they were under the Indian Act and subject to the control of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and the Government of Canada under the Indian Act.
With those modern treaties, we are changing the dynamic. What we see now is that kind of relationship we can see even at the provincial, territorial and federal government levels, where we have fights between the levels of government around the level of funding and all those issues. That kind of relationship is essentially where we are now with the Aboriginal government. That is okay; I think that relationship is a big step forward in that context.
I do not say we do not have more to do. We have a lot to do — and I am not pretending to take credit for anything here. That relationship has been developing for years and years. We have 22 modern treaties in place now. Of course, we are learning through that process.
The first agreement, the James Bay agreement — or even the Inuvialuit agreement that was subject of the Auditor General's study — did not include implementation plans. When the government negotiated those agreements, they had no implementation plan. We learned from that experience. Now we always have an implementation plan negotiated with the agreements, which helps us in the context of implementation.
I do not have definite numbers, but when we look at the obligation of the federal Crown in the context of all those modern treaties, 90 per cent to 95 per cent of the obligation is being fulfilled now with all 22 groups.
I am not saying we do not have more to do. There is more to do, of course. Changing the dynamic of the relationship is where we need to focus our efforts because obligations are being met. We have work to do — some obligations are not yet met — but the majority are being met. It is more about changing the relationship and it is a question of adapting that kind of relationship.
[Translation]
We are aiming to establish a working relation that is similar to the one we have with the provinces and territorial governments. Of course, it is not on the same scale; we are dealing with autonomous Aboriginal governments. The proper dynamics within this new relationship will be built over time.
[English]
Ms. Dellert: Senator Sibbeston, you made a good point when you said the work we are doing is difficult. I agree 100 per cent with you; it is difficult. I believe you also noted that the work we have done previously was the easy work. Again, I concur 100 per cent with that point. I think all of us that were implementing the agreements were wise when we decided to do the easy work first, which is what we did.
We are now wrestling with the complex and challenging issues with respect to implementing these agreements. We are dealing with an evolving and growing relationship and it is changing.
I do not believe that another body will be the answer in itself. I believe we need a careful examination of the tools and levers that we need to implement these modern treaties. That step is an important first one. If we do not carry out that careful examination, we could simply transfer one set of issues from one place to another.
Let us look at what is working well. There are huge success stories and the Aboriginal groups involved with these agreements will concur. However, I think we also agree we need to work on many challenges together. We need to determine the priority of those challenges and figure out where to start first. While Canada and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs have important leadership roles here, we are implementing these agreements with other parties and must always remember that point. That is important.
In answering your question about another body, I am not sure another body is the answer. However, I agree that we have more work to do and there are significant challenges before us.
Senator Sibbeston: I appreciate your view. In some respects, it shows you have confidence in yourself and you are seeing on the ground what is happening from the government perspective. While I appreciate that stance, I do not think you have the mandate to insist that other departments comply with agreements. I do not think officials in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs are powerful enough to make everyone comply or cooperate in bringing about the implementation of agreements.
That is why I say we need another body with more authority and with a mandate to fulfil the agreements quickly and efficiently. All these lands claim groups have come together to say to the government and to the people, there is a problem and that they need government to respond more effectively in implementing agreements. That is a sign you are not strong enough, not good enough and not doing a good enough job to fulfil the agreements. Otherwise, why are the people gathering and coming before us to say there is a serious problem?
A group from the Yukon appeared before us a number of weeks ago. They had come to Ottawa to deal with officials in regard to implementation. I admired their enthusiasm and trust that what they were seeking would be granted by government.
What was the effect of their visit to Ottawa? Have you been able to satisfy the Yukon group, in this case, that came to Ottawa to deal with implementation?
Mr. Roy: The reason for that visit was an agreement amongst the minister, the Yukon First Nations and the territorial government to organize that Yukon Day, as they call it here. It was a way for the Yukon First Nations and Yukon government to meet with all the key players in the context of implementation.
It was clear among the parties that it was not a negotiation session. We were not looking for any commitment at the end of the session. It was a chance for First Nations and the Yukon government to come to Ottawa to explain to our colleagues in the central agencies and departments their vision of where they want to go with self-government in the future. It was a successful day in those terms. We had good discussions and presentations from the Yukon government and the Yukon First Nations. There was much interest from colleagues here in Ottawa.
Greg Gallo, Chief, Aboriginal Policy, Social Policy, Department of Finance Canada: Thank you for your considered comments, senator. My staff who work on Yukon issues and I participated in those days. The financial mandates of these agreements are going into renewal. It was useful in preparing for our internal discussion to have a good understanding of some of the issues that First Nations and the Yukon are expressing. My staff is working seriously on these issues and it was good to have those perspectives so we can take them into our internal meetings.
Senator Sibbeston: The Yukon people who came before us had a positive attitude and spirit. They did not come with a cynical view or the negative feelings that sometimes prevail among Aboriginal people because of their long dealings with government, which have not been so good. I admired their enthusiasm and their trust in government that they would respond positively. It was nice to see. I would like to see government respond to them and not disappoint them. This response is what I was curious about.
Were you able to satisfy them? Did you disappoint them so they, in turn, become cynical and distrustful of government?
Mr. Gallo: I do not think we disappointed them. I bring the same optimism that we can work through the issues that they brought to the table. I thought much goodwill and understanding came out of those meetings.
Senator Campbell: I find it extremely doubtful that within three weeks you are able to settle something that has been going on for so many years in the Yukon.
There is no question that these situations are difficult. My concern is that after virtually decades now, we are still at the point of working on the dynamics of a relationship. Ms. Dellert, or someone else, said if we can arrive at an agreement with the First Nations like we have with the provincial governments, then we would be in good shape.
It has taken so long and we find ourselves still mired in trying to come up with a dynamic. I am not sure the situation needs another body. At one point, I thought we needed one, but now I am worried that, if we create one, it will be another 20 years while we figure out what that body is.
How long will it take us to determine the levers needed of which you were speaking? I think the people who come to us are frustrated by the length of time taken and the frustration simply continues into the future. How long will it take to reach the point where we can sit down and live up to the agreements on all sides that we have signed?
Ms. Dellert: In Mr. Roy's opening comments, he mentioned that a group of my colleagues had consulted extensively with signatories to agreements and territorial and provincial government representatives, as well as representatives from a range of federal departments and agencies. From that consultation, we have a series of recommendations. Therefore, I think we have a good idea of the levers needed. We have identified some of them and would find significant support from the partners to the agreements that, more or less, we have that list right.
Over the course of this next fiscal year, we hope to develop a framework and an action plan that will look at today's current context of implementing agreements. I think we all acknowledge that the context is evolving and it is different. What do we need to do and what structures need to be put in place for a mature implementation strategy or framework for Canada?
I hope that we would take the steps to develop that action plan over the course of this fiscal year. Today is the first day of the new fiscal year. Perhaps it is a nice new beginning.
Senator Campbell: Therefore, when we see you next year on April Fool's Day, we will have moved forward significantly?
Ms. Dellert: I hope that we will have. I will look forward to that day.
The Chair: We asked the officials from the Privy Council Office to come to this meeting and, as some of you may know, I am a former cabinet minister. Twenty-seven or so years ago, I dealt with PCO and the Department of Finance Canada. However, they declined to appear because they indicated they have little to do with the implementation of these agreements.
As a former minister in B.C., I know that whenever we had a project, I needed to go to Finance, Treasury Board, et cetera. However, basically everything came through PCO.
To stop ``passing the buck,'' can you tell me if there is some way this implementation can be coordinated better so when the First Nations come to Ottawa, they do not look at a maze of departments? There could be a one-stop shop for these people, at least to voice their concerns, as opposed to having to look at Department of Finance Canada, Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment Canada. Does the PCO play any leadership role to facilitate and expedite this implementation process?
I know that question is a touchy one; I know how PCO works. However, if we do not ask the question, we will not know. We on this committee are trying to come up with solutions in regards to implementation. If a glitch in the system needs to be resolved, it is by way of these committees. I think that we should lay the cards out on the table. I know it may put deputy ministers and assistant deputy ministers in a tough spot to respond, but we need to ask the question.
Mr. Roy: I want to add to that point. We talked a few minutes ago about the Yukon Day. It was a successful day organized by INAC.
[Translation]
All of the departments involved in the Yukon manifested real interest in being involved. I know that other self- governing groups would have also liked to benefit from this sort of day here in Ottawa.
For example, a day organized for a group from the Northwest Territories would give them a chance to meet representatives from all departments and convey their point of view. There is perhaps a need to revisit this because of the obvious show of interest on the part of colleagues here in Ottawa. Aboriginal people have also demonstrated very serious interest.
[English]
The Chair: It does not answer my PCO question. We have another panel, Senator Dallaire, so I ask you to be brief.
[Translation]
Senator Dallaire: We are talking about a new framework for working and exchanging information. You stated that we are entering a new era, and that the Indian Act no longer serves as a guide. We are just beginning negotiations. You have signed 22 land claims, but how many are outstanding? Are there 300, 400, or 500?
We understand the magnitude of the problem. We have even seen situations where the implementation plan is not even developed or funded. Not only was it not funded by your department, but other departments do not wish to invest and are going to fight their obligation to allocate resources.
There has been no interest in trying to obtain new funding for each treaty and funding from each department in view of implementation. I already put this question to the Auditor General. I wanted to know if Indian and Northern Affairs Canada wanted to completely change this methodology and overhaul the outdated colonial structure it is based on.
Has your department undertaken in-depth analysis of the implementation plan?
[English]
How many people do you have in your implementation shop to implement this work? Do you have enough money or people to achieve any of those exceptionally difficult and demanding tasks, coordinating with other departments and other levels of government and everything, to bring about these things in a timely fashion and to follow up on them?
Ms. Dellert: That question is a tough one.
Senator Dallaire: If you say yes, you are the only department in the whole government that does. I suppose you do not want to give an answer.
Ms. Dellert: Speaking personally, I think we can always have more resources to do different and better things. However, I think it is not a simple question of resources. It is a question of structure and a question of how we approach things. It is time to pause and take a look at implementation.
I think we all agree that oftentimes the simple answer of throwing more money at something is not the best solution. Right now, to do the job that is in front of me, I and all the people in the implementation branch are working hard. We are committed, and I think we are making progress. Could we have more? Sure. That is an opportunity to say that with my boss sitting next to me. However, I am not so sure that throwing more money in the absence of figuring out what that approach means is a terrific idea.
Senator Sibbeston: There was a question as to the number of people you have and the resources. Can you please answer that question?
Ms. Dellert: You have to forgive me; I have been an acting director general for only one day. This is my second day. I believe there are about 50 full-time equivalents, FTEs, in the branch. I am not sure of the total budget. However, I can find out.
Senator Dyck: Mr. Roy, you said INAC is directed by the Indian Act. This question relates to what Senator Sibbeston said. If INAC is directed by the Indian Act, does the department have the mandate to carry out implementation of modern land claims when implementation is leading signatories to being removed, to withdrawing, from the Indian Act?
[Translation]
Mr. Roy: In speaking about the Indian Act, I wished to drive home the point that many of our working relations with Aboriginal groups are governed by the Indian Act. However, it is not the only piece of legislation that we use as a guide. It is one of several statutes with which we work, and that one is still in effect.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, we have another panel. I realize this panel is important to us, seeing that it covers the department itself: Treasury Board of Canada and Finance Canada. However, I want to go back to what the deputy minister said when he appeared before us: The implementation of ongoing treaty obligations is often too sticky, too slow and too cumbersome. He added that seeking agreement from the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat can be laborious, and more flexible financial mechanisms are required.
Thank you for appearing before us this morning. There is a possibility we will come back to you for information before we submit our report, because I am not totally convinced that a new management agreement framework will suffice. I still think that when First Nations come to Ottawa — and 22 First Nations have signed agreements now — they come to a maze and they end up in litigation, which is unacceptable, after having signed agreements, and I do not think the Crown is living up to its obligations.
You are doing the work that is asked of you, and you are doing it honourably. However, I am sure the constraints on you are onerous. Keep up the good work. Hopefully, we can resolve this issue. The committee has excellent members, such as Senator Dallaire, Senator Sibbeston, Senator Campbell, Senator Peterson and Senator Dyck, who are committed to making certain that implementation becomes more fluid for First Nations.
Our second panel this morning, honourable senators, is comprised of witnesses from three government departments who have obligations in implementing treaties. Those witnesses are Pat Gibson, Director, Acquisition Policy and Process Directorate; and Sue Morgan, Director General, Risk, Integrity and Strategic Management, both at Public Works and Government Services Canada.
Representing Parks Canada Agency is Doug C. Stewart, Director General, National Parks; and Brendan O'Donnell, Senior Advisor, Aboriginal Affairs.
From Fisheries and Oceans Canada, we have Ian Redmond, Chief, Special Projects, Aboriginal Policy and Governance Directorate.
Honourable senators, these witnesses will make a presentation. I believe Ms. Morgan will make the presentation on behalf of the panel and then we will have questions and answers.
Ms. Morgan, you have the floor.
Sue Morgan, Director General, Risk, Integrity and Strategic Management, Public Works and Government Services Canada: I want to clarify that my opening remarks are for Public Works and Government Services Canada only, and my colleagues have their own opening remarks.
The Chair: That is fine. Thank you.
Ms. Morgan: Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to appear before you today. Let me begin by saying that Public Works and Government Services Canada takes its obligations seriously under comprehensive land claim agreements, including the Inuvialuit Final Agreement.
[Translation]
Rules regarding the awarding of contracts under the Land Claims agreements are provided for in the Treasury Board policy on contracts. Public Works and Government Services Canada has established supplementary procedures in its procurement guide as a way of providing directives to officers negotiating contracts.
[English]
We are obligated under the rules in the Treasury Board contracting policy notices, and the procedures established in our supply manual, to notify the Inuvialuit by fax of contracting opportunities in their settlement region.
The Auditor General observed that over a 14-year period, Public Works and Government Services Canada failed to notify the Inuvialuit in a small number of cases — specifically, in 4 out of 55 files reviewed by the Office of the Auditor General — of contracting opportunities in their settlement region. This failure was due to human error and oversight.
To ensure that incidents of this nature do not occur in the future, in June 2007 we instituted a requirement for contracting officers of Public Works and Government Services Canada to complete a bid solicitation checklist that includes provisions to ensure that comprehensive land claim agreements are taken into consideration in the solicitation process.
Public Works and Government Services Canada accepts the Auditor General's recommendation to improve the systems and procedures for monitoring our compliance with the Inuvialuit agreement. The Treasury Board Secretariat has established an interdepartmental working group to amend the Treasury Board contracting policy. This amendment to the policy is expected to clarify departmental responsibilities for monitoring and reporting requirements for procurement in the areas covered by the comprehensive land claim agreements. We are members of the interdepartmental committee on the reporting of the Canadian Labour Compliance Agency, CLCA, made up of representatives from Treasury Board Secretariat and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. Our staff has participated in frequent meetings on CLCA issues.
In the short term, we will institute a business process to monitor and report information on contracts subject to specific land claim agreements, including the Inuvialuit Final Agreement, in accordance with the reporting requirements being developed by Treasury Board Secretariat for the Government of Canada. Over the longer term, we will ensure that our procurement reporting system is updated to meet the upcoming Treasury Board reporting requirements, and that our supply manual reflects these requirements.
As well, we are improving the training of contracting officers on comprehensive land claim agreements. We are working with the Treasury Board Secretariat, Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and Canada School of Public Service to develop an on-line course available to all departments on how to handle Aboriginal policy requirements in procurement.
This concludes my opening statement. I will be happy to answer any questions.
Doug C. Stewart, Director General, National Parks, Parks Canada Agency: It is a pleasure for me to be here on behalf of Parks Canada, along with my colleague, Mr. O'Donnell. Mr. O'Donnell will make opening comments to give you the context of Parks Canada's work under comprehensive claims.
Our program, which I am sure is well known to you, is about establishing special places for Canadians — national parks, national historic sites and national marine conservation areas — and conserving these places for current and future generations; making experiences available to Canadians in the enjoyment and understanding of these places; and helping to contribute to public education.
In the context of claims, our program resonates strongly with Aboriginal people. In all cases that we have been able to bring forward — in particular, in national parks through comprehensive claims — we have had a strong degree of support. In many cases, First Nations themselves have sought out the national park as part of their claim.
We have a strong program with respect to the interests of Aboriginal people. I think, in particular, the way we have implemented our program through claims is a positive working relationship with Aboriginal people. I will ask Mr. O'Donnell to review our role in the claims process specifically and the way in which we perform our implementation.
Brendan O'Donnell, Senior Advisor, Aboriginal Affairs, Parks Canada Agency: Parks Canada Agency has been involved in comprehensive land claim negotiations as part of the federal negotiation team since the mid-1970s, when the Inuvialuit Final Agreement was negotiated.
There are chapters in 18 final agreements dealing with protected heritage areas under the administration of Parks Canada. These areas include national parks, national marine conservation areas and national historic sites. Twelve of the 42 national parks in the Parks Canada system are affected directly by provisions in comprehensive land claim agreements. Nine parks in the territories, one in Labrador and two in British Columbia fall into this category.
The negotiation of land claim agreements is the responsibility of Parks Canada's national office. National office participates in the federal caucus, and in the federal steering committee that Mr. Roy spoke of earlier.
We participate as part of the federal team at the main negotiating tables. We negotiate impact and benefit agreements, which are side agreements that are negotiated under comprehensive land claim agreements. We also negotiate the initial implementation funding for claims that have been settled.
The implementation of land claim agreements is the responsibility of Parks Canada field units. Land claims agreements are seen within Parks Canada as an operational issue and, therefore, the field units become involved. For example, the western Arctic field unit — which includes Ivvavik, Aulavik and Tuktut Nogait national parks — is responsible for implementing the Parks Canada-related obligations under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement.
Under the comprehensive land claim process set up within the federal government, implementation funding for land claim obligations that are incremental to a department's mandate are funded through the claims envelope. Incremental costs are estimated by the department, in our case by the national office of Parks Canada, and then negotiated with INAC's implementation branch.
Within Parks Canada, field units report to their respective cooperative management boards on implementation issues. Cooperative management boards are established under the land claim process to advise the minister on the management of a national park or national marine conservation area. Field units report annually to INAC on implementation obligations and Aboriginal partnering activities for each claim that Parks Canada is involved in. Field units also participate in the five-year claims review under INAC's lead.
Annual reporting to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs consists of giving a summary report on annual activities linked to claim obligations, the total annual budget spent on Aboriginal businesses and contractors and the field unit Aboriginal employment statistics.
Within Parks Canada, we take the approach that there is the letter of the agreement and then there is the spirit and intent of the agreement. What I spoke to now deals with the obligations under the agreements, but there is also what people refer to as the spirit and intent of the agreements. I want to speak a little bit about that part of implementation.
For example, the employment statistics are an obligation. In the Nunavut field unit, 55 per cent of the staff are beneficiaries of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Within the western Arctic field unit, 54 per cent of the staff members within that field unit are Inuvialuit. In Yukon, the Vuntut National Park has 100 per cent employment of beneficiaries of the Gwich'in First Nation agreement. Within Kluane, 22 per cent of the staff are members of Champagne and Aishihik or Kluane First Nations.
In terms of goods and services that are spent, I checked quickly yesterday on what the western Arctic field unit spends. The total of Aboriginal goods and services spent for that field unit is $984,624, of which $857,006 goes to the Inuvialuit, either to contractors or Inuvialuit businesses. That part of implementation is the obligation side.
On the spirit and intent side — I will stick with the western Arctic field unit — Parks Canada Agency is working with the Inuvialuit Cultural Resource Centre and a contractor. It provided $50,000 toward the publication of a book on Inuvialuit ethnobotany. Work is proceeding toward the third publication, presenting an oral history of the Paulatuk community. Interviews took place in 2005-06, and a final text preparation and revision was completed during 2006-07.
Parks Canada Agency staff visited all nine communities in the western Arctic to deliver the environmental stewardship certificate program to grade 4 students in the Western Arctic. In addition, Parks Canada Agency staff attended school career day fairs promoting national park careers.
Youth camps for local youths were held in three national parks — Aulavik, Ivvavik and Tuktut Nogait. An Artist in the Park project was initiated at Ivvavik National Park, and an Inuvialuit painter participated as an artist in the park. These projects are examples of trying to promote and protect the culture and history, which many of the national parks and national historic sites are focused on and are geared toward in terms of implementing the spirit and intent of land claims.
Ian Redmond, Chief, Special Projects, Aboriginal Policy and Governance Directorate, Fisheries and Oceans Canada: Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans, DFO, is well aware of its treaty obligations and takes the necessary steps to ensure they are met.
In implementing its obligations, DFO wants to build strong relationships with the treaty Inuit First Nations through good governance, enhanced cooperative management and maximized fishing opportunities. I will provide a brief overview of DFO's approach to implementing comprehensive claims.
At present, the department participates in the implementation of 20 treaties across Canada and is involved in the negotiations currently under way in the final agreement stage on a number of others. As there is considerable regional variation of the number of treaties under negotiation and the volume of implementation work related to treaties already in effect, DFO uses a variety of management approaches to address its obligations.
In British Columbia, where the majority of treaty negotiations are currently underway, DFO's Pacific region participates at both the negotiation and implementation tables. To accomplish this participation, the region has established a treaty Aboriginal policy directorate. It supports over 50 negotiating tables, including those occurring in the Yukon, and is responsible for implementing 13 treaties, including the Nisga'a Final Agreement and the 12 Yukon agreements.
In DFO's central and Arctic region, implementation management has been a major operational responsibility for over 20 years. In this region, treaty and implementation negotiations are managed by INAC, with officials providing technical and expert advice. The implementation management in this region is the responsibility of regional managers and areas directors.
In Quebec, a treaty group is being established to address both the implementation of the Makivik offshore treaty agreement as well as the changing emphasis on implementation generally.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, the Labrador Inuit treaty is the early stages of implementation. The chief of resource management has the lead for implementation negotiations for that treaty and treaty management, with technical administrative support from Aboriginal policy and programs.
Treaty implementation is not yet a matter for the department's maritimes and gulf regions. However, a treaty group to support negotiations and policy development for the Atlantic-wide process is planned.
In all cases, regional staff is responsible for treaty implementation, including the continual assessment of progress on DFO's obligations. Using these various structures, DFO has been successful with the process of treaty implementation.
This concludes my opening remarks and I will be pleased to address questions.
Senator Sibbeston: Ms. Morgan says that Public Works and Government Services Canada takes land claims agreements seriously, including the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. On the other hand, a few lines later, she noted that the Auditor General had observed deficiencies due to human error and oversight.
I cannot understand how you have the gall to sit there and tell us that you take these claims seriously while saying deficiencies were due to human error. I challenge you on that and I say to you that the Department of Public Works and Government Services does not really care. It was only because the department was caught, in a sense, or attention was brought to them by the Auditor General that they began to respond. It is nice of you to say that deficiencies were due to human error and oversight. However, I suspect that it is a whole department not giving a damn; not really caring for the Aboriginal people in our country.
I do not understand how you can have the gall to face us today and say what you do. Also, who are you in terms of the department? I suspect you are way down the line. Where are the officials that should be here today to deal with these sorts of issues?
Ms. Morgan: We agree the deficiencies that the Auditor General highlighted are serious deficiencies. In terms of us carrying out our respective roles in meeting the treaty obligation, our requirement is to notify the Inuvialuit corporations. Within our procedures, we are required to fax the upcoming procurement opportunities in advance.
We have done that in most of our cases. In the files that the Auditor General looked at — there were 49 files — three files did not have any evidence of a fax in the file. There were three. Then the Auditor General highlighted another six files, five of which we did fax the upcoming opportunities; therefore, one file of the six had no evidence in the file.
Some of these errors happen at a rate of one a year; they were not numerous throughout the year. In early years — 1998, 2002, 2004 and perhaps 2003 — I think there was one each year. We feel that the numbers are fairly small. We agree with the Auditor General's observation that we need to improve reporting and to ensure that our compliance rate is higher. We agree with all those observations.
Our reporting system has its limitations. It captures information about the overall comprehensive land claim agreements but it is not refined to capture information by specific agreement. Therefore, we had to check manually. That is where the system changes are required. We agree with the observation. We intend to look at the requirements. We are working with Treasury Board Secretariat in terms of new reporting requirements such as what kinds of data should be captured. We capture a certain amount of data currently. Obviously, it is not sufficient in detail. Therefore, we want to look at those requirements and then incorporate them into the new reporting system.
Senator Dallaire: I am interested mostly in the two line departments versus Public Works and Government Services Canada; the processes used to bring about a land claims agreement and then an implementation policy. We have heard that, with Parks Canada Agency, it has been positive. The surveyors are out there and work it out, and that situation comes across fairly well. However, do you have, in your departments, specific cash lines or project lines that are added to your department's funding base to handle implementation of these different agreements?
Mr. Stewart: We access funds through the land claims agreements and INAC for specific incremental requirements, for example, to support an employment training program or something of this nature.
However, by and large, we have a de-centralized management structure in Parks Canada Agency. Our field units, which Mr. O'Donnell referred to, are local officers. In the Western Arctic, the office is in Inuvik. The senior manager is there and has full authority over the budget resources, whether Parks Canada resources or incremental resources coming through the agreement. That means we have a local authority who can work with local leaders with respect to making specific agreements and arrangements, and delivering resources.
We also have specific funds in Parks Canada Agency targeted to building Aboriginal relationships. The amount of money is not a lot but we do have funds available. These types of seed funds are available to our field unit managers to support specific projects.
One project is in the Yukon. The project is based out of Kluane National Park. It involves the park and two local First Nations. The program is about healing old wounds and building a new relationship with respect to land management and the management of natural resources. It is about respecting the type of cultural authority that Aboriginal people still hold for the land.
We have these different types of instruments and budget streams. Every field unit has a fixed budget. The units use the budget to support their obligations and the spirit of agreements. We also have the ability to further advance those types of relationships either through INAC funding or targeted funding through Parks Canada Agency.
Senator Dallaire: I will clarify what I am seeking. You have 22 agreements signed. Each should have an implementation plan; some do and some do not. Some agreements have an implementation plan that is not funded. The implementation plan does not have a funding line in all these different departments to implement the department's portion of that plan. There are implementation plans that INAC has not imposed upon your department to fund, and the department has gone out to find funds for you to implement them.
Am I right? Is it correct that before they sign the implementation plan they have sought to ensure your budget requirements for that plan have been sorted out and are there for the next 20 years in your budget line, or that new money has been introduced to meet that budget line for the implementation?
Mr. Redmond: That question is an important one. The process of implementation negotiations includes negotiations with our colleagues in Indian and Northern Affairs Canada with respect to the funding that will be provided for the incremental costs. The process is particularly difficult, as in any negotiation process, because we must determine where the obligations lie and come to agreement on what resources are required to meet those obligations.
I do not think I it would be appropriate to say we have always been successful in negotiating the resource amounts. However, the process has allowed us to receive incremental funding that has put in place some of the organizational structures I mentioned earlier before implementation of the treaties and negotiation processes as well.
Senator Dallaire: You may want to respond again, Mr. Stewart. I am trying to refine my questions with regard to the process. In the process of these negotiations, is INAC fighting the central agencies to obtain the incremental funding for you to do your job, or are you fighting the central agencies separately because this implementation plan has been imposed on you and you need to find new money yourself?
Mr. Redmond: I would characterize it differently. I would not say ``fighting'' necessarily.
Senator Dallaire: I am an ex-assistant deputy minister in the Department of National Defence. Do not tell me it is not fighting. It is war out there.
Mr. Redmond: When it comes to money, yes. I think it is more of an ongoing interaction between us and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada in coming to agreement on the proper level of resourcing. We do not necessarily become involved with the central agencies in putting our demands forward. That interaction is done through INAC.
Senator Dallaire: Therefore, INAC must obtain the extra funds that are transferred to you for implementation. Is that INAC's mandate?
Mr. Redmond: Their mandate is to oversee the implementation funding provided under the treaty mandate.
Senator Dallaire: That statement is the clearest one we have heard yet.
Mr. O'Donnell: There is a process, a claims envelope, where money is put aside for the negotiation and implementation of land claims. That envelope includes capital transfers, establishment of boards, establishment of governments, various wildlife studies undertaken and incremental costs to line departments to implement.
INAC is the gatekeeper of the claims envelope. We negotiate with INAC and then they work with Treasury Board and the Department of Finance to ensure those funds are available. We interact with INAC.
Senator Dallaire: That is not the classic process of the past.
Mr. O'Donnell: I am not sure what you mean by the past.
Senator Dallaire: Witnesses here have said that in 33 years in their department, they have not had a cent in implementation money yet. They cannot find anyone to discuss that issue to resolve it or perform the five-year reviews.
Mr. O'Donnell: That is something Indian and Northern Affairs Canada must address. Under our obligations and under the spirit and intent that we try to implement along with the obligations, money for incremental costs flows to us and we implement those obligations.
Senator Dallaire: That is the information I was looking for. Is it your responsibility to be part of the matrix that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada should create with all departments in anticipating the negotiation of next treaties and moving them forward? Are you involved in developing innovative solutions to future treaty claims, resolutions and implementation?
Mr. O'Donnell: We are part of that matrix. There is a federal caucus system that is an interdepartmental grouping of individuals dealing with Aboriginal and land claims issues. Above that is a federal steering committee at the level of assistant deputy minister that Mr. Stewart sits on for Parks Canada Agency. Various other general interactions occur among Parks Canada, line departments and the chief federal negotiator that is hired. I sit on land claim negotiation teams as does Mr. Redmond on occasion. We represent our departments at the lands claim negotiations.
Senator Dallaire: Sitting here, we receive a different picture than the one you gentlemen and ladies have presented to us and we are trying to balance out what is happening. Emotion and self-interest exists on all sides. However, what has come to us is that INAC feels it does not have the power to initiate new land claims and bring everyone else on board. The department does not have the power to influence central agencies to obtain the funding to assist the implementation and, often, it finds these departments not keen on shifting resources, if no new money is involved, to meet these new claims.
Do you consider that INAC has the hammer to move forward not only the land claims, but the implementation plans and reviews over the long-term, and that you must respond to that responsibility? Do you feel that is part of the standing operating procedure or is it a negotiation between equals to see what comes of it?
Mr. O'Donnell: Those are two different questions.
One is how do we enter the lands claim process. There is a comprehensive land claim policy with a process where Aboriginal groups file their claim that goes through the Department of Justice and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. All the studies produced are vetted and evaluated, and then negotiations commence. That is one question.
Your second question is, once we go through the negotiations, how do we implement the agreement, and does INAC have a handle on that process?
Senator Dallaire: Yes, on both.
Mr. O'Donnell: There is no doubt they have a handle on the first part in reaching the conclusion of a final agreement. INAC is the line department with the overarching coordination role within federal government. That coordination is accomplished through the federal caucus system, the federal steering committee and other mechanisms.
Then, there is the implementation of claims. I think the deputy minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada mentioned that different departments have different obligations and the departments are responsible for those obligations.
Parks Canada Agency takes our obligations seriously and we have implemented them. I do not think any Aboriginal groups have come forward and pointed their finger at Parks Canada.
Senator Dallaire: Listen to my initial statement. We are satisfied. However, to return to my point, I am not sure what kind of handle Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has on this process. Is it the handle of a ladle, a mop or a hammer?
We are left with the impression that there is no central capability of bringing people on line in advancing implementation, and that within the federal government a lot of people are beating up on each other. Meanwhile, the Aboriginal people are trying to move it forward. We feel that maybe INAC does not have the strong position it needs.
Mr. O'Donnell: However, I think Mr. Roy today indicated that various mechanisms are being put into place to deal with implementation, such as the federal steering committee, which is the ADM-level committee to ensure the overview is there. The department does not have a hammer. One department does not have a hammer over another. When the Department of National Defence came to the land claim caucus and negotiations, INAC could not tell DND, ``This is what you will do; live with it.''
Senator Dallaire: I do not remember that.
Mr. O'Donnell: They do not attend anymore, but they used to.
Senator Dallaire: I am joking because of our ranges, the Sarcee Training Area and things like that.
Mr. O'Donnell: INAC coordinates the responses to the Aboriginal groups through consensus building at the level of the federal steering committee.
Senator Dallaire: ``Coordinates'' is the action verb.
Mr. O'Donnell: They do not have a hammer. No department has a hammer over another department.
Senator Dallaire: If INAC has the money, yes, it will happen. We find that department does not demand the cash needed to be able to offer you the resources to do the job.
Mr. O'Donnell: I will defer to you there.
Senator Peterson: Mr. O'Donnell, you indicated that 12 of 42 national parks are directly affected in the comprehensive land claim agreements. In what context are the parks affected?
Mr. O'Donnell: There are commitments under the land claim agreements that directly impact the national park. Mr. Stewart said that a number of national parks have been created through land claim processes. For a number of park reserves already in existence, the claims have implications for that particular national park. For example, a cooperative management board would be established, or there might be a regional wildlife board that Parks Canada Agency participates in, flows information to and obtains direction from in terms of wildlife. There are commitments for employment and for contracting, et cetera.
Senator Peterson: Would Aboriginal groups claim the lands they believe are part of national parks or do all these issues vary with different groups?
Mr. Stewart: In terms of land quantum and how First Nations in negotiation view national parks, the national parks are owned by the federal government. However, because our objectives are so much in line with the interests of First Nations, they view conservation outcomes and the resulting ability to use the land for traditional purposes as additional benefits to what might be selected lands through a claims process; that is, lands that are taken in ownership by the Aboriginal people themselves.
It is clear under the National Parks Act that the lands must be owned federally, but the outcomes of a national park in terms of conservation objectives, wildlife management, traditional access and use of lands and natural resources are such that many First Nations, many Aboriginal people — and Inuit, in particular, in Nunavut — view these lands as additional benefits that do not require them to use up land selection quantum in the process. This is why they are so strongly supportive.
Senator Peterson: I ask that question because INAC indicated earlier that they cannot compel Parks Canada Agency to comply with the terms of the agreement. In what context would that compliance be? What would be the problem?
Mr. O'Donnell: We would need the context of that remark.
Mr. Stewart: There is no problem. Our approach is about the honour of the Crown. Our view is that when we enter into agreements, either our executing a chapter of the agreement by the Government of Canada or our undertaking separate subsequent bilateral agreements with beneficiaries and their representatives, we implement and honour the agreements. That has been our track record. Where we have problems, we use the governance mechanisms established with First Nations as a way of resolving these problems, seeking clarity on key issues and trying to find a way of building consensus with respect to managing the protected area.
Senator Peterson: We will follow up on that issue with INAC to determine what they meant.
The Chair: Mr. O'Donnell, you said that implementation funding for land claim obligations incremental to a department's mandate are funded through a claims envelope?
Mr. O'Donnell: Yes.
The Chair: Does this claims envelope that has been established represent needs or the costing out of obligations? How does that envelope work? Can you explain it to us?
Mr. O'Donnell: Once the land claim is negotiated, a line department — for example, Parks Canada — goes through the claim and lists the obligations that are directly related to our department or agency. We then cost those obligations.
For example, the claim may say that there shall be a cooperative management board for national park X, that cooperative management board shall meet, at a minimum, three times a year, and the board will meet in the various communities within the land claim area contiguous to the park.
If this park is a Northern park, for example, two staff members will go to that particular park. To go into that community, they will need to charter an aircraft. It will cost X dollars for that charter. If they go three times a year, it will cost so much. If there is a need for translating documents that will be tabled into the Aboriginal language, we figure out the cost of translation. All these elements are added up. Then we say to INAC: Here is the obligation and here are the incremental costs, things not funded under the normal Parks Canada mandate. Then we negotiate the funding.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. O'Donnell.
In summary, what concerns me is that there is no hammer, as Senator Dallaire said, so the process floats like a noodle. Hopefully, we can make recommendations that will assist in establishing a hammer, or however we want to describe it, so that someone can make a decision and so the issues are not deflected as another department's responsibility. As the deputy points out, the person who controls the goal controls the game.
Thank you for coming this morning, for making your presentations and for answering in such a forthright, honest and professional manner. Hopefully, we can make recommendations that will assist the entire process. I am certain all of you have a genuine desire to see a solution that assists our First Nations people in the implementation of the treaties they have entered into with the government.
The committee adjourned.