Implementation deal may be imminent

Page 12

An announcement of a new process to oversee implementation of modern day land claim and self-government agreements may come in early October.

If it does become a reality it will be in large part because of a document prepared by a coalition of seven Indigenous nations that have signed self-government agreements with Canada.

Government sources say the Prime Minister's Office (PMO) is taking the concerns raised in the document to heart. Jim Aldridge, general legal counsel for the Nisga'a Lisims government, confirmed that on Sept. 29. "We get the sense that we are being taken seriously," he said. "Let's put it this way, we haven't been brushed off."

The coalition has offered to work together with the federal government to find a solution to several serious complaints.

Last November, more than 350 people associated with groups that have finalized land claim agreements met for two days in Ottawa for a conference entitled "Redefining Relationships: Learning from a decade of land claim implementation."

They identified several key elements and concluded that it must be recognized that it is the federal Crown, not Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) that is the partner in land claim and self-government agreements if the relationship is to be a healthy one. There must be a federal commitment to move beyond "mere technical compliance" to the agreements to build a new relationship with self-governing nations. And a body that is independent from INAC must oversee how things are progressing.

It was in March that a 20-page policy discussion paper was sent, along with a letter, to Prime Minister Paul Martin urging fundamental reforms to "the federal government's approach toward implementation of land claim agreements-modern treaties." A copy of the paper was only recently acquired by this publication.

The leaders of the Council of Yukon First Nations, the Grand Council of the Crees, the Gwich'in Tribal Council, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, the Nisga'a Lisims Government, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. and the Sahtu Secretariat were signatories of the letter. Senior officials of all the group members signed the policy paper. The group calls itself the Land Claim Agreement Coalition (LCAC).

They reminded the prime minister that Auditor General Sheila Fraser had audited the management of two of the agreements-10 years after they were signed-and concluded that INAC officials "had not worked to support the full intent of the land claim agreements."

Many officials with LCAC member organizations have long complained that implementation of agreements was not a priority with the department. The report makes those complaints public.

"There is growing frustration with the federal government's approach to implementing agreements," the letter to the prime minister states, "and unmistakable signs that the original good will and hope generated with the signing of these agreements is being undermined."

The letter adds that "federal agencies, in particular Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, take the view that agreements are successfully implemented if federal contractual commitments have been discharged in a way that withstands legal challenge. This is a minimalist view that prevents agreements from delivering to us the full range of rights and benefits that we negotiated. Federal agencies have lost sight of the objectives of these agreements."

LCAC again quoted the auditor general in the letter.

"INAC seems focused on fulfilling the letter of the land claims implementation plan but not the spirit. Officials may believe that they have met their obligations, but in fact they have not worked to support the full intent of the land claims agreements," Fraser reported.

LCAC called for "a new attitude."

"What is called for is a change in the perspective, indeed in the very culture of the government of Canada in respect of its view of the new relationship set out in land claims and self-government agreeents," the report states.

The coalition proposes that it should work directly with the Cabinet Committee on Aboriginal Affairs "to formulate and adopt a clear statement of measurable objectives."

Edward Allen, the chief executive officer of the Nisga'a Lisims government, said the coalition members find that some federal departments "are more informed than others" when it comes to understanding the concept of a nation to nation comprehensive land claim. Some sources in government say that many officials do not believe in the concept of a third order of Aboriginal government. Those officials continue to act like Indian agents by treating the Aboriginal parties as junior, rather than equal, partners. The report touched carefully on this problem.

"The members of the coalition are not aware of any policy having been explicitly adopted by the government of Canada that the objectives of entering into the agreement are to be forgotten or ignored once it has obtained the Aboriginal signatures on the document. And yet that has become the entrenched attitude of department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development," it states.

"This attitude has led at least some of the Aboriginal peoples who have entered in good faith into these modern land claim agreements to conclude that there have been deliberate, continuing efforts on the part of the federal Crown to minimize, frustrate and even extinguish the rights and benefits that Aboriginal parties expected would accrue from their treaties."

Allen said there are negotiations underway that could see changes in this area. He could not comment further. Aldridge confirmed that but also would not comment further.

"These are delicate times," he said.

But he left the impression that something would happen soon.

Aldridge said when all the nations with modern treaties spoke with one voice and were backed up by the auditor general, it carried a lot of weight with the PMO.

"We believe there are two key elements. We ned a system of measuring results against objectives. And there must be a mechanism so that all departments in government are aware of the requirement to act in conformity with the new relationship the modern land claim agreements represent," he said.