Forgive the debt if table shows no promise, says commissioner

While Sophie Pierre is confident that recent changes implemented by the federal government for treaty negotiations will help move First Nations toward a strong economic base for self-government, she says there is still one important component missing.

“When there doesn’t appear to be real ability to finalize a treaty anytime soon, (the government) has to be setting aside the debt,” said Pierre, who recently had her contract as Chief British Columbia Treaty Commissioner extended a year.

The debt being accrued by First Nations mired in treaty negotiations is one reason why the federal government revamped the process.

“We have some negotiations that are obviously not going anywhere… (and) this is not fair to the First Nation community because they’re hurting the liability for the future in terms of loan liabilities,” said John Duncan, federal minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

However, the three-pillar approach the government is now embracing does not include forgiving the debt, in whole or in part, and that is a significant issue that Pierre said she will continue to push.

Instead, the government is talking about walking away from negotiation tables in which First Nations have accrued incredible debt and a settlement is not foreseen.

“Some of those liabilities were getting to a point where it was hard to imagine that the treaty would actually achieve more than the negotiating costs,” said Duncan.

Treaties represent more than money, Pierre said, but there has to be a practical side to negotiating a settlement.

“The whole point of treaty is to get out from under the Indian Act, to be self-sustaining, to be self-sufficient, to be self-governing. In order to do that, you have to have the resources, both by having access to the land for economic development but you also need to have cash,” she said.

But if the signing of treaties is too far down the road, Pierre embraces the government’s move to implement other agreements that will help First Nations achieve self-sustainability and economic viability in the interim.

“For some tables, for whatever reason… they’re not in the position to further a negotiation … (so) this opens the door for other benefits that can flow to the First Nation now instead of waiting until some day in the future when there may or may not be a treaty,” she said.

But Derek Nepinak, grand chief of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, is wary about a process that would abandon negotiating tables that aren’t deemed to have the potential of leading to a signed treaty. There are three treaties being negotiated in Manitoba.

“Recently in the last year, the federal government began implementing a take-it-or-leave-it policy when it comes to claims and outstanding negotiations for specific claims happening here in treaty territory. They were making final offers for full and final settlement and in some cases, communities took these full and final settlements simply because they didn’t have anywhere else to go, they didn’t have any other options to continue pushing even though they seriously compromised themselves by accepting these particular take-it-or-leave it offers,” he said. “I see this process rolling into this scenario with treaty negotiations.”

Regional Chief Stan Beardy of the Chiefs of Ontario shares those concerns. There are six treaties being negotiated in Ontario.
“Who determines what is meaningful input into treaty negotiations?” he asked. “What constitutes practical solutions? I don’t know what indicators are used to determine that.”

Duncan said whether a negotiating table is worth the focus and resources for continued talks will be determined by those sitting around each negotiation table.

According to the AANDC Website, there are 93 negotiation tables open at this point, with 52 of those occurring in B.C.

In B.C., First Nations have reached the 20 year anniversary of the treaty process and have little to show for it.

“I don’t think anybody is where we thought we would be when we started this 20 years ago, because 20 years ago it was expected by the year 2000 we would be finished,” said Pierre.
Movement has occurred in treaty negotiations since the process was revamped, said Duncan.

“We just did announce seven new treaty mandates in British Columbia, for example, and we’re making great progress in some other negotiation tables across the country, a couple of which have drawn out for 30 years, but we think those are actually productive tables at this point because I think there’s a growing recognition that we mean business and we want to get things either concluded or let’s not bother keeping it going,” he said.
Duncan said that both sides–the federal government and First Nations–need to take responsibility for the slow progress and, in some cases, no progress at all.

“I think it could fall on either party. I’m not trying to attribute or apportion blame, but obviously we were equally to be blamed,” he said. “People went to meetings and so if there was no drive to take it to the finish line these meetings just kind of went on and on and on.”

The government is also hoping to speed up the process, which, Pierre says, is bogged down by the need for too many departmental approvals.

“We were very pleased to hear that one of the commitments that the government had made was to streamline its own internal processes,” she said. However, Pierre would like to see the government go a step further in giving the mandate to a single government official.

“The negotiations really need to be with the government of Canada and not with one department.”

Pierre said that many of the changes implemented by the government reflect recommendations that have come through reports tabled by a number of organizations including the BC Treaty Commission, the Auditor General, and the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples.

“This decision was not taken in a vacuum,” said Duncan. “I’ve talked to other chiefs, who are saying … they like the fact that we’re demonstrating that we actually mean business.”