THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL PEOPLES
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 15, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met with videoconference this day at 4:30 p.m. [ET]; and, in camera, to study Bill S-10, An Act to give effect to the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement, to amend the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act and the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
Senator Brian Francis (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Honourable senators, I would like to begin by acknowledging that the Senate of Canada is situated in the traditional unceded territory of the Algonquin Anishinaabe people. However, since this meeting is hybrid, senators are conducting their work from the traditional territories of many nations.
I am Mi’kmaq Senator Brian Francis from Epekwitk, also known as Prince Edward Island. I am the chair of the Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.
Before we begin our meeting, I would like to introduce the senators who are participating today. Senator Arnot from Saskatchewan; Senator Audette from Quebec; Senator Coyle from Nova Scotia; Senator Hartling from New Brunswick; Senator LaBoucane-Benson from Alberta; Senator Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick; Senator Pate from Ontario; Senator Patterson from Nunavut; and Senator Tannas from Alberta.
I would like to remind senators and witnesses joining remotely to keep their microphones muted at all times unless recognized. Should any technical challenges arise, please let us know. I would like to remind everyone that the Zoom screen should not be copied, recorded or photographed. However, official proceedings can be shared via the SenVu website.
Today we are here to study Bill S-10, An Act to give effect to the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement, to amend the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act and the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. I would like to introduce our first witness today. We have with us from the Anishinabek Nation, Grand Council Chief, Reg Niganobe and R. Martin Bayer, Chief Negotiator.
Grand Council Chief Niganobe will provide opening remarks for up to five minutes followed by a question-and-answer session with committee members. Senators in the room who have a question should raise their hand. Those on the Zoom should use the raise-hand feature. They will be acknowledged by the clerk in the chat. I will remind participants that the Zoom chat should be used to report technical issues and should not be used for debate.
Grand Chief Niganobe, you’re welcome to provide opening remarks.
Reg Niganobe, Grand Council Chief, Anishinabek Nation: [Indigenous language spoken]
Good afternoon. My name is Grand Council Chief Reg Niganobe of the Anishinabek Nation. I’m the elected leader of the Anishinabek Nation, and I am part of the Sturgeon Clan. I join you today from our Mississauga Anishinabek territory in Toronto, Ontario. The Anishinabek Nation is the oldest political organization in Ontario and can trace its roots back to the Confederacy of Three Fires of peoples. This alliance protected the land, people, language and culture of the Great Lakes basin.
It is the custom of the Anishinabek Nation to recite the [Indigenous language spoken] Anishinabek which is a preamble written by the elders to guide the Anishinabek Constitution proclaimed in 2012, but due to time restrictions I’ll recite a line that relates to our revitalization of the nation-to-nation relationship rooted in this Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement.
[Indigenous language spoken]
Which means to us that the Creators gave us sovereignty to govern ourselves.
In that spirit, it is my honour and privilege to acknowledge the First Nations who are the first signatories of the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement: Gimaa Kwe Rhonda Williams-Lovett of Moose Deer Point First Nation; Chief Larry Roque of Wahnapitae First Nation; Chief Irene Kells of Zhiibaahaasing First Nation; Chief Scott McLeod of Nipissing First Nation; and Chief Lloyd Myke Magnetawan First Nation.
Since the infancy of the state of Canada, and in particular the enactment of the Indian Act, our relationship has been fraught with discrimination and inequity imposed on our nation. This forced implementation of foreign laws and legislation has been detrimental to our way of life and has impacted our government systems for generations. This imposition of oppressive systems has created a legacy of intergenerational trauma.
Through this agreement, we hope to build a relationship with Canada based on a nation-to-nation foundation that reduces bureaucracy and provides a direct resource stream to our communities. Investing in the rebuilding of our governance structures has the potential to be revolutionary for the Anishinabek Nation communities.
This agreement negotiation was a lengthy process, and we have worked with many different leaders from across all parties. It has taken a long time to get here, and we do not want to further delay or cause necessary financial impacts to the communities who are eagerly awaiting this first phase of implementation.
It is time to give the communities what they have worked so hard for and acknowledge the contributions of our elders and knowledge keepers who have provided their guidance and wisdom to lead us to this point. Anishinabek legal systems outline the responsibility of the government’s leadership selection, participation by citizens and processes in decision making. Beyond that, our laws are inclusive of our creation stories, our spiritual connection and our relationships to the land. Even though our approach to governance grounded in Anishinaabe laws, principles and values was suppressed, it is the only way forward for the next generations.
The Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement outlines four areas of jurisdiction: leadership selection, citizenship, language and culture, operation and management of government. These jurisdictional pillars will make Indian Act sections concerning governance and membership non-applicable. This is significant progress allowing for a revitalization of fundamental governance principles concerning identity, culture and language.
The Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement will support the restoration of core Anishinabek cultural principles by using them as the foundation for these fundamental laws, support language revitalization by using the Anishinabek language in these laws; facilitate economic development by increasing legitimacy of First Nation government actions and decision by having selection processes in governance rules that makes sense to Anishinabek people; increase unity and promote Anishinabek nationhood through promotion of our core cultural values and principles recognized and implemented in laws; and involve a relationship with the federal government to a nation-to-nation approach.
It is our responsibility to continue to work for our predecessors, elders and those who have worked hard to get us here. We intend to work forward with your government and form a relationship based on reciprocity and mutual respect. The legacy of the system will be challenging to overcome, however, with the vision of our future generations and wisdom of our elders, these communities have tangible success to look forward to.
[Indigenous language spoken]
Which means forward together. Meegwetch.
The Chair: Thank you, Grand Council Chief Niganobe. We will now begin the question-and-answer part of our session.
Senator Patterson: I would like to welcome the witnesses. I was privileged to be part of the education agreement legislation Bill C-61 in 2018, and it was a very happy occasion to see the Anishinaabe take control over education. I do want to ask the chief, very briefly, how that is going. I hope it’s going well.
My question about this self-government legislation is — by the way, I don’t think it’s our place in the Senate or as parliamentarians to stand in the way of a respectful good-faith negotiation that has come to us. You have my support.
You have 39 communities, I understand, that could opt in to this agreement, and I believe only five so far have opted in, perhaps because of COVID and other challenges. I would like to ask you: Are you optimistic that you will eventually have full take-up in your nation of these self-government privileges among the 39 communities? Thank you.
Mr. Niganobe: The Anishinabek Nation Education Agreement is going very well.
Senator Patterson: Oh, good.
Mr. Niganobe: Thank you for asking.
Senator Patterson: Glad to hear that.
Mr. Niganobe: Although we only have the five right now in this agreement, I do anticipate more will join only because it’s a significant leap forward and it’s a far turn from where we are right now.
There might be some hesitancy to join in at this time, but as the other First Nations begin to see the five First Nations succeed based upon this agreement, I am sure and positive we’ll have more join on to the agreement itself and ratify it in their ways.
Senator Patterson: Thank you. I wish you well with that. Thank you very much.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much, Grand Council Chief Niganobe. Congratulations to you and the First Nations that have taken that leap of faith, and for all the work you have done to get to this point.
You mentioned the legacy of the system being challenging to overcome. Now that this governance agreement is in place and you have the initial First Nations coming on board, what do you think it will take to develop that capacity to actually take this on in fullness and really transform from the old system to the new system? What kinds of supports are required? What do you see this transition process looking like? What kind of supports will you need to get to your new capacity that you need to fully function under the new way of operating?
Mr. Niganobe: I think the communities are more than well prepared to take on that challenge. For the most part, I think a lot of it was the fiscal challenge of being able to do this, and that is kind of addressed within this negotiated agreement. Once the funding starts to flow, and once the community starts to be able to utilize those dollars, they will be more than happy, prepared and set to address all these issues.
They have been working on it regardless of the funding. So they do have some idea of what they are getting into and what they need to do to move a lot of these governance issues forward in the way that they see fit and the way they would like to implement them.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much. Just a quick follow-up. You mentioned that people have been working long and hard on this. Could you give us a little sense of timing? How long have you at the grand council been working at that, and the communities that are taking this initial step with you? Can you describe a little bit how long that has taken?
Mr. Niganobe: Sure. In excess of 25 years to get to this point where we’re at right now. Of course, there were successive governments and changes in negotiators often, so it was kind of step forward, step back type of thing. But here we are, and we’re excited about this opportunity at this time.
Senator Coyle: Wonderful. All the best.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: Grand Council Chief, thank you very much for carrying on the work of so many men and women who have maintained and continue to maintain our voice in Canada as regards self-determination [Innu spoken].
As you know, we have travelled across Canada as part of a national inquiry; we have heard from Anishinabe women and men from your great nations. Within your organization and given your desire for governance, how has the participation of women and girls and the wisdom of our elders been reflected?
My second question pertains to the citizenship of women. As you know, women lost their status under the Indian Act. They were expelled and were subject to racism and discrimination. How will you help women affected by the Indian Act through this fine agreement, Bill S-10?
[English]
Mr. Niganobe: We do have the possibility with this agreement to help determine our citizenship. Of course, those processes in determining our citizenship are based upon how our communities would like to do that, but also, too, the leadership selection and how that process will play out.
A lot of our communities have talked about traditional leadership selection, so of course, as you know, perhaps with the Anishinaabe way that we do it, everybody is included in that leadership selection. This is also a process not just for leadership selection, but decision making. Everybody is included in our decision-making processes from the oldest elder to the youngest member or citizen, and then across the board for everybody’s inclusion, male, female and otherwise. It is an excellent opportunity, and, like I said, everybody is very excited for the possibility of having our traditional leadership and traditional practices come back into use with this agreement.
Senator Audette: Thank you. Make sure that we know what you do so it can reflect to the rest of Canada.
The Chair: Grand Chief Niganobe, I have a question for you. I wonder if you could explain why it is important for First Nations to have control over the operation, maintenance and governance of their First Nations.
Mr. Niganobe: I would like to give my associate a chance to speak. Mr. Bayer?
R. Martin Bayer, Chief Negotiator, Anishinabek Nation: Thanks, Mr. Chair, and thank you, grand council chief.
I guess one of the reasons why we want to have more jurisdictional control over the operation and management of our governments and our administration is because it would help strengthen the accountability back to the people who elected our leaders into office. Under past legislative frameworks, such as the federal legislation that governed this area, our accountability was first and foremost back to the Parliament of Canada, which is okay, but at the same time, our people were telling us we’re the ones that put you in office and we think that accountability should be back to us first.
With the recognition of the power to enact our own financial management and operational laws, we can do things like include requirements in our constitution, for example, to hold meetings to debate and set the budget and also have meetings with the auditors after to account for those spending results that occurred in the last fiscal year. These are important changes that our people have been asking for in our engagement sessions with them.
I guess that’s one of the biggest changes that will happen when we begin to exercise our own jurisdiction and lawmaking powers in the area of financial management and operation of our governments.
The Chair: Thank you for that, Mr. Bayer. I also wonder if you could tell the committee how does the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement differ from those communities that continue to be under the Indian Act?
Mr. Bayer: Did you want me to answer that, Mr. Chair? Okay, I can answer that.
I guess one of the biggest changes is just to look at the number of elections that take place in our communities. In any given year that goes by, I would say that close to half of our communities are engaged in elections of chiefs and councils. Part of the problem with that is, of course, a number of our communities elect their leadership under the Indian Act with its short two-year term, and then, of course, they can do custom election codes, which still has to be sent to Ottawa for approval and review. And then the other way that some communities use to elect their leadership is under the First Nations Elections Act, which is, again, a federal piece of legislation.
For many years now, our communities have been saying, well, why can’t we come up with our own ways, as the grand council chief alluded to, including customary ways of electing our leadership, including setting the criteria and the qualifications for those looking to run for chief or councillor? And especially the term of office because, in our communities at least, among our 39 communities, close to half or just over half continue to elect their leadership under the Indian Act with its limited two-year term of office. One of the biggest changes they want to make is to increase that term of office to something that is more manageable and gives the government of the First Nation more time to get many of the things accomplished that they need to accomplish in their communities.
A lot of infrastructure projects, whether you’re talking about building a new community centre or a new community band office, or even to help settle things like self-government agreements or land claim agreements, those often take longer than two years. So we have constant turnover going on in our communities and it doesn’t lead to stable and effective government. That’s one of the things we want to change going forward and exercising our own jurisdiction when it comes to leadership selection.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bayer. As a former chief myself, I can certainly relate to what you just said. The floor is still open for any senators that would like to ask questions.
Senator Hartling: Thank you to the witnesses. This must be a very exciting time for you. After all this time waiting, I feel the sense that a lot of people are certainly supporting you.
Do you think more First Nation governments are anticipating ratifying agreements similar to the governance agreement that you’re putting forward? Do you sense that? Do you hear about that? Are you leading the way?
Mr. Niganobe: We are leading the way. Of course, we have had other First Nations from other territories reach out to us to find out how we’re going about this process or how long it took to get here — similar questions to what you’re asking right now. We have been informing them about how we got here and what we’re doing. It’s very encouraging and we’re encouraging them to do the same. That is, to participate in these processes and to highlight the importance and the need for our own methods of leadership selection going forward, along with these other principles, and having some of their own independence and sovereignty in that manner.
Senator Hartling: Thank you very much. All the best.
Mr. Niganobe: Thank you.
Senator Pate: I would simply like to offer you the time to share anything else that you would like this committee to know about in terms of future supports that we could be providing to nations like yours and agreements like this one.
Mr. Niganobe: I kind of touched on this earlier, namely, a bit of stability in negotiations and the negotiators themselves. We have had several different negotiators over this time. It always slows things down and trips things up to have to go back and agree to things all over again or bring everybody up to speed on negotiations. That is one of the biggest hindrances.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: My question is for the grand chief. In your opening remarks, you said that you were trying to build a new relationship with Canada. What is your vision for this relationship? What are you hoping to achieve in building a new relationship?
Mr. Niganobe: Just a relationship of reciprocity and acknowledgment that we are nation-to-nation and that we can operate in that manner. At the end of the day, we both want the same thing. We both want what is best for our people. We both want a fair share of economic opportunities or stability within our communities. This sort of agreement provides that sort of opportunity. That is what is so exciting about it. That’s the sort of relationship we hope to have with Canada, namely, that nation-to-nation relationship where we’re mutually benefitting each other and seeing each other as equals.
Senator Patterson: I understand from officials that a separate funding agreement has been negotiated to go along with this legislative change. I know you’re satisfied and you’re recommending that we endorse the self-government agreement, but could I ask Mr. Bayer or the grand chief the following: Is the funding agreement that you have negotiated satisfactory?
Mr. Niganobe: Martin, would you like to answer that one?
Mr. Bayer: Thanks Grand Council Chief and Senator Patterson.
The funding agreement that we negotiated to go along with the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement took a lengthy period of time as well. One of the things we wanted to address over this period was that the funding levels that we got strictly for governance functions were historically capped at 2%. That meant less funding available to our communities to finance things like holding chief and council meetings and a number of subcommittee meetings. Those all cost money. We made the case that because we have been underfunded historically and governing meant including committees and the cost of financing ordinary people’s participation in those committees, we needed more governance funding. In the end, we were quite pleased with the federal government’s offer to increase the funding by seven times what we had been receiving in the past. We looked at the numbers and realized that it represented a great deal of governance funding.
One of the jurisdictions we want to recognize under this agreement — and this is a growing fear in our communities — is that we’re losing more and more people that can speak, in our case, the Anishinaabe language, although there are other Indigenous languages spoken by our member communities. This has meant that the number of people who can speak the language is either getting older or they are passing on. That’s represented a real challenge for our communities to ensure that the language lives on.
With the other part of the funding — and we’re doing a lot of this now — we’re changing the way we govern ourselves. The grand council chief referred to our founding preamble to our agreement and our constitution the Ngo Dwe Waangizid Anishinaabe. When we developed our constitution, we vetted it through a group of elders on Manitoulin Island. They said it’s missing something. That’s this principle of one Anishinaabe family which is what Ngo Dwe Waangizid Anishinaabe means. It really set us looking at the gifts we were given and the Anishinaabe to look after the fire, water, earth and wind. It also gave us our seven teachings to be guided by in our decision making. We now recite that at just about all of our opening meetings. A lot of our communities have adopted constitutions have that Ngo Dwe Waangizid Anishinaabe as part of their preamble as well.
This is a small way we start to reintroduce culture to the way we govern ourselves such as the way we open our meetings with prayer, spirituality and ceremony. That’s one of the ways that we were able to incorporate and re-establish the use of our culture. Right now, all we have to govern our chief and council meetings are the regulations in section 80 of the Indian Act, and that section doesn’t mention anything that I talked about. It doesn’t mention opening prayers, spirituality and ceremonies.
As our grand council chief said in his opening remarks, we want to get back to the way of conducting our meetings, the way we were accustomed to in the past.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
Senator Arnot: I notice this took 27 years to negotiate. I congratulate the grand chief for the work that he has done, Mr. Bayer for his work and all those that negotiated this agreement. I hope that this is a template for other First Nations in Canada. I hope it doesn’t take that long for other First Nations to negotiate similar self-government agreements. Congratulations to all of you for the good work you have done.
Mr. Niganobe: Thank you.
Mr. Bayer: Meegwetch.
Senator Patterson: Hear, hear.
Senator Tannas: If I could build on what Senator Arnot and Senator Patterson said. In my time here, almost 10 years, we have seen relatively few self-government agreements come all with the same story of taking decades to negotiate. At some point, we are going to have to figure out how to make this happen faster.
I’ve always been struck by two things: The time it takes and the legal expenses that the communities have to bear and then have taken out of their funding agreement at the time of signing.
I know Senator Pate asked you this, but can you give us a sense of if there had been two parties at the table, with or without the aid of a squadron of lawyers, how long do you think this process should have taken to come to a good and thoughtful conclusion?
Mr. Bayer: Do you want me to answer that, Grand Chief?
Mr. Niganobe: Sure. Go ahead.
Mr. Bayer: That’s a good question. Just for the record, I’ve been the only chief negotiator on behalf of the Anishinabek Nation since this process started in 1996, so I’ve been through a lot of federal negotiators and federal justice lawyers.
If I could make one recommendation to speed this up, it is to stick with one negotiator. I know things happen — people work their careers and want to retire — but over this 27-year period, we’ve had changes of governments, changes of ministers, changes of negotiators at the table, and I would say each side should build a small but effective team and focus on getting the agreements made. There’s enough of these agreements across the country now that this doesn’t have to be invented from scratch.
Now, having said that, I’d like to just say that we do have a good agreement here. There was a question posed to the Grand Council Chief Niganobe about how we expect our relationship with Canada to change, and one of the ways we want to see that relationship change and be able to explain to Canadians how this agreement changes our relationship is we want to make it a true nation-to-nation agreement and not so much an agreement between, in our case, the Anishinabek Nation and Indigenous Services Canada.
We feel that we have a relationship with the Government of Canada, and that includes ministries such as the ministry of health and the ministry of finance, when federal budgets are being set. To that end, we were successful in negotiating an intergovernmental forum within the agreement whereby the parties could get together and talk about not just issues that are set out in this agreement, but broader, more grass fire fighting type forums where we could talk about issues before they become grass fires.
So we thought it was important to set up an intergovernmental forum where we could meet periodically and really reflect on how this new relationship is coming along, to strengthen the relationship where it needs to be strengthened and include provincial governments in those conversations, for instance.
I think we have set a good template that could be used for other First Nations across the country. Of course, our fiscal agreement, I think, stands as a very unique agreement in and of its own.
Senator Tannas: Thank you very much for that, Mr. Bayer. This is one of those things that we may some day ask you back to go deeper into this subject, because we can’t continue to see this length of time for the negotiation process. It’s not fair to anybody, and it certainly isn’t efficient, as it needs to be.
I appreciate those comments very much. Thank you.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: My question is for the chief. I’m concerned about the citizenship. As you know, a lot of women have lost their status, so as women apply for their citizenship, will there be an increase in funding?
Mr. Niganobe: Go ahead, Mr. Bayer.
Mr. Bayer: That’s a good question.
Within our funding agreement there are adjustments that we can make to the funding agreement, and one of them is for increases in citizenship and also things like CPI increases, the Consumer Price Index increases, which are getting quite hefty these days with inflation getting out of control, just about.
We were able to build within the fiscal transfer agreement these escalators that would trigger the need to discuss higher funding amounts for the governance funding based on the factors that we built into the fiscal transfer agreement.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: That’s wonderful to hear. Thank you very much, and good luck.
Mr. Bayer: Thank you.
The Chair: The floor is still open if anyone has any other questions for our witnesses.
Hearing none, the time for this panel is now complete. I wish to thank Grand Council Chief Niganobe and Mr. Bayer for meeting with us today.
I would now like to introduce our next witness, Chief Henry Warren Paull from the shíshálh Nation. Chief Paull will provide opening remarks of up to five minutes, followed by a question-and-answer session with committee members.
Senators in the room who have questions should raise their hand. Those on Zoom should use the raise-hand feature. They will then be acknowledged by the clerk in the chat.
I remind all participants that the Zoom chat should be used to report technical issues only and should not be used for debate.
I’ll now invite Chief Paull to give his remarks.
Henry Warren Paull, Chief, shíshálh Nation: [Indigenous language spoken] members.
It is my honour and privilege to be here today to speak to the Senate committee about the importance of the proposed amendments to our nation’s self-government act set out in Bill S-10.
Since our self-government legislation was first enacted in 1986, it has been called the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act. The very name of the act highlights the need for the legislation to be modernized and updated to reflect the UNDRIP principles of self-determination.
“Sechelt Indian Band” is a colonial term that was used under the Indian Act. Our name is not the Sechelt Indian band. Our name is the shíshálh Nation.
We were the first Indigenous group in Canada to have our self-governance rights recognized outside of the Indian Act and treaty. In enacting the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act, Canada and shíshálh were miles ahead of the times back then, and the act was a milestone in our nation-to-nation relationship. We are proud of what we have accomplished under our self-government act, and we have developed a robust and very effective governance system.
However, times have changed since 1986. UNDRIP was adopted by the UN General Assembly and later fully endorsed by Canada.
Canada has put in place inherent rights and rights recognition policies. Courts have recognized Indigenous nations’ self-governance rights in several cases, and Canada has enacted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, committing to the implementation of the UNDRIP. Our self-government act has, quite simply, not kept up with the times, which is why these proposed amendments are necessary.
In addition to giving our nation a colonial name, our act currently has a number of deficiencies that do not reflect the current legal and policy framework and are holding us back from fully implementing our self-government rights and engaging in respectful nation-to-nation dialogue with Canada. The amendments set out in Bill S-10 will help us address those deficiencies in key areas. First, our legislation will reflect who we are: the shíshálh Nation. There is nothing more fundamentally important to self-determination than having a name that reflects our identity and not a colonial construct. Although we don’t need federal legislation to tell us that we are the shíshálh Nation, we do need the act to reflect our identity if we are going to continue walking down a path with Canada in a good way.
The amendments will also finally remove the paternalistic oversight role that Canada currently plays under the act to approve all amendments under our shíshálh Constitution. The act already requires our community members to support amendments to our Constitution through a referendum, and that is where the authority to change our Constitution should come from. Approvals should no longer be required from the Governor-in-Council. Canada cannot say, on the one hand, that it respects our self-government rights and, on the other hand, retain the ultimate power to approve or disapprove what’s in the shíshálh Constitution. Such an approval is the opposite of respectful.
The amendments will also ensure that our Constitution will always have key elements such as conflict of interest rules for our council members, systems of financial accountability, and appeal provisions, ensuring that our council will continue to govern in a responsible and transparent manner.
The amendments also make it clear that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms applies to the shíshálh government, providing a check and balance that will protect all of our members. The amendments will also provide much-needed clarity on how we can add lands to the category of shíshálh lands under the act.
We have been quite successful in recent years in getting back several parcels of land in our swiya — that’s our word for “territory” — through private land purchases and negotiation of land transfers from the Province of British Columbia. The amendments clarify how we, together with Canada and B.C., bring those lands under shíshálh jurisdiction as shíshálh lands.
The amendments also make it clear that the shíshálh government has jurisdiction over all aspects of children and family services, such as child protection and adoption. Our children and families are at the heart of who we are as shíshálh people, and these amendments will reflect those responsibilities our government has always had, since time immemorial.
The amendments set out in Bill S-10 reflect countless hours of hard work by representatives of our nation and Canada over the last three years. We worked tirelessly with Canada on these amendments because they are absolutely essential to move us down the path of reconciliation together, ?ul nu msh chalap.
The Chair: Thank you, Chief Paull. We will now begin the question-and-answer session, and I will start.
How would the establishment of a shíshálh land register affect how shíshálh Nation land rights and interests are registered?
Mr. Paull: That has been an interesting question. We have been in discussion for quite some time on the land transfer agreement. It has been a bit of a challenge for every First Nation in British Columbia to do such a thing.
It was always contemplated, right from the very beginning, that we would acquire and transfer lands under shíshálh jurisdiction as “91(24) lands.” This just makes it clearer as to the process that we would embark on. I know that there are one or two members from our negotiating team who are witnesses to this and who can clarify that more.
The Chair: Thank you, Chief Paull.
Senator Coyle: Thank you, Chief Paull. Clause 21 would amend the legislative powers of the council, including the power to add laws in relation to child and family services with respect to the nation’s families and children, including the custody, placement and care of the nation’s children.
Could you tell us how you see this proposed new section supporting the shíshálh Nation in exercising its jurisdiction in relation to child and family services, and could you also tell us what difference you expect this will make?
Mr. Paull: Thank you for the question. The original arrangement that we had, it was already built into the original agreement, but we had to amend it to reflect the new legislation that had just been passed. I believe it was last year. We wanted to make sure that we were clear that we could adopt it if we wanted to.
Currently, the caseloads that we are experiencing are not necessarily of an amount that we would require to get into a discussion on that with the Ministry of Child and Family Development at this particular point. We have a very good working relationship with them, and we have currently been able to manage the situation here as it stands. That’s not to say that in the future it may need to be addressed more formally and we would exercise control going forward, but we haven’t quite gotten there.
What we wanted in this piece was to make sure that we were fully capable of doing so without any legislative hiccups or bad writing that might cause us to have problems going into the future. We already had that right, but while we were addressing the two pieces that we really wanted to have done, we wanted to make sure that this was covered off in the event we decided to exercise that.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much.
Senator Patterson: I’d like to thank you, Chief Paull, for your presentation today. I remember well the historic first of the Sechelt band getting a government agreement. I believe it was 1986, and I think it was one of the first in the country. I remember at the time there was criticism, probably of the band, because the agreement was said to have been basically sort of a municipality plus. Do you have any regrets about that step that you took so long ago and which was criticized at the time? Would you say that you have built on that beginning to where you are now today? And let me say favourably, because I don’t think it’s the Senate’s place to challenge respectful and good-faith negotiations, which seems to have been the case here. Do you feel that you built on that foundation to get to where you are today?
Mr. Paull: Thank you for the comment and the question, senator. I was there when we signed that particular bill. I was a junior council member at the time. I joined in 1982. It was a long discussion that we started under Paul Martin, I believe, and ended under Brian Mulroney. It had all-party consent in both houses, both the government and in B.C., and it also had the full support from the regional boards that surround us and the current District of Sechelt, which is our neighbour.
So do I regret? Absolutely not. We currently have grandchildren being born that don’t have the stigma of being born as a ward of the Crown, and that, for us, is a great and wonderful thing to have. We have to crawl before we can walk. We have to walk before we can run. Well, we’re getting ready to start running. We’ve built up a great structure in the ensuing 36 years and we’re getting ready to run now.
We signed the historical agreement with the province not too long ago, and we have a foundation agreement with the Province of British Columbia. That was started under the Liberal government and finished under the NDP. It had all-party consent. I do believe we’re on a bit of a roll here. I thank everybody for the support they have given us to be able to move these key elements forward because it shows the path to reconciliation truly does exist. That’s all we can ever ask for as we walk down the path together, so thank you.
Senator Patterson: Thank you for that great answer.
Chief Paull, I spend some time in B.C. and I go past Sechelt. I see a big gravel and aggregate business taking advantage of the natural resources in your area. Is your band able to participate in that and other economic opportunities in your region?
Mr. Paull: Yes, as a matter of fact, we do. While we were making the foundation agreement, we also negotiated a new arrangement with the gravel operator, Lehigh Cement, which is a multinational.
We signed a 50-year agreement. We have a newly formed concept called a relationship agreement. It binds us in many more ways other than just the straight contractual lease and a royalty arrangement. We are integrated into the discussion over how that land is developed. We see the mine plan. We’re engaged with them on all those aspects. It’s a very good working relationship.
Not only that, we formed a company called the Tsain-Ko Development Corporation, and we now have contracts with them for any aspects of different heavy equipment. Things are working out relatively well. It’s not perfect, but it’s an opportunity to grow together. I think that has turned out really well.
Senator Patterson: That’s great. Thank you very much.
Senator Pate: Thank you to the witnesses. Chief Paull, to use your description, congratulations on your marathon. It’s amazing.
I had a question that I wish I had asked our last witnesses, so I’ll ask you — and the other witnesses, if they are still around, can add to it, too. It strikes me that the consistency has been among those of you who are negotiating from First Nations’ perspective, which makes sense in some respects. Do you have any recommendations that you think would be useful for us to make to enable more First Nations to be able to move forward more quickly in their negotiations than what seems to be happening across the country?
It strikes me that it’s your perseverance and persistence that’s been central to this, but it also strikes me that the turnover of those within the bureaucracy may have been one of the impediments. If you have any recommendations there, it would be extremely helpful for us to hear.
Mr. Paull: Capacity is a huge concept and a huge hindrance. When we started off our self-government push, I was not only a council member but also the director for housing. I wore many hats. Back then, we were operating on a shoestring budget. All we had was our faith and desire to move forward.
Capacity is a big part of that discussion. That is, development of the individual nations to be able to improve it, like the First Nations Financial Management Board and schooling all nations to have that financial capacity built into your system. For shíshálh to prove our ability to get self-governance, we went through 17 years of unqualified audits to prove that we were capable. We were able to prove that we were able to do that particular work, and we took over every aspect that could be managed under the Indian Act before we tried to expand our process. That was the beginning, and that was long before I came on board. That process started with Jean Chrétien. When he came to visit us he said, “You have to develop.” So we did. We said if that’s what we got to do, that’s what we got to do. So we moved and we went forward and we started to develop our processes and develop our governance structure so we could fill that void. We filled as much void as we could before we took the next step. That next step is a big step.
I agree with the grand chief before me. When that nation wants to step into that arrangement, make sure that you have a dedicated group that stays with the process. One of the key components that got us to where we got to in our self-government arrangement was we insisted that we have a lead point team that crossed all different ministries. Those were the ones that gave us the answers. We didn’t have to go to justice to get an answer on a legal question. We didn’t have to go to fisheries to get something. We didn’t have to go to Environment Canada, with all their teams coming and rotating through. We had a board on Canada’s side that reported back and that structure worked. I think it probably cut years off the discussion.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
The Chair: The floor is still open if any senator has a question they would like to ask.
Senator Patterson: If we have a few moments, I would like to ask Chief Paull something, if it is not improper. You have this amazing history. You told us the band started out on a shoestring. What kind of budget is the band administering right now in rough terms? How many employees do you have? Is there a financial piece to this legislation that you could tell us a bit about? That is, did you negotiate a financial contribution with the federal government to go along with this legislation?
Mr. Paull: Thank you for the question. We almost fell into an arrangement. The Liberal government of 2015 decided to start a group called the self-governing Indigenous governance group, which was the arrangement set up for treaty negotiations and self-governing First Nations. We were sort of an add-on to the back end because I think they suddenly realized that they’d better talk to us, so we got invited to the table. While we were not fully treaty, we were actually outside of the definition of what an Indian Act band is.
There was West Bank. There was the Dene —
Senator Patterson: Délı̨nę.
Mr. Paull: Yes. Thank you very much, and the Dakota Valley Sioux, West Bank and us. We formed part of that discussion, which is a great table. We started that particular process. We have now agreed to one out of seven tranches, which was the key element, which is governance, and we’re now into infrastructure. There are four or five other buckets that still have yet to be negotiated. That process is ongoing.
With that, we basically walked away from our discussions with Indigenous Services Canada and with CIRNAC, and we are now part of that particular group with our funding arrangements. I believe Mike Haberl is here, and he can expand on that conversational piece.
When we started out this discussion, I think our budget for our governance structure model alone was in the range of around $11 to $12 million. We are now up to around $24 to $25 million.
When we started in 2017, I think we had 84 employees; we’re now up to 130 and growing quickly. Our corporate structure started off with two people, and we’re up to 64. We started off with a six-figure budget; now we’re in an eight-figure budget for operations.
Senator Patterson: Thanks very much for sharing that with us, Chief Paull. It’s very impressive. Thank you.
Mr. Paull: Thank you.
The Chair: The floor is still open if anyone would still like to ask a question.
Seeing no hands raised, the time for this panel is now complete. I wish to thank Chief Paull for meeting with us today.
Senator LaBoucane-Benson: Thank you, Chief Paull.
The Chair: I will now introduce our next panel of witnesses. From Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, we have Murray Pridham, Manager, Federal Negotiations, Negotiations Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government; Carmen Kardoes, Acting Senior Director, Negotiations Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government; Blake McLaughlin, Acting Director General, Negotiations Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government; Georgina Lloyd, Director General, Implementation Branch, Implementation Sector; and Mike Haberl, Director, Treaty Management, British Columbia. From the Department of Justice Canada, we welcome Pierre-Luc Lavoie, Senior Counsel, Negotiations and Northern Affairs Section, CIRNAC/ISC Legal Services; and Marnie Munro, Deputy Director and Senior Counsel, National Litigation Sector.
Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Haberl will provide opening remarks of us to five minutes total on behalf of the department, to be followed by questions from senators. Senators in the room who have a question should raise their hand; those on Zoom should use the raise-hand feature. You will then be acknowledged by the clerk in the chat. I’ll remind all participants that the Zoom chat should be used to report technical issues and should not be used for debate.
I now invite Mr. McLaughlin and Mr. Haberl to give their remarks.
Blake McLaughlin, Acting Director General, Negotiations Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you. It’s a privilege to be here today, speaking to you about the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement. I’m speaking to you from Ottawa, the traditional unceded territory of the Anishinabeg people.
The Anishinabek Nation comprises 39 First Nations that cover a geographical area from Thunder Bay to Pembroke, and south to Sarnia. The 39 First Nations have an approximate combined population of 65,000 citizens, representing one third of Ontario’s First Nations population.
As we have heard earlier, since 1995, Canada and the Anishinabek Nation have engaged in negotiations to rebuild governance in core areas that strengthen the Anishinaabe Nation. The first agreement dealt with education. The Anishinabek Nation Education Agreement was passed by Parliament in December 2017 and came into force on April 1, 2018.
Now the Anishinabek Nation is ready to advance and bring into effect the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement.
The governance agreement would establish two levels of government — the Anishinabek Nation government and local governments of the signatory First Nations. The governance agreement would recognize the jurisdiction of the Anishinabek Nation government and the First Nation governments over leadership selection, membership, culture and language, and the management and operations of government. The governance agreement also provides for additional jurisdictions to be negotiated as part of the Anishinabek governance structures.
In summary, the proposed legislation gives effect to the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement.
I’ll now pass to Mr. Haberl.
Mike Haberl, Director, Treaty Management, British Columbia, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you, Mr. McLaughlin, and thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity to speak. I am speaking to you today from New Westminster, British Columbia, on the traditional territories of the Squamish, Musqueam and Tsleil-Waututh nations.
I have the honour to talk to you about the amendments proposed to the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act and the Yukon First Nationals Self-Government Act. These are the two oldest pieces of self-government legislation in Canada. The proposed amendments to parts of these acts would help to modernize these pieces of historic legislation by aligning them with newer self-government arrangements. There are no financial implications to these legislative amendments.
As we heard, in 1986, shíshálh Nation, formally known as the Sechelt Indian Band, became the first Indigenous nation in Canada to achieve self-government. Under the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act, the Indian Act ceased to apply to the shíshálh Nation. Uniquely among self-government arrangements in Canada, the shíshálh Indian band self-government arrangement does not have an associated self-government agreement. Therefore, provisions usually found in an agreement are instead set out in the legislation.
To get to where we are today, since 2020, government representatives have undertaken collaborative discussions with shíshálh Nation to reach agreement on a package of proposed amendments to the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act. These amendments also presented an opportunity to amend one similar clause in the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act.
The proposed amendments to the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act were developed through collaborative discussions with shíshálh Nation over a period of approximately 18 months. In April of 2021, the shíshálh Nation chief and council expressed support for the proposed amendments, and that support was further confirmed by a community referendum in October of 2021. Once the draft bill was prepared, further collaboration with shíshálh Nation took place through the winter and spring of 2022.
Finally, I want to note that the province of British Columbia has expressed strong support for the modernization of the “shíshálh Nation self-government act,” as proposed, and as well, self-governing Yukon First Nations and the Yukon government have expressed support for the minor amendment to the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act.
The proposed amendments to these acts would help modernize these pieces of historical legislation by aligning them with newer self-government arrangements. They also reaffirm shíshálh Nation’s authority and responsibility for matters internal to their government and incorporate key terms chosen by the shíshálh Nation to express their governance structures.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Haberl and Mr. McLaughlin.
We will now begin the question-and-answer session.
Senator Pate: I’m curious. I suspect you were all online and could hear the testimony of the previous witnesses. What is your explanation for why it took so long to negotiate these agreements, and what recommendations would you have to improve the process in the future?
I would like you to comment on staff turnover as part of the issue, the knowledge that people have of the process, as well, as to whether there were any political reasons that impacted.
Mr. McLaughlin: Thank you for the question, senator.
I can address that, at least in part, by expressing that it was a privilege to be in front of the Senate when we passed the education agreement, and at that time I was also joined by our lead negotiator, Murray Pridham. He has had continuity that he has brought to the file. I think it is certainly, in part, a reason for the success.
It is a challenge, of course. These things take much longer than any of us would like. It’s too few and far between, coming to these amazing milestones, but we do our best to make sure that we are providing as much continuity as possible.
I would also invite Mr. Pridham, if he would like, to speak to some of the challenges that we have in terms of reaching these milestones over time.
Murray Pridham, Manager, Federal Negotiations, Negotiations Central, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Just to take the point of the Anishinabek Nation witnesses, I definitely take their point about change in officials. Just to be clear, I am the third federal negotiator to take this file on, this negotiation. There were a number of steps over the years in terms of a framework agreement being negotiated, then the sequential step in terms of an agreement in principle being reached, and then ultimately a final agreement. Definitely these types of interim agreements and process agreements do take time.
Ultimately, we did conclude this agreement, and Blake McLaughlin mentioned the education agreement, so that’s two agreements that have been concluded in recent years with Anishinabek Nation.
I definitely look forward to more success with our partners.
Senator Pate: I’m not sure that you are able to or are comfortable answering the question, but how long have you been the negotiator, and what are some of the factors that contributed to it?
I notice that one agreement was while we had a Conservative government; one was with the Liberals, but oftentimes in these things, there are political reasons as well as other factors. So what other factors, just so we can also make recommendations that might assist the government in moving forward?
Mr. Pridham: In terms of my participation, working with Anishinabek Nation, I started off in 2008 as an assistant negotiator, and the chief federal negotiator at the time worked up until 2017, when she retired. I essentially took that role on, so there was a good transition.
I think there was a lot good background. I don’t think we lost any particular momentum, because between 2017 and the time the negotiations concluded in 2019, we had authority to conclude all these agreements. I think we made expeditious time in terms of when I took the lead on.
With respect to some of the recommendations of how things could be improved in the future, I believe our department is quite involved in examining processes and streamlining that. Maybe Mr. McLaughlin might be better positioned to speak about how we are now streamlining, so I’ll pause there.
Mr. McLaughlin: I’m happy to add the following. What we have found in recent years is that by utilizing a co-development approach, we are finding ourselves investing in agreements. These are complex agreements. They are important agreements, and we want to make sure that we’re responding to our partners in how they want to move forward. Different communities want to take a different pace, and we are responsive to that as best we possibly can.
I think one of the things that we’re learning is having that openness to sit down and try and find solutions together puts us in a better position to move things forward practically, and hopefully what we’re doing is also learning some lessons as we go forward. The grand chief spoke earlier, I think, about different communities coming to speak to them, so we’re hoping that collectively we’re all finding ourselves in a better position to reach these important milestones.
Senator Pate: Maybe as a follow-up — and I’m not sure if you have this information, but if we could determine how we could access it — by comparison, how long would it take to negotiate an agreement with a municipality? What kinds of resources would be provided?
Mr. McLaughlin: I’m afraid I couldn’t answer that. I don’t know if any other colleagues here today are positioned to respond to that, senator, but we could look into that and see what kind of information we could provide back.
Senator Pate: Thank you.
Senator Patterson: I would like to thank the witnesses for being here today and also for being available for the earlier technical briefing.
Just to follow up on the concern about timing, and not to be critical, but I learned in the technical briefing today that the discussions with — if I’m right — the Yukon concluded some 14 months ago. As you know, we are in the last gasps of the June parliamentary session. I understand that the provisions for the Anishinabek are expected to come alive or are needed in the fall. So there is an urgency to pass this legislation, as I understand it, in this Parliament before the summer break, meaning that we would have to conclude it expeditiously in the Senate, which I hope we can do. Then we must get it to the House of Commons before they adjourn in a matter of days.
I’m wondering, is there a reason why this legislation wasn’t brought forward earlier? It’s really at the very last minute and we’re anxious to accommodate that, but it’s not the best way to manage these things. Would the officials have any comment as to why it took so long to get into the form of legislation and before us, please?
Mr. McLaughlin: Thank you, senator, for the question. I’ll pass the response over to our expert Murray Pridham. Perhaps Mr. Pridham will be referencing the responsiveness that we were trying to make sure that we allowed as much opportunity for the First Nations that might be interested to hold their ratification votes and I’ll defer to Mr. Pridham.
Mr. Pridham: Thank you, Mr. McLaughlin. Thank you, chair. Just looking back over the last few years and negotiations concluding approximately in 2019, and then being on the doorstep of a pandemic and trying to undertake engagement and go out to the communities for referendum processes, and, likewise, prepare an enabling bill has been quite a task within the last few years. We would love to have been presenting this much earlier. I would say that the conditions of the day have definitely been a challenge. Thank you.
Senator Patterson: Mr. Chair, if I may, thank you. I was wondering about the Anishinaabe. We were quite thrilled in the Senate to endorse the very progressive education agreement which I understand is working well and that’s great news and now this self-government agreement.
Could you tell me, are there next steps envisioned for the Anishinaabe, for example? Is there a land selection or a process anticipated going forward relating to land or other subjects that would relate to self-governing and a new relationship that you may be able to share with us going forward? What is next? Thank you.
Mr. Pridham: You want me to field that, Mr. McLaughlin?
Mr. McLaughlin: Please, Pridham. Thank you.
Mr. Pridham: Thank you for the question. There is definitely more discussions contemplated. This past year, an agreement in principle on children, families and youth was concluded. There are definitely other types of negotiations contemplated.
With respect to the governance agreement, there is a future negotiations chapter contemplated. Likewise, it can be expected when our partners are ready and able and willing to undertake various subject matters. Thank you.
Senator Patterson: Would that include land?
Mr. Pridham: Yes, it could include land.
Senator Patterson: Yes.
Mr. Pridham: For sure.
Senator Patterson: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: My question will be in French.
Thank you very much for your presentation.
My nation, the Innu nation, had to pay millions of dollars to negotiate with the federal government. It was a hefty price tag. I understand there has been a political decision to remove that.
Did the nations, including those we have heard, have to go into debt to prove that they have the ability, that they have always been there? Why am I asking this question? I am thinking of the communities that are far away from urban centres and for whom it is difficult access consultants and expert opinions. How can we support these nations which also have the right to self-government agreements or agreements that support them in self-determination?
[English]
Mr. Pridham: I don’t mind starting off on this particular answer in terms of the funding mechanism. It is contribution funding that did support the Anishinabek Nation negotiations. Unlike the previous comprehensive claims approach where there were loans, there were no loans in this case so the communities did not have to spend out of pocket per se to facilitate the negotiations.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: If I understand correctly, in the interest of balance, for a poorer community that is up against departments with all their teams — their experts, analysts, lawyers — are you saying that we are not going into debt when we sit down with you? That is reassuring, if that is indeed what I heard.
[English]
Mr. Pridham: Thank you. That is correct.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much to our witnesses for being with us here today and for all the work that you do.
I have a question for the CIRNAC officials about part 3 of the bill which I am asking on behalf of Yukon Senator Pat Duncan. We have been told this minor amendment is supported by Yukon self-governing First Nations and the Yukon government. Could you outline what consultation process took place with self-governing Yukon First Nations and the Yukon government? Would you confirm that these discussions were at the officials’ level rather than a formal political consultation on a government-to-government-to-government First Nations, Yukon, Canada, level? Thank you.
Mr. Haberl: Thank you for the question. I did see that in the questions that arose at second reading yesterday, so I came prepared to address it. I was the one that managed this process, so I can say I have a good working knowledge of this matter. Chief Paull noted earlier that I am one of the lead officials in a process where we are working with all self-governments collectively known as the Collaborative Fiscal Policy Development Process. That includes all the Yukon First Nations participating generally.
When a proposal came up to simply remove eight words from one clause in the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act, I actually raised this question with my negotiation colleagues across the table — those First Nation representatives — as long ago as three years ago. The last time we renewed these arrangements and had to actually seek orders-in-council and highlighted to them that I expected we would seek to remove this requirement given that it’s inconsistent with other self-government arrangements.
When the time came and the opportunity arose, I informed my counterparts, and they are all worked within their governments. I can only presume they saw it necessary, as the required authorities, to provide to me the messages of support that they provided.
Similarly, I work at the officials’ levels in concert with the Yukon government, and I engaged at the assistant deputy minister level in that engagement with the Yukon government. I was given written assurances of their support for this amendment and then again, this spring. As recently as in the last couple of months, I re-engaged with all of those parties to confirm that we were planning to proceed with the introduction of this legislation, and was again given assurances that all 11 Yukon self-governing First Nations and the Yukon government were in support of proceeding.
Senator Coyle: Thank you.
The Chair: The floor is still open if senators have questions.
[Translation]
Senator Audette: I am thinking of all those listening to us to celebrate the great patience and perseverance of the nations that you have worked with.
I understand it has been 27 years since we started working with you. When a nation goes to your website to begin the processes we have heard about today, I understand that it can take about six years if it does not go to court. COVID did not exist at that time. Why does your website say that it does not take as long as it actually does, since we know it takes much longer?
[English]
The Chair: Would anyone like to answer?
Mr. McLaughlin: Senator, I’m not sure which area of the website that you are referencing, but we can certainly look at that. It may be referencing another type of agreement, perhaps, than we’re talking about today.
Senator Audette: Probably. We’ll send you the website, from the federal government. It’s in a good way, so we can all understand.
Mr. McLaughlin: Yes.
Senator Audette: Thank you.
Senator Tannas: I just wanted to build on Senator Audette’s question with respect to loans that we’ve seen in the past. I recall Yale First Nation. I was the sponsor of their self-government agreement in 2013, and they had significant loans, and so I’m delighted to hear that there’s now kind of contribution agreements rather than loans. Is that every negotiation that carries on right now? Or do you even have any other negotiations under way right now? Could you confirm that the loan process is no longer in play in any of your negotiations? Thank you.
Mr. McLaughlin: Mr. Pridham, I’m wondering if that is something that you might be positioned to speak to.
I can certainly say, senator, in regard to the self-government negotiations that we’re engaged in, as well as modern treaty negotiations, that there are no loans.
Senator Tannas: That’s great news. Thank you.
Mr. Haberl: I’ll just quickly add, I think it was about three years ago that the government made a policy decision to dispense with the policy of loans being recouped as part of the settlement arrangement in the case of a modern treaty. It was never in the case of self-government alone, but whenever there was a modern treaty arrangement, that was one of the methods of supporting the nation in its negotiations, was to loan money and then recoup it as part of the settlement payments.
That system was dispensed with about three years ago. All the loans that existed were written off and ceased to exist, and, in fact, all the loans that had been repaid by current modern treaty partners were reimbursed or are being reimbursed. We’re in the midst of that process. It’s a five-year package of reimbursements. All the treaty partners that I work with, for example, are all getting that money back in the form of a five-year reimbursement program.
Senator Tannas: That’s millions of dollars back into the hands of communities, right? I mean, I remember in the case of Yale, it was a very large number.
Mr. Haberl: I think it’s north of a billion dollars, senator.
Senator Tannas: Isn’t that incredible? Wow. Thank you. Here’s to happy days for the community. Thank you.
The Chair: Senators, are there other questions for our witnesses? Seeing no hands raised, the time for this panel is now complete.
I wish to thank all the departmental officials for joining us today. We will now proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-10, An Act to give effect to the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement, to amend the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act and the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts.
Before we begin, I would like to remind senators of a few points. The government officials from both CIRNAC and Justice will remain in the meeting with us today to answer any questions on technical aspects of the bill.
If, at any point, a senator is not clear where we are in the process, please ask for clarification. I want to ensure that we all have the same understanding.
If a senator is opposed to an entire clause, I would remind you that in committee the proper process is to vote against the clause as standing as part of the bill.
Finally, I wish to remind senators that if there is any uncertainty as to the result of a voice vote or a show of hands, the most effective route is to request a roll call vote, which provides unambiguous results. Senators are aware that any tied vote negates the motion in question.
With that, are there any questions before we proceed? No questions? Okay.
Is it agreed that the committee proceeds to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill S-10, An Act to give effect to the Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement, to amend the Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act and the Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts?
Agreed or not?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Is it agreed that the clauses be grouped according to the three parts of the bill as described in the table of provisions?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay. Shall Part 1, entitled “Anishinabek Nation Governance Agreement Act,” which contains clauses 1 to 7, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall Part 2, entitled “Sechelt Indian Band Self-Government Act,” which contains clauses 8 to 47, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall Part 3, entitled “Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act,” which contains clause 48, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the schedule carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Senator Patterson: If I may, Mr. Chair, and forgive me for putting this in the Zoom chat, but I think we heard from several witnesses or from both witnesses, the Grand Council Chief Niganobe and Chief Paull, that these agreements took a very long time to settle, and it wasn’t the fault of the First Nations involved. They had consistency throughout. So it seemed that the recommendation of Chief Paull was that, as much as possible, there not be a turnover in federal negotiators.
I know we heard from the representatives of the government that they had done their best to have continuity and the like, but I think it’s an important observation to make. In my experience with other agreements of this kind, the feds do tend to change negotiators. Sometimes it occurs with a change of government, and I think it might be a worthwhile observation to consider making.
By the way, I am anxious to see us leave the pandemic behind because it always seems to be an excuse for delays when we ask these questions of government. I do think it wouldn’t hurt for us to make the observation that, wherever possible, there should be continuity in negotiations on the federal side.
I’ve heard this over and over again. The BC Treaty Commission, the stories there are legion about negotiators changing and the lack of clarity on mandates. I think it applies to these two agreements that they took so long and we got this advice from both witnesses, and I think we should pay respect to that in our observations.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Patterson.
Rule 12-16(1)(d) allows us to go in camera to discuss a draft report. Does the committee wish to discuss observations in camera?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: We will now suspend and go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)
(The committee resumed in public.)
The Chair: Okay, we are back in public. Is it agreed that I report the bill to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Okay, that’s great. Thank you, everyone. Thank you for all of your input. I really appreciate your input this evening. It was a lot of work, and we got it done. If there are no comments or questions, we will adjourn.
(The committee adjourned.)