Minister, welcome. In June 2023, the House of Commons and the Senate accepted to speed up the process in approving Bill C-51, the self-government treaty recognizing the Whitecap Dakota Nation.

We bent over backward to make it happen because we were told this was time-sensitive legislation. Since then, the government has not begun negotiations with the Whitecap Dakota First Nation to redress the denial of their rights.

Minister, I’ll ask you the same request I asked Senator Gold: Does the government understand that its obligation under the agreement to negotiate with the Whitecap Dakota Nation is an urgent matter, and can you explain this disconnect?

Thank you, Senator Tannas, and thank you to the house for the passage of Bill C-51.

Many of the Saskatchewan senators were in attendance when we did the formal signing back in 2023. I believe it was July 31 or around that time. Then, as you know, earlier this year, in the summer, we did a formal apology to the Dakota-Lakota acknowledging the hurt that was caused to them.

In the interim, we’ve had a number of conversations, senator, with the Whitecap, and as late as about a month ago, I had instructed the department to commence discussions on the nature and scope of what going forward looks like. We hope to co‑develop a path that will enable us to have a very concise discussion on the issues around treaties, and I look forward to its completion.

Our resources have also been stretched this year with the number of treaties we’ve completed in British Columbia, but we do look forward to working with the Whitecap toward a treaty.

Thank you for that. It’s specifically resources that I want to ask about. Parliament has adopted the Whitecap treaty and the Haida Nation Recognition Act as well as recent changes to the First Nations Fiscal Management Act, and we’re not sure that any of those have received any kind of funding authorizations to go with the negotiation since Royal Assent.

When will these approved legislations receive the needed financial attention and negotiation?

Thank you, senator. With the Haida, in short order, I believe you will get good news on where we are at. With Whitecap, we will continue to do the work. There are other treaties in the process of being concluded as we speak.

What I can say categorically is that the resources are available. They are scarce, but they are available, and we have closed more treaties this year than I would say any other year in the last three decades. I think that’s very significant, and we will continue that work next year.

Thank you, senator. I think I answered a very similar question that was just posed by Senator Tannas. However, let me reaffirm our commitment to the Whitecap Dakota and that we will continue to work with them.

I have had many conversations with Chief Bear and have visited him a number of times. The assurance that my deputy minister, Val Gideon, and I have is to work toward giving life to the act that was passed here last year.

Thank you, senator. It would be inappropriate for me to negotiate in this house. This is something that we need to negotiate and discuss with the Whitecap, and this is certainly something that I’m alive to.

I do wish to assure you that we will get to an equitable solution that will live up to the aspirations of the Whitecap Dakota.

Thank you, Minister Anandasangaree, for being with us. I don’t want you to think that this is ganging up on you regarding the issues of the Dakota and the Lakota, but in your response to Senator Tannas, you didn’t use the word “negotiations.” You used the word “discussions” that you authorized. Words have meaning. That concerns me a little bit.

I think you might anticipate where this question is going because you and I have discussed it informally.

Land and inadequate provisions for the Dakota and Lakota in that regard is an obvious place to start, as you yourself noted, with respect to, in Saskatchewan, the Treaty Land Entitlement Framework Agreement as a model, time-tested and used in the past to resolve Treaty Land Entitlement shortfall for 33 First Nations. I think, as you would agree, one of the points here is that First Nations were shorted.

Will you commit to negotiating treaty land and title agreements with those long-overlooked First Nations?

Thank you, senator. Let me be as clear as I can be in terms of the language.

I have a mandate to negotiate elements of what must be negotiated. I don’t have the full mandate. The initial discussions through which we will co-develop the negotiating mandate will require me to get approval for further discussions. That is the path that I’m outlining here, and that’s the discussion that we’ve offered and that took place initially. It hasn’t gone far yet, and I can assure you that my commitment is to have that conversation through our negotiators and ensure that there is a co-developed path that will have the authorities for us to work on negotiations with the Whitecap.

I guess you would understand that the enthusiasm we had 18 months ago, which Senator Tannas spoke to, and the enthusiasm twice at Whitecap Dakota raised expectations for a lot of people. When will you have that mandate?

Senator, we have moved in an unprecedented time frame with the Whitecap Dakota, and, unfortunately, that may seem difficult for this house to recognize, but we have moved at an unprecedented rate. The apology we offered this summer — some of you were there for that — was also an important element of the work we’re doing with the Dakota and Lakota overall. Our commitment is to ensure that we have a proper self-government agreement with the Whitecap, which I will undertake to continue.

Welcome, minister. Three days ago, an article in the Toronto Star stated, “He —” meaning you, minister “— is the embodiment of the crown.” Some readers might brush that off as hyperbole. It is not. Particularly in relation to your sincere, heartfelt apology to the nine Dakota First Nations at Whitecap this summer, words matter.

However, what matters now is that the Crown move beyond words and create a parity with other treaty First Nations.

Three of my colleagues here today are advancing using a Treaty Land Entitlement framework process, a well-established and definitive tool that can fulfill the treaty covenant between the Crown, the Dakota First Nations and the Creator.

Minister, would you please describe what you gleaned about — or your understanding of — the Whitecap Dakota First Nation’s views on the treaty?

Sir, let me just distinguish the Whitecap from other Lakota and Dakota First Nations that were the subject of the apology. When we were at the apology this past summer, I had a chance to meet with every one of the Dakota and Lakota First Nations that were the subject of the apology. There is definitely no consensus in terms of what the next steps are from all of them.

However, we have moved forward with the Whitecap, given that there is recognition of their government, and, as I indicated earlier, we are working toward discussions that will lead toward a treaty that could incorporate some of the things that you’re talking about. However, I don’t want to presuppose what those discussions will be. I have a generally good idea what the issues are, including, potentially, agriculture benefits and issues around other elements of the treaty in order to attain parity, but I don’t think it’s appropriate for me to presuppose that before those discussions take place.

Thank you, minister. Can you please assure the chamber that you, as an embodiment of the Crown, are willing to consider the Treaty Land Entitlement process as a model for parity? It’s a ready-made model for implementation of the treaty in a modern context. If not, why not?

Senator, our department will undertake to co-develop a framework with the Whitecap Dakota, based on their wishes and aspirations, and that is the framework that we would follow.