Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 4 - Evidence - February 25, 2014
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 25, 2014
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, to which was referred Bill C-16, An Act to give effect to the Governance Agreement with Sioux Valley Dakota Nation and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, met this day at 9:34 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator Dennis Glen Patterson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. I would like to welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, either here in the room or via CPAC or the Web. I'm Dennis Patterson from Nunavut, Chair of the committee. Our mandate is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada generally. This morning, we will begin consideration of Bill C-16, An Act to give effect to the Governance Agreement with Sioux Valley Dakota Nation and to make consequential amendments to other acts.
This morning we'll hear from two groups of witnesses representing the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation, and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada.
Before proceeding to testimony, I would like to go around the table and ask the members of the committee to please introduce themselves, beginning with our deputy chair.
Senator Dyck: I'm Lillian Dyck from Saskatchewan.
Senator Watt: Charlie Watt from Nunavik.
Senator Cordy: I'm Jane Cordy from Nova Scotia.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: I'm Senator Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick.
Senator Sibbeston: Nick Sibbeston from the Northwest Territories.
Senator Meredith: Senator Don Meredith, Ontario.
Senator Raine: Senator Nancy Greene Raine from B.C.
Senator Wallace: John Wallace from New Brunswick.
Senator Beyak: Senator Lynn Beyak from northwestern Ontario.
Senator Ngo: Senator Ngo from Ontario.
The Chair: Thank you. Members of the committee, please help me welcome our witnesses. From the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation, we have Chief Vincent Tacan, and Bruce Slusar, Tribal Attorney. From the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, we are joined by Stephen Peltz, Senior Negotiator, Negotiations-Central. Welcome, Mr. Peltz. We also have: Mr. Blake McLaughlin, Senior Director, Negotiations — Central, and Lee Webber, Legal Counsel.
Witnesses, we look forward to your presentations, which will be followed by questions from the senators. We'll do this as a panel. We'll hear first from the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation. Please go ahead.
Vincent Tacan, Chief, Sioux Valley Dakota Nation: Good morning. Thank you for this opportunity to speak before you. The Sioux Valley Dakota Nation began the process toward self-government in 1988. The idea of self-government was presented to us by our late then-chief Robert Bone. At first, the community wasn't too sure what to think about self-government, but, as the years rolled on, we started to embrace the idea and saw that this was something that the community wanted to do.
Following that, the agreement to negotiate a self-government arrangement for Sioux Valley Dakota Nation was signed in 1991. In 1992, the Province of Manitoba joined in, and a tripartite arrangement was signed as well with the province.
Since that time, we've had successive chiefs and councils who have consistently supported the self-government negotiation initiative.
A Comprehensive Agreement-in-Principle was achieved in 2001. Negotiation of the Sioux Valley draft agreement began in January 2005. In concert with our negotiator, Mr. Bruce Slusar, we consulted with our community and our elders and developed a final draft agreement, which was signed in June 2011, representing the completion of the negotiation of the agreements.
We took the agreements to the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation for a four-month period of discussion and information sharing. We relied on our elders to provide guidance and maintain communication with our community members. Our young people were instrumental in getting this agreement passed, which indicates that they want positive change for the community. After this discussion period, the people of Sioux Valley Dakota Nation voted overwhelmingly in favour of accepting the agreements.
These agreements provided the opportunity to emerge from under the Indian Act. For Sioux Valley, this is important based on our experience, and represents the driving force to attain self-government.
Historically, we were independent, successful farmers. I remember growing up and hearing stories about how our community was thriving and it seemed to be going well for the community. Somewhere along the way, things changed for us. That was in the late 1800s. We were then known as the Oak River Dakota Reserve.
Our elders recounted the information we've learned over the years in that Indian agents successfully imposed departmental policies and brought in a permit system which controlled everything we did. I still remember stories of how our people used to be under the thumb of the Indian agent and it was very difficult to do anything. In hearing the stories it was difficult, in this day and age, to understand how such an arrangement could have been in place — permission to leave the community, permission to sell grain products that they had grown. As well, they usually didn't receive the best price for product. It seemed things were not in favour of the community at that point.
The departmental policies restrained people from purchasing better equipment, kept them from handling their own financial affairs, which involved buying and selling equipment, obtaining financing to purchase equipment, livestock and whatever they felt they needed to improve their situation.
Today, I am a farmer and rancher, and I understand how such activities can be so crippling. I recall that when I initially got going in farming, we still had some remnants of the Indian Act in place; I had to use a voucher to purchase equipment and those sorts of things. This is not the way other people do business. It doesn't give you any bargaining power. I could see some of the things that our farmers experienced when they were trying to create a future for themselves.
These policies, combined with the experience of the Indian residential schools, contributed to social dysfunction and disharmony in our community, which our community has struggled with and struggles with today.
In October 1898, three of our leaders travelled to Ottawa to meet with the Indian Affairs minister and discuss the permit system and the troubles faced as a result of the constraints of the Indian Act. It is this spirit of political engagement where we can go forth in order to create change, which has driven our efforts to attain self-government.
Today, our community has worked hard to improve in the areas of health, education, assisting our families with improving their social positioning, strengthening our language and cultural awareness, and building a strong economy that will lead to self-sustainment and benefits for our community.
Knowing our Dakota history from the time of contact through to the time of attaining our reserve lands and our foundation of agricultural enterprise, before the imposition of the Indian Act permitting system, allows us to understand our present circumstances. It illustrates why the self-government agreements are so important to the future of our Sioux Valley Dakota Nation.
As the chief of the last four years, I've seen how difficult it is to work under the Indian Act. Safe drinking water is always a concern for the community. I remember this past year putting in requests for funding to buy water trucks. When it takes eight months to get the resources to purchase those essential items, it makes things difficult and hard for community members at large when they don't understand what we have to deal with as leaders in our community to get these things working and have safe drinking water.
That's an example of some of the things that create difficulties for us in trying to provide a better life for our community members on reserve.
With the recognition and passage of the self-government agreements, this will provide us with a host of opportunities: for recognition as a Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Government; for improving and strengthening our relationship with Canada and the Province of Manitoba so we can move forward together as equals; to manage our Sioux Valley Dakota Nation by making laws in over 50 substantial areas of jurisdiction as the federal and provincial governments do; by providing for a Sioux Valley Dakota Nation constitution with processes to develop Sioux Valley Dakota Nation laws for Sioux Valley Dakota Nation lands; and for people to organize Sioux Valley Dakota Nation without having to seek the permission of the department and its ministers.
In my travels and the rare opportunities to meet with other chiefs, one of the common things I hear is that it's too difficult to get the consent and agreement to move on with projects that chiefs feel are worthwhile in their communities. That is one of the things that I hear time and again. As I've moved along as chief of the community, I start to see more and more how much we need to get out of the Indian Act so we can start to do the things that make sense for us.
One of the things that will also happen as a result of putting the agreement into effect is that we would be able to manage our finances and be accountable to our Sioux Valley Dakota Nation band members. This seems to be one of the more important things for us, in the last little while, as a community going into self-government. We recognize the need to manage our finances in a responsible way so that our community members can receive the most benefits.
These agreements build upon what was the historical relationship between Sioux Valley Dakota Nation and the Crown of Great Britain, now represented by the Crown in right of Canada. They will provide a foundation for a renewed nation-to-nation relationship which will recognize our role as a self-governing Dakota Nation, and move forward in a spirit of cooperation with the Governments of Canada and Manitoba.
Of importance is that the self-government agreements also allow Sioux Valley Dakota Nation the opportunity to continue to pursue our claim for additional lands and redress for the damages we suffered by departmental policies and representatives of the past. Sioux Valley Dakota Nation commenced a claim involving these issues that it continues to pursue and which, through a lot of hard work and dialogue, has achieved a memorandum of understanding with Canada for the purpose of discussing the development of a process to achieve an enduring reconciliation with the Crown. Those discussions will begin immediately.
These self-government agreements are an important step towards building, creating and ensuring an enduring reconciliation.
The agreements also provide opportunities to continue negotiations, to broaden law-making powers, to enter into further agreements that strengthen the relationship with Canada and Manitoba, to resolve disputes as they may arise, and to build a Sioux Valley Dakota Nation economy to sustain the education, training, employment and health of members for today and for the future.
One of the things that happened in the last little while was that we experienced flooding in 2011, and it was a difficult time. It seems like every time I'm elected as chief, there's always a flood or something happening in our community. So I thankfully had a little bit of experience in this area as a councillor before.
One of the things I found really upsetting was that I really had no authority in the community. In terms of national disasters, the power rests with the province. I attended a meeting recently with the people who are charged with handling the jurisdiction over natural disasters. I was told that they don't recognize the chief and councils of the communities; they recognize the department, because the department, overall, is responsible for natural disasters.
So we really didn't have a voice in that situation. With these agreements, I believe we're in a better position to respond in a timely manner to some of the issues that come up. We hope bad things don't happen, but in the event that they do, we'd be in a better position to deal with them. Therefore we've had different experiences with not only the federal side of things but the provincial side as well.
Another thing is that we can't seem to attract outside business investments. Before the information sessions, when we were meeting with our community members, I happened to run into an individual who was looking for skilled people to run a third shift in a manufacturing facility that made tanks for the oil field industry. He was looking for a night shift.
He was in a location where there was insufficient housing, and it was quite a distance from our community. I offered the use of a building and training dollars to subsidize the hiring of skilled people to take over what was basically a third shift for him. I also told him that the housing wouldn't be an issue; we had people there, and they were skilled. I couldn't seem to entice him to come to my community to set up a third shift for his business.
It makes it difficult. No one will come right out and say, ``Your reserve isn't stable as a result of lack of laws, policies, leases and those sorts of things,'' but I knew that was the reason things didn't turn out at that point.
That was one experience; however, to date, I can't recall a flood of people coming to the community looking to set up business enterprises in my First Nation. It's really difficult to attract business.
We value and welcome the opportunity of the self-government agreements. We're hoping they will provide, create and build the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation, in a vision consistent with our membership and citizens, for their benefit.
In closing, I want to acknowledge late Chief Robert Bone, who managed to secure the table around which we have had an opportunity to present our thoughts and feelings on this path to self-government. His experiences are probably similar to mine. He had been a chief for a number of years, and I'm pretty sure he had experienced the frustration that exists today, as have most chiefs.
When I initially looked at self-government, I was a little bit skeptical. But having had the opportunity to work with the Indian Act, the policies and the information that's required today from the department, as well as all the reporting and all the different things that have to go on to make a community work, I now see the need to find a new arrangement, something that will make it easier for us to provide the services that our people need.
Everyone is familiar with the issues in the community, and I believe that Chief Robert wanted to address all the problems that persisted then and persist today. When we had the community information sessions, it was encouraging that the young people were showing up in force. They were engaged; they really wanted to look at a new vision for the community. They want a chance for employment and a chance for housing, like every other Canadian. They want a chance to be able to showcase their talent and they want a chance to participate in the economy.
It was really encouraging when they came out and supported the agreement. To this day, they're still hopeful. They seem to have optimism now. It's not as gloomy as it was when we didn't seem to have any sense of a future for our community. That's one of the things that motivates me to stay on this path and talk about the agreements, and then hopefully see some of the positive benefits as a result of this agreement.
I also want to thank the elders for their participation. They've provided a lot of oversight as well, and they've provided support and encouragement. They've been involved in the process since day one. Some of the elders have been involved for over 20 years, sitting at the table, listening to the discussions and making sure that things were done in a way that would only better our situation. To date, I think they're happy for the most part with the way things are going. They're also encouraged about what to expect in the future, so they're remaining optimistic as well.
We always have a small handful of people, however, who may disagree with what is new and unfamiliar to them, but I think this is something that's left over from the residential school experience. There's a real need for healing in the community on that front. Hopefully that's one of the things that we'll work on in the community in the next little while.
Thank you for listening. I look forward to answering any questions you may have.
The Chair: Thank you for an excellent presentation, Chief Tacan.
Mr. Slusar, did you wish to add some comments?
Bruce Slusar, Tribal Attorney, Sioux Valley Dakota Nation: I was just going to briefly supplement what the chief had spoken about.
Thank you for the opportunity to present to you this morning. Further to Chief Tacan's comments and information, I wanted to mention that, from both a legal and a negotiating perspective, there are several things that are important about the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation self-government agreements. Hopefully this will facilitate some of our discussion to come this morning: First, these agreements are not a treaty.
That's very important from the perspective that they're not like the numbered treaties on the Prairies and they are unlike the modern-day treaties that are emerging in British Columbia. The Sioux Valley Dakota Nation has not exchanged, given up or modified its rights with respect to either Aboriginal title and/or rights and/or treaty rights. That's an important point, because the second important element of these arrangements is that they have left open the opportunity for the purpose of continuing discussions and negotiations with respect to settling outstanding issues that have been an issue for some time.
Thankfully, as a result of a lot of hard work, there is a process. As late as last week, the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation chief and council signed a memorandum of understanding that will facilitate discussion towards ultimately seeking a mandate to negotiate some of these outstanding issues; and then for that purpose, seeking a pathway to an enduring reconciliation of those issues.
What we have here is a self-government agreement; and that self-government agreement, therefore, was negotiated in a spirit of being rights-neutral, if we can call it that. Hence, clauses 5 and 6 are significant disclaimers indicating that this is not a treaty and will not affect or impact the Aboriginal and/or treaty rights of Sioux Valley Dakota Nation.
Of course, central to the self-government agreements, as Chief Tacan has indicated, is the recognition of Sioux Valley Dakota Oyate Government as a government according to its constitution and, of course, recognition by Canada, and pursuant to the tripartite agreement by the Province of Manitoba. Studies have shown that First Nations that have the ability to design their governments consistent with their cultural values and traditions do much better than those that have another form of government or governance imposed upon them through legislation such as the Indian Act. Sioux Valley Dakota Nation can take advantage of this opportunity to create its laws, regulations, policy and design its government for the purpose of governing and operating Sioux Valley Dakota Nation according to its vision based upon its historical traditions.
Sioux Valley Dakota Nation has the opportunity to legislate in a significant number of areas, probably around 50 or so. This is very important because not only is it in a position to legislate under what is typically known as section 91 British North America Act federal jurisdictions but also under areas of provincial jurisdiction listed in section 92 of the British North America Act. It can do so with recognition by both the federal government and the provincial government with the accompanying tripartite agreement. This provides Sioux Valley Dakota Nation with a comprehensive opportunity to legislate and to build in standards, for example with education, to meet or exceed provincial standards; to enter into agreements with provincial departments, such as child and family services, for example, and to harmonize the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation laws with off-reserve service providers subject to those provincial laws. As well, these agreements provide an opportunity to work with Health Canada officials and their counterparts in the Manitoba health department and systems to coordinate and integrate Sioux Valley Dakota Nation laws for the purpose of enhancing health services to be provided on Sioux Valley Dakota Nation lands.
All of the above translates into the necessity for the three governments to work together at a very high level of coordination. The hope is that this high level of coordination and cooperation should translate over time into a stronger and healthier relationship at all levels; and this should begin to close the gaps of disparity as all three levels of government move forward to create a more prosperous and healthy society within Canada.
Those are my comments. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you, Chief Tacan and Mr. Slusar. With the committee's agreement, we should go right into hearing from AANDC, if you'll hold your questions. I will just mention that our clerk, on the advice of steering, invited the Government of Manitoba to come today. Communication from them indicated that their legal counsel had been in touch with his counterparts in Ottawa on this matter. If the witnesses from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada can enlighten us a bit on any of those communications this morning, it might be helpful.
I understand Mr. McLaughlin will be the sole presenter for the department this morning.
Blake McLaughlin, Senior Director, Negotiations — Central, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning. It's a pleasure to appear before the committee, and we thank you for the opportunity to discuss Bill C-16 with you.
As honourable senators are aware, the bill will give effect to the Governance Agreement with Sioux Valley Dakota Nation. The Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Self-Government Agreement is the twentieth agreement dealing with self- government signed by the Government of Canada involving a total of 34 Aboriginal communities. Most self- government arrangements are part of a land claim agreement. Some, like this one with Sioux Valley, are stand-alone agreements. This is the first self-government agreement in any of the Prairie provinces. This historic legislation shows that positive results can be achieved through partnership and dialogue. At its most basic, the proposed legislation will enshrine in the laws of Canada a new government-to-government relationship between Sioux Valley Dakota Nation and Canada. It will establish Canada's recognition of the Sioux Valley Dakota Oyate Government. This will allow the people of Sioux Valley Dakota Nation to have a government of their own design free from the paternalistic constraints imposed by the Indian Act — a government accountable not to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development but rather to its own people. With this agreement in place, decisions that affect Sioux Valley Dakota Nation will be made by Sioux Valley Dakota Nation without the Government of Canada looking over its shoulder.
The community will set its own course based on its needs and priorities. It will make and enforce its own laws, which will operate together with federal and provincial laws and within the Canadian constitutional framework. The community will have full authority to manage its economy. It will be able to establish, license and regulate businesses on reserve lands. It will control natural resource development on its reserve lands, including environmental assessment processes for potential projects. Decisions on subjects ranging from housing and water to education and health services will be made by Sioux Valley Dakota Nation. In other words, and it was expressed by Sioux Valley Dakota Nation Chief Tacan at the ceremony where the agreement was signed last August, it will be able to do the things that other people and governments take for granted.
Those are some of the things that this agreement will do, Mr. Chair. However, other important matters will not change. The self-government agreement is not a treaty or a land claim agreement. It will not alter any constitutionally protected rights that Sioux Valley Dakota Nation might have to lands or natural resources or other benefits; and it will not create or recognize any such rights for Sioux Valley Dakota Nation. The people of Sioux Valley Dakota Nation will continue to be recognized as status Indians under the Indian Act. This will ensure their continued access to the wide range of programs and services offered to status Indians by federal agencies.
The governance agreement sets out the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation jurisdiction in over 50 areas, but they will not be required to exercise all jurisdictions immediately. As Sioux Valley Dakota Nation exercises its jurisdictions, corresponding Indian Act provisions will cease to apply on their lands. This will ensure that there are no gaps in the law. At all times in each area of jurisdiction covered by the Indian Act, either an Indian Act provision or a Sioux Valley Dakota Nation will apply. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will apply, and other laws such as the Criminal Code will continue to apply. This will ensure that the interests of all people on Sioux Valley Dakota Nation land are protected.
I emphasize, Mr. Chair, that these and other provisions of the agreement that will be brought into effect by the passage of this bill are the product of extensive negotiation and consultation. Sioux Valley Dakota Nation and the Government of Canada began the negotiations that culminated in this agreement in 1991. The Province of Manitoba joined them at the table in 1993. In 2001, these negotiations led to a comprehensive agreement in principle between Canada and Sioux Valley Dakota Nation. At the same time, a corresponding tripartite agreement-in-principle was signed to reflect Manitoba's interest and participation.
These agreements-in-principle represented a key step forward. They set out a foundation for the negotiation of the final self-government agreement. Working from this foundation, negotiators arrived at draft agreements that were initialled by all three parties in June 2011.
Although Manitoba is not party to the governance agreement, the province participated in the negotiation of that agreement. By signing the tripartite governance agreement, Manitoba indicates that the governance agreement will apply to it as if it were a party. Manitoba will enact legislation to give effect to the governance agreement as Canada is doing. With regard to consultations, Mr. Chair, I note that the people who would be most affected by the self- government agreement — the more than 2,400 members of the community — were engaged throughout the process, especially in the latter stages, by the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation leadership. In December 2010, when it became apparent that the parties were drawing close to an agreement, Sioux Valley Dakota Nation began a new and wide- ranging communications effort to ensure that members of the community would have the information they needed to make an informed choice during the approval process.
The staff developed a wide variety of plain-language communication products, which were posted on the website and also distributed as printed material. As well, a number of open house events were organized. These brought members of the community together in small groups, giving them an opportunity to ask questions of the people involved directly in negotiations in an informal and unintimidating setting. The leaders of Sioux Valley Dakota Nation are to be congratulated for their efforts to ensure that the approval vote held in October 2012 was an informed vote. In that vote, the self-government agreement was approved by a clear majority, a majority of nearly two-to-one.
In August 2013, the Honourable Bernard Valcourt, Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, had the pleasure of joining Chief Tacan and Minister Robinson of Manitoba on Sioux Valley Dakota Nation land to sign the agreements. Technically, there are two, Mr. Chair.
First, is the governance agreement between Sioux Valley Dakota Nation and Canada. This sets out the bulk of the self-government arrangements, and it is this agreement that would be given effect by the bill that is before you. The second agreement is a short tripartite governance agreement amongst Sioux Valley Dakota Nation, Canada and Manitoba. In this other agreement, the province recognizes and concurs with the governance agreement.
We are now at the final stages of this process as we seek approval of the proposed legislation to bring the self- government agreement into effect. This will assure the people of Sioux Valley Dakota Nation of a governance regime that is more transparent and responsive to community needs and direction than anything allowed by or possible under the Indian Act. It will enable the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation to set its own goals and pursue them on its own terms without having to turn to Ottawa to ask prior to each and every decision, ``May I?'' In a very real sense, Mr. Chair, self-government agreements like this one are among the most meaningful ways to show our commitment to reconciliation, to give action to our words, to realize the promise of a new, more respectful and trusting relationship between Canada and Aboriginal people.
Studies conducted by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development have found employment in these communities has increased an average of well over 13 per cent since self-government came into effect. With this agreement in effect, Sioux Valley Dakota Nation will have the tools and authority to realize its potential, to build a more self-sufficient and prosperous future.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. We would be pleased to answer any questions honourable senators may have. Perhaps I can turn to my colleague from the Department of Justice to speak to the question you posed regarding our communications with Manitoba on the legislation.
The Chair: Thank you; I appreciate that. Mr. Webber?
Lee Webber, Legal Counsel, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada Legal Services, Department of Justice Canada: Excuse me a moment, honourable senators. I would like to confer with my Aboriginal Affairs colleagues.
The Chair: While you're doing that, I'll just mention to the committee that our clerk did invite the Government of Manitoba to appear before us, this being a tripartite arrangement, and a representative of the government did contact the clerk with an email communication indicating that the government will provide a written brief outlining their concurrence with the proposed legislation and an intention to introduce provincial legislation during the spring 2014 session of the Manitoba legislature. That's probably not an official communication, but I wanted to pass that on to the members of the committee. As I said, they have indicated that they've been in touch with their counterparts in Ottawa. So that was the purpose of my question. Mr. Webber, can you provide any further information on that, please?
Mr. Webber: Yes, a little bit, Mr. Chair. As I believe was mentioned during one of the presentations, Manitoba, along with Sioux Valley, was consulted during the drafting of the federal legislation. Now it's time, in a sense, to have the mirror side of that process. With the federal legislation approaching the completion of the legislative exercise, Manitoba has produced a first draft of its legislation and has provided that draft to Sioux Valley and to Canada, and Manitoba is awaiting comments from Sioux Valley and from Canada on that draft legislation. We expect that, if Sioux Valley and/or Canada do have any substantial comments on the Manitoba legislation, there will be discussion among the three parties to deal with those comments. There may be a further draft of the Manitoba legislation, a further round of comment and discussion among the parties. All of this is hopefully going to happen fairly swiftly. As you've mentioned, reading from the communication from Manitoba, the Manitoba legislative session starts early in March, and I believe that the target for the province is to introduce their bill with respect to Sioux Valley governance fairly early in the legislative session. We hope to complete the back and forth communication between Manitoba, on the one hand, and Sioux Valley and Canada, on the other hand, about the draft legislation — we hope to complete that in fairly short order.
The Chair: That's helpful. Thank you very much.
I'm going to open the floor to questions from the committee. I would like to point out that our witnesses, some of whom have come from afar, are available to us for just over an hour, so I strongly recommend to committee members that you keep your questions to the point. There will be time for speeches when we go through clause-by-clause, so, please, I want everybody to have a chance. I'll begin with our Deputy Chair, Senator Dyck.
Senator Dyck: Thank you for your presentations this morning. I'm going to follow up on the information regarding Manitoba. My global question is: Without Manitoba having initiated provincial legislation — and it likely will do so within the next month or so — what impact does that have on this bill? How critical is it for that legislation to be passed before this bill is passed, or is it critical to have it passed before this bill is passed?
Mr. Webber: Thank you, senator. It is stipulated in the governance agreement, and I believe in the tripartite agreement, as well, that, in order for the agreements to come into effect, there has to be federal implementing legislation and Manitoba implementing legislation. At the end of the day, those two pieces of legislation — the federal and the provincial — have to be in place.
The fact that the Manitoba legislation is not in place as the federal legislative process is unfolding is not a problem.
You'll note in Bill C-16, in clause 21 regarding coming into force, that with the bill structured as it presently is, the federal legislation will not come into force until a date to be named by the Governor-in-Council.
The idea is that once the federal legislation has been enacted and assented to, essentially the federal process will be put on hold for a period of weeks or months, waiting for the Manitoba legislation to achieve a similar stage or, in other words, waiting for the Manitoba legislation to be adopted by the provincial legislature and to be given Royal Assent in the province. When we've brought the two pieces of legislation into place, the federal government and the provincial government in concert with Sioux Valley will identify a date for the coming into force of the two pieces of legislation. The expectation is that it will be the same date for the federal legislation and the provincial legislation. When those two pieces of legislation are brought into effect, presumably on the same day, that will be the day on which the governance agreement and tripartite agreement come into force.
Senator Dyck: I'm going to move on to more specific questions. The intention of the agreements and the bill is to move away from being under provisions of the Indian Act and from what I could gather in the schedule, the initial provisions are dealing mostly with land. Could you give us some indication of which provisions will no longer apply and whether there are still a large number of Indian Act provisions that will apply?
Stephen Peltz, Senior Negotiator, Negotiations - Central, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and greetings, honourable senators. On the effective date, 35 provisions of the Indian Act will cease to apply to Sioux Valley Dakota Nation or on Sioux Valley Dakota Nation lands. Those provisions mostly concern what I would describe as matters of core governance. The expectation is that Sioux Valley Dakota Nation will already have their own constitution in place, they will have their own elections Act, their own Financial Administration Act, those kinds of core governance matters. Another one of particular importance to the community concerns membership or citizenship in Sioux Valley Dakota Nation. Those sorts of things change immediately.
The status of the government changes immediately. This is also a significant aspect of the agreement coming into force. Chief Tacan was talking about, on the occasion of the flood, dealing with an emergency situation and being told that his government was not recognized as the entity to speak to that situation, they would have to go through the department. On the effective date, the legal status will no longer be an Indian Act band; it will be a self-governing First Nation. That answer could not be given to Sioux Valley. They would be recognized as the spokesmen for their own community. Those are important considerations. Similarly, accountability arrangements, as were mentioned in the Sioux Valley presentation, will shift from the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and the government will become accountable to its own people. Those 35 provisions, something in that neighbourhood, all deal with those core governance matters.
There are a number of other things relating to lands and matters that control lives with Sioux Valley Dakota Nation and at the time of their own choosing, they can pass Sioux Valley Dakota Nation laws and those other Indian Act provisions will fall away. They can have their own priorities, they can move forward when they feel they have the capacity to move forward. Eventually the goal is that they would be almost entirely out from under the Indian Act.
In particular, the provisions around Indian status would continue to be controlled by the Department of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development but in all other respects Sioux Valley, by passing its own laws, would be able to move step-by-step away from the Indian Act and into a governance regime of its own.
Senator Dyck: Thank you for that clear answer. You said that Sioux Valley has its own governance or elections act ready to go. Did I hear that correctly?
Mr. Slusar: Yes. Sioux Valley Dakota Nation has actually functioned out from under the Indian Act with respect to its elections, I believe sometime since the early 1990s. The opportunity was provided for First Nations, as we know, to create their own election codes. Sioux Valley Dakota Nation has had an election code since the 1990s. In fact, I believe they've had several. The latest code that they operate under was developed in 2003. That code will continue to function up until this year, when there will be another election. But in the interim, Senator Dyck, there has been an undertaking to create a Sioux Valley Dakota Nation election act. Of course, that would be a law of Sioux Valley Dakota Nation upon the effective date. That has undergone a process that is in keeping with the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation contemplated process pursuant to its constitution, such as mirroring to some extent what we're doing here today, council appointing a committee to take a look at it.
Ultimately it will be brought before the community, and then passed through three readings and voted upon. That is in the works, yes. But Sioux Valley has, for all intents and purposes, not operated pursuant to the Indian Act provisions and regulations. It has always had, at least since the beginning of the opportunity, an election code.
Senator Dyck: One more question and I'll go wait for the second round. To follow up on the custom code election that you currently have and an election law which is in the works, there have been a number of bills passed in the last couple of years and there is one currently before us now on First Nation elections, Bill C-9. If we pass this bill now, will the provisions in Bill C-9 still apply? Currently you don't have your own election law, you have custom code and under custom code, Bill C-9, which affects elections — a basic right of a First Nation — will then still be subject to the powers of the minister to intervene.
Mr. Slusar: Thankfully, in looking at the various pieces of legislation that are being introduced from time to time, and the First Nation election act being one of those, there has been the foresight to insert clauses in these pieces of legislation that indicate a self-governing First Nation would be excluded from their operation. So we don't see Bill C-9 or the First Nation election act as applying to Sioux Valley Dakota Nation.
Having said that, there certainly has been a lot of thought put into that legislation and that was a consideration in terms of developing the future Sioux Valley Dakota Nation election act. There are some provisions that one might want to take advantage of, for example, the four-year term and things of that nature, but it would not be applicable.
Senator Dyck: Is the term self-government defined in Bill C-9 or does the definition of self-government mean the same thing in all different bills? This is a self-government agreement bill, but there are various types of self- government, some of which are much more fleshed out, as it were. Many more agreements are already in place, whereas this is kind of just the beginning. Is there a danger that this self-government could be interpreted as not a true self-government when it comes to application of other laws that mention self-government?
The Chair: Who are you directing your question to?
Senator Dyck: Mr. Slusar or the Justice people.
Mr. Slusar: I was going to defer to my colleague Mr. Webber in that regard. I'm sure Mr. Webber may wish to make some comments.
In terms of the self-government aspect, this agreement, of course, has been developed post-Canada's recognition of the inherent right towards self-government, which I believe came into effect in 1995. It's very clear in terms of Canada's policy and its recognition of the ability of First Nations to be self-governing, and that it is an existing Aboriginal right, that these agreements were negotiated within that context and within that spirit.
Having said that, and given their very comprehensive nature in terms of Sioux Valley and largely as a result of having that tripartite support involving the Province of Manitoba, I would, in a sense, think that these agreements, if any, potentially set the standard with respect to self-government, as that term will come to be known. In that sense, I'm not sure I see any downside with respect to this — or potentially any inherent issue that might be posed — that somehow Sioux Valley's self-government arrangements are somehow less than some of the others.
As far as I can tell, these are the most comprehensive arrangements that have been negotiated thus far. A provincial tripartite agreement, particularly when you have agreements such as these that are simply stand-alone self-government and do not involve the settlement of a land claim, I would think is as comprehensive as exist anywhere thus far.
I'll defer to Mr. Webber at this point.
Mr. Webber: My first remark would be to second what Mr. Slusar has said.
I should point out by way of disclaimer that I'm not intimately familiar with the various pieces of federal legislation that do refer to self-government, to self-governing First Nations or to First Nations or Aboriginal groups with self- government agreements. That said, as far as I'm aware, in any of the pieces of legislation that do include such references to self-government, there is no definition of ``self-government,'' ``self-government agreement'' or ``comprehensive self-government agreement.'' I will repeat that I'm talking through my hat to some extent, because I'm not intimately familiar with all those pieces of federal legislation.
If you have in some other piece of federal legislation a reference to ``self-governing First Nation,'' a First Nation with a ``self-government agreement'' or a First Nation with a ``comprehensive self-government agreement,'' one of the First Nations that is most likely and most clearly going to fall within that terminology is Sioux Valley Dakota Nation. As Mr. Slusar has pointed out, this is a very comprehensive arrangement.
Senator, the concern that you raise might conceivably be an active concern vis-à-vis some self-government arrangements, but I don't think it's at all likely to be a concern vis-à-vis this self-government arrangement.
Senator Watt: I have a supplementary question that I would like to put forward, and follows along the lines of what Senator Dyck has already indicated. The rights are recognized under section 35 of the British North America Act, 1982; the rights do exist within that section.
If I understand correctly, the ramifications of this legislation we're dealing with today in connection with section 35 seem to ignore the recognition that is already in the highest order of the land. I believe the legal counsel for Dakota has indicated this is only the beginning, and the door seems to be wide open to further discussions with the nations, along with the Government of Canada and the provinces, ``to undertake'' — I believe what you meant to say is ``to define'' — what's under section 35.
Looking at Bill C-16 — the legislation we're looking at for Dakota — it's not a self-government but rather ``self- government to be,'' if I can phrase it that way. It's sort of a framework, if I understood correctly what that means.
What Senator Dyck is highlighting here is that it's fine. If there's going to be a checkerboard across the country in terms of recognition to the Aboriginal people within the Constitution that is a danger. One nation has a certain kind of understanding, and it is accepted by the government what they are, what they can do and what they cannot do. That's putting the Aboriginal perspective to the point where you are taking a risk; namely, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
I'd just like to highlight the fact that there is a bit of a problem there that will not be rectified immediately. We might need to have a constitutional expert brought in to spell out exactly the relationship of this new concept. I'm not disagreeing with the new concept. I think it's a good idea, but we have to know what we're dealing with here. At this point, I don't have a clear understanding, even though I understood what you were saying. There are some grey areas that need to be revisited in detail by the legal people.
The Chair: That's a significant observation, Senator Watt. Do any of the witnesses wish to comment? Mr. Peltz?
Mr. Peltz: You raised several important points, Senator Watt, and I appreciate the question raised. The question of section 35 rights is extremely important. In terms of the way this agreement is structured, what has been negotiated and what has not been negotiated, none of that would denigrate the importance of section 35 rights to First Nations people or to the Government of Canada, for that matter.
This is not a completely novel agreement; I should perhaps respond to that point. This agreement is essentially the same structure as the agreement we have in place with Westbank First Nation in British Columbia that was concluded in 2003. That one is a bilateral agreement between Westbank First Nation and the Government of Canada. This is a tripartite arrangement, so there's that distinction. But like this agreement, the Westbank agreement is a stand-alone self-government agreement.
By a stand-alone agreement, we mean this: The agreements people are most familiar with in recent years have been the land claims that have been concluded in British Columbia and in other parts of Canada. Those land claims agreements have self-government provisions, but they also deal with lands and resources — matters that would come into this category of section 35 rights, meaning that whatever rights those First Nations have with respect to ownership and use of lands and resources would be protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Those agreements deal not only with self-government but also with lands and resources. As a result, those rights over lands and resources are constitutionally protected. That's a consequence of those modern land claims agreements.
This being a stand-alone agreement, like the agreement with Westbank First Nation, it doesn't have provisions related to lands and resources. It is certainly, however, a true self-government arrangement. That part of the agreement is every bit as valid as it would be in the context of a land claim.
What happens here is that there are negotiated powers and jurisdictions, which mean the power and authority to make a law. These 50-odd jurisdictions, which have been mentioned a couple of times, are included in the agreement. As of the effective date, Sioux Valley Dakota Nation will have those self-government powers. There's no ambiguity about that. There's no question about whether it's legally valid, to my mind.
The Sioux Valley agreement is like the Westbank agreement insofar as it's a stand-alone agreement. It's also like the Westbank agreement in that neither will be protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The Westbank agreement has exactly the same status: It has self-government provisions; it is not a treaty, and it does not give any change to whatever section 35 rights Westbank First Nation may or may not have. Similarly, with Sioux Valley Dakota Nation that's how this bill and the agreement that it gives effect to will be.
The question of section 35 rights, if I may speak in a broader policy perspective for a few moments, is very contentious. The need for negotiations in British Columbia is precisely because there is uncertainty — there's a lack of clarity around what section 35 rights First Nations may or may not possess. Those things are not self-evident. They have to be worked out in those agreements and be resolved to the mutual satisfaction of the Government of Canada, the Province of British Columbia and the First Nations involved.
With Sioux Valley, when Mr. Slusar makes reference to a future process, it touches on this issue of section 35 rights. There's a long-standing dispute not only with Sioux Valley but also with other Dakota nations and a Lakota First Nation in Canada over whether they have Aboriginal title and other Aboriginal rights and, if so, what the extent of those rights is. We have not attempted to resolve that particular dispute through this negotiation. That decision was made in the course of the negotiations. However, we have a process in place that would lead to, hopefully, productive discussions, as Mr. Slusar expressed, to seek an enduring reconciliation between the Government of Canada and Sioux Valley Dakota Nation. In all, nine First Nations would be implicated in those discussions: eight Dakota First Nations and one Lakota First Nation, which is similarly situated. All of these First Nations are in the provinces of Manitoba and Saskatchewan. There is some unfinished business there, to be sure; but insofar as this bill and this agreement are concerned, there's no ambiguity. This will be a self-governing First Nation on the effective date of the agreement.
The Chair: I have eight honourable senators who wish to ask questions. I would remind senators to get to the question, please, so everyone has a chance.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much for your presentations this morning.
Chief Tacan, I was taken by the amount of consultation you had done, in particular with the elders in the community, considering the discussions started in 1991. Their input was extremely important; so congratulations to you and to the leadership of your community.
Chief Tacan, you spoke about the challenges of attracting new businesses to your community. I've heard this not only from you, but I've also read a lot about the challenges that a number of First Nations communities have in bringing businesses to their communities. I'm from Nova Scotia, where Membertou has been doing a great job of bringing business to their community and signing labour agreements with businesses outside the community. I wonder whether this agreement will be positive. Do you believe it will be positive and allow your nation to attract businesses more easily than it currently can?
Mr. Tacan: Thank you for your question. One thing we need to do is show the business community that there will be a stable business environment for anyone who wishes to come to Sioux Valley. We have a very good workforce nearby in the city of Brandon, so we have people who commute back and forth. We have everything that would indicate that something could be successful, whether it's a big chain store or manufacturing. However, the only thing we don't have in terms of stability is the ability to give a business the comfort of having a long-term lease. We don't have the ability to attract financing at this time because we don't have the authority to work on those things.
The agreement will answer some of those questions for the business community. Already we have information out there in the surrounding community with the work that we've done. With some of the research that some of the business community has undertaken, we've received inquiries as to how this will work. We've purchased land at the intersection of highways 1 and 21. We have some partners lined up with some commitments from them, even though we haven't converted it to reserve status. They're optimistic we can do that with the help of the agreement.
We're seeing some good indications that people want to do business with us. It's just a matter of getting to the point where we can pass the laws that will give comfort to the business community.
Senator Cordy: This agreement will allow Sioux Valley to provide for direct taxation. Have you given thought as to how that will work? Your leadership within the community will tax the people directly. What will be the positive benefit of this? How will it work?
Mr. Tacan: We already pay some tax, as you know, but we're not benefiting from that in its entirety at this time. Everything that comes into the community is purchased outside the community. There are other examples of communities that tax their members and are starting to reinvest those revenues in their communities. We're starting to see all these examples. Whitecap Dakota First Nation has already improved their situation with better roads, housing and infrastructure. They seem to have a system in place whereby they're benefiting greatly from a tax base. That's something we need to do right away. The community is looking forward to better things. We understand that a system has to be put in place for us to see those benefits.
Senator Meredith: Thank you so much for your presentation.
Chief, congratulations on fighting on behalf of your people and serving as councillor to ensure that proper legislation is brought in. You talk about finance, education, economic development, jobs for youth, which resonates with me, and that they have bought into this new vision because they see hope and something at the end of the tunnel. You talk about the support of the elders and about those who object to this agreement. My question is: Do you foresee them putting forth a court challenge in any way? Is that a possibility? How are you dealing with trying to resolve some of their concerns?
Mr. Tacan: One thing we're constantly doing is communicating with people. Even though the consultation period is over, we still feel that it's important to educate the membership on what the agreement is. We also have processes in place to hear the different viewpoints of people. We're constantly in talks with all members and constantly updating. It's nearly impossible to get consensus from everyone. You will always have people who object, for one reason or another. I don't foresee that being a problem going forward because right now that group has taken a wait-and-see attitude. The more we demonstrate positive things in the community, they eventually won't help but see some of the positive things that are going on. We've done a lot in terms of education. We've done a lot in terms of infrastructure in the community. This is still working within the Indian Act. I can only imagine what would happen if we were allowed to go even further. I think we will be able to win the critics over eventually, but we are still respectful in terms of listening to their point of view. We won't be able to please everyone, naturally, but we're always putting that effort forward. We have a website now that we're constantly updating. We have meetings where finances are put out to the community. We have reporting. We have open houses. All we can do is give them information, and, if they don't agree with it, there's nothing more that we can do. I think we've done our part, though, in trying to get the most information out that we can.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: My question is for the chief. It says here that the governance agreement will provide jurisdiction to enact laws with respect to a variety of matters, including citizenship. Could you elaborate on that?
Mr. Tacan: We had meetings initially, when the discussions first started, dealing with citizenship, so we do have some thoughts behind that. In recent times, we've focused on maybe five or six jurisdictions. The citizenship issue has been on the shelf for a little bit. As you know, things come up in the community, and our attention seems to focus on different areas. We are starting now to look broadly at all the jurisdictions that are there and at the potential for us to take those jurisdictions over, citizenship being one of them.
We now have people from other First Nations wanting to apply for membership, so we have to act quickly on getting our citizenship discussions going and having a concrete idea as to what we need to do. I'm guessing that that's a good indication of maybe other people's perception of the path that Sioux Valley is going on. I certainly like it when other people from other First Nations want to apply to join our community, but, at this point, we don't have the resources, the facilities or the housing to accommodate those kinds of things. We recognize that there's a need to work on those areas.
We're still a little bit surprised — and I think others are as well — that Sioux Valley has gotten this far. I don't think it was expected for us to succeed, but we're pretty resilient. We try to do things in a way that will be beneficial to us. We're kind of the underdogs in some of the things we do. We are going to look at citizenship in the next little while. We're still grappling with issues surrounding childcare and policing. Those are two of the main things that have come to our attention recently, and the membership is expressing a desire for us to hurry and work on those jurisdictions because those are the ones that seem to be creating the most problems for us right now. People want us to work on those, as well as on education.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: This is part two of that question, and then I'll be done. I should have asked this question in the first place: There were women who were eligible to become band members through the Indian Act, like Bill C-31 women. Were these women all accepted back into the band?
Mr. Tacan: From what I understand, if there's a connection to the community, we've accepted those members back into our community. We've recently had ex-band members, if I can use that term, who married into other communities and transferred out. I know, in one case, one person passed away, and the family had asked us to bring that person back to our community, which we did, even though she was not a band member. We try to look at women's issues and put that to the forefront. I know that, with my council, I have two women on whom I rely heavily to give us perspective with issues there. We've done a lot of work, I believe, in moving not only membership issues but also child and family issues forward. We also have a policy for our housing where, if there's a family breakup, typically the house goes to the woman and the children. We actually had a non-band member who was given a house because her children were from the community, even though she was not a member of the band. The house was turned over to her instead of the band member from our community. We recognize that we need to work closely with women and to make sure that they're taken care of, and we address the needs as they come up.
The Chair: Mr. Peltz, did you have something to add?
Mr. Peltz: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. An important issue was touched on there, and it's an issue from a federal policy perspective as well, not simply limited to people who have acquired membership via Bill C-31. In general, people want to know that they're not going to lose their membership as a consequence of this self-government agreement. One of the basic protections we build into all of our self-government agreements is that whoever is eligible to be a member the day before this agreement comes into effect will not be denied membership after the agreement comes into effect. This would certainly include people who had acquired membership as a consequence of Bill C-31.
If I may also cast back to the earlier question that was asked about citizenship, I wanted to clarify that we were talking about citizenship in the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation. In terms of citizenship in Canada, that continues to be controlled by federal laws. In some agreements, we use the term ``membership'' in the First Nation. In other agreements we've used the term ``citizenship.'' This is not the first time, but we are talking about citizenship in Sioux Valley Dakota Nation.
The Chair: Thank you. I think we're fortunate in this committee to have, in Senator Watt and Senator Lovelace Nicholas, champions of Aboriginal rights who've been involved with the discussion of the implications of section 35 right from the beginning. Thank you for those questions.
Senator Sibbeston: Chief Tacan, I know that you come before our committee in support of this agreement with a lot of hope for your people. I want you to know that the federal government, in the past, has not done very well in terms of implementing any agreement of this sort. Our committee has dealt with this issue of the federal government not implementing agreements that they've signed, particularly in financial areas and renegotiations. The Auditor General, a number of years ago, commented, on one land claim agreement in the North, that the government tried to get out of the agreement and was not living up to the spirit of the agreement.
I know that there is a land claims coalition group consisting of about 24 land claimants from throughout the country who meet regularly because the federal government doesn't implement the agreements that they sign. These agreements have the strength of section 35; they're constitutionally protected. Yet despite this, the federal government does not live up to the agreements they have signed.
How do you propose, in the implementation aspect of this, to ensure or try to force the federal government to live up to the agreement that you have made with them?
Mr. Tacan: My experience has been that good honest dialogue and a willingness to sit down and discuss goes a long way. We've also demonstrated that we're willing to participate in any discussions that will further resolution of any issues we may have, whether it's with the province or the federal government. So far, we seem to be having sufficient success in dealing with a lot of things. We've been pretty lucky in dealing with Manitoba and the federal government. We are probably the only First Nation right now that has paid for our issues surrounding flooding, and we haven't incurred any debt or bills owed as a result. It's a good relationship we've maintained with the province in that regard.
With the federal government, we've always used good communication as a means to resolve our difficulties and I think how we present ourselves with the federal government has resulted in positive things for us. We don't take a confrontational approach. We like to take the approach where we have information and facts to make our case, and that's what we do. That seems to work for us for some reason. I don't want to jinx myself, but we've been pretty lucky in our encounters with both levels of government.
Senator Wallace: Chief Tacan, I'm wondering if there are any financial consequences or commitments that would follow the benefit of the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation as a result of entering into this self-governing agreement, both at the time of signing and are there any financial consequences that would follow year to year as time goes on?
Mr. Tacan: We're hopeful that in the minister's statements, when the agreement was first signed in August, that the number over the life of the agreement would be $130 million as a result of going into the agreement. That would give the First Nation the ability to do things differently as opposed to what we're doing now under our current funding. I know we finance a lot of things, such as insurance, and the costs are higher if you go month-by-month. If we can pay something in one lump sum up front at a savings to the bank, those are things that will help us down the road, I believe.
Again, I haven't looked in great detail at what the actual benefits are going to be. I know that anything is better than what we have right now. We supposedly have money with the department, but there's a lot of difficulty in accessing that money. The first thing to benefit us is that we're going to be able to access capital, leverage loans and that sort of thing.
Senator Wallace: The governance agreement would give the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation authority over a number of important items, as you pointed out, health, education and housing, and I'm wondering if there are any conditions attached to that? Are there any standards that would have to be met by the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation in terms of housing standards being put in place, and the same with health and education? Would that in any way be tied to the ongoing financial arrangements or commitment that the federal government would make to the nation?
Mr. Tacan: We would welcome bringing in standards to deal with certain things, such as housing, for example. We recently reviewed our policies and one of the things that stood out for us is that because of the lack of standards, we have a lot of poor housing in our community. There is always the issue of contractors and businesses that come in and set up substandard housing, which causes us to have problems in a short period of time. We have new houses that were delivered and five years later they're falling apart. That's a result of not having standards in place.
We are now seeing that those need to be looked at. In my work as a school board member, for example, for 10 years I've been working with Sioux Valley. One of the things we started to look at is that we have to attract teachers with the right qualifications. We always need to have people who are going to ensure success. There are standards that need to be implemented in different areas as well. In the agreement, the one phrase that sticks out for me is ``comparable or better.'' Those are the things that I'm hoping, as we go along, are developed and followed.
Mr. Peltz: We walk a fine balancing act in terms of these agreements, in not wanting to impose requirements on the First Nations. They're supposed to be self-governing, so to the greatest extent possible we want to give them the flexibility to design programs, reallocate funds according to the priorities of the First Nation. On the other hand, as you can imagine, these standards have important consequences and they're rightly a federal policy issue as well. In terms of health, for example, we would want immunization in the First Nation community to be at the same standard as immunization off-reserve. We wouldn't want First Nations to be treated with substandard health care; that would be a bad result. Also, recognizing that some diseases are communicable, we wouldn't want to have a pocket where communicable diseases could arise. In a situation like that where there are important federal policy considerations, we require standards.
With respect to education, what's in the agreement is quite similar to what's being proposed with the new First Nations Control of First Nations Education Bill, which acknowledges first of all that there are no federal regulations with respect to education. So right now with Sioux Valley operating under its own schools, there are no regulations that control the number of hours of attendance a student has to do, for example, or controls around curriculum. When this new proposed act comes into place, the First Nation will be required to meet provincial standards and that's exactly the same provision we have in the governance agreement with Sioux Valley Dakota Nation. With respect to education, they have to meet or exceed the standards that apply elsewhere in the province, the goal being that a student would be able to move from a reserve school to off-reserve and they would be at the same educational level as they are off-reserve or conversely come back find they're at the same sort of level.
With respect to funding, there is no additional funding that flows as the jurisdictions themselves are exercised, but it's important to say that the Sioux Valley government is clearly taking on some additional responsibilities that it has not had to discharge as an Indian Act band. Accordingly, increased funds are being made available to Sioux Valley Dakota Oyate Government commensurate with the new responsibilities they're assuming.
To be more specific on a few details, there is one-time implementation funding of $750,000 that would come in year one to help with the transition to self-government. They need financial support to get some of those core governance components, laws and policies in place. The three quarters of a million dollars is one-time funding.
There is approximately $2 million in new funding for the costs of operating a government. That's a very broad category. Again, we're not trying to be proscriptive of what Sioux Valley has to do with that money, but costs of operating a government obviously include things like heating your buildings, having salaries paid to staff, having office equipment and those sorts of things.
If you're going to pass a Sioux Valley Dakota Nation bill, you're probably going to want to consult some lawyers. It would include that. You may want to talk to other self-governing First Nations and get some best practices from them.
All these sorts of activities come out of the additional money that's being made available for operating a government.
In that additional $2 million, part of the formula is to acknowledge that there should be some functions consistent with a school board function, basically, in terms of establishing curriculums and that sort of thing. So that has been taken into account in determining that $2 million of additional funding. That's over and above about $900,000 in funding that Sioux Valley currently receives for the costs of operating an Indian Act government. So total funding for the cost of operating a government would be about $2.9 million.
Senator Raine: It's hard to ask a question at the end of the round, because I've been listening to the earlier questions and they have been good.
I have one question I would like to ask Chief Tacan. In going through this process for 25 years, you've obviously been in close contact with your neighbours. Could you explain the reception that you've received in the neighbouring communities where your people work and where some of them live? Has everybody been understanding? Have you been communicating with them, and what is their reaction to this?
Mr. Tacan: We have a pretty good relationship with our neighbours. We participate in different events in and around the community. We also recently put on a large winter festival in the City of Brandon. We worked closely with the city council to access the motel accommodation task that they have there.
Hosting that event every year has helped to build a friendship with the city, and as a result of that, there are good indications of a willingness to partner on different things. We've managed to purchase a high school in Brandon. We have developed partnerships with the Assiniboine Community College in Brandon. We've developed partnerships with Brandon University; we utilize their facilities and they utilize ours at times. So there are good indications of a willingness to partner on different things with the city.
We also have a presence in some of the small towns. We have people who are working outside the community, and there seems to be good feedback from them as well. We recently brought our economic development board together with the Rural Municipality of Sifton. We sat down as a board and are meeting with them in the next while. They seem to agree that we could get further ahead by partnering and promoting our area and developing, as a start, tourism-type activities and discussions.
An indication of how well we get along with our neighbours is that, during the opening ceremonies of the winter festival, we got calls from even the newly elected MP for Brandon—Souris to participate.
So we have some pretty special friends in and around the area who like to attend these things when we host them, and we are happy to promote our community. We take advantage of any chance we get to work with the municipality, the City of Brandon or the MP for our area. As a result of that, our neighbours now want to work with us and they now have a better understanding of what our issues are in the community. In turn, we've benefited by knowing what their issues are, so there are good cross-cultural things happening there.
We've recently invited some of the neighbouring schools to participate in our War of 1812 commemorations coming up this week. There has been such a good response: There has been more than double the number of students we were expecting, so now we are scrambling to accommodate all the schools that are showing an interest in coming to that planned event this week.
Our relationship with nearby communities is a positive one.
Senator Raine: I see this, and I know this is very special.
Are you looking forward to sharing with other First Nations across the Prairies how you got where you are in order to help them move forward?
Mr. Tacan: We had some of the leaders of the different organizations attend the signing ceremony. Because I don't focus too much on other First Nations and other organizations — I focus on my own community — I wasn't really aware of what their viewpoint was.
I did speak to the chief of the FSIN, and he said, ``This is great. You're paving the way for other First Nations.'' And I guess that statement didn't impact me until later on. I've been working on this so long that I did not really see the full scope of work that has happened as a result of the community's hard work. It's nice to have someone from another First Nation recognize the work we've done.
People are starting to notice what we're doing. I've had several calls from some of the chiefs in Manitoba asking me about it. I tried to answer some of the questions, and there seems to be an interest in getting out from under the Indian Act.
Senator Raine: Thank you, and congratulations.
The Chair: First on the Prairies.
Colleagues, we have less than 10 minutes left. I have Senator Watt and Senator Meredith on my list, but I want to defer to Senator Dyck who has an important question she wants to get on the record.
Senator Dyck: My apologies to the other senators.
I wanted to go back to the issue of whether or not this bill is actually a self-government bill. We looked at the Westbank bill that was passed some years ago. In that bill, it actually mentions the fact that we're enacting legislation to give Westbank First Nation self-government. In Bill C-16, the word ``self-government'' does not actually appear. In the Westbank agreement with Canada, there is a clause that says it is implementing ``. . . the inherent right of self- government by Westbank First Nation . . . .''
Within your agreement with Canada, which we don't have a copy of and haven't seen, is there a statement of fundamental principles that says the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation is implementing the inherent right of self-government and it's agreed to by Canada? Is there anything in the language of your agreement with Canada that says self- government and inherent rights are recognized?
Mr. Slusar: Senator Dyck, perhaps I'll respond to that, because of course this is a very important question. The preamble with respect to the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation self-government agreement states basically that the Government of Canada recognizes and affirms that the right of self-government is an existing Aboriginal right. That's in the preamble. You mentioned that you don't have a copy of the agreement, so that may answer some of the questions.
Further to that, Bill C-16 mentions in the first clause, and this goes back to a comment made earlier by Senator Watt, I believe, about the ignoring of section 35, we would respectfully take issue with any ignoring of it because Bill C- 16 says right up front that the governance agreement, and by the agreement, the parties intend to provide for a government-to-government relationship within the framework of the Constitution of Canada, of course, inclusive of section 35.
The agreement then goes on in clauses 5 and 6 to indicate that it's not a treaty and there is no defining of the Aboriginal and/or treaty rights, which of course is very important. If we were going to define those and we had the opportunity to make this a treaty, we would still be negotiating the definition. It's but for the parties' agreement that we're not defining what those are but, in fact, allowing Sioux Valley to develop its governance structures such that ultimately the definition will become clear in terms of Sioux Valley's governance with respect to Sioux Valley Dakota Nation lands, if that makes sense.
To try to demystify potentially the agreement, as my friend and colleague Mr. Peltz said, the agreement is not being proscriptive. Clause 18 relates to education, clause 19 to health and clause 20 to child and family services. To demystify the agreement, the approach is: first, a broad statement of the jurisdiction, in the case of education, Sioux Valley has jurisdiction, i.e. power and authority to make laws in relation to education; second, specific examples of what that law may include, and in this case it may include matters pertaining to everything from preschool to elementary, secondary, post-secondary, and matters involving curriculum pertaining to Dakota culture and language, et cetera; third, an opportunity to set a standard in that it says that a Sioux Valley law in relation to education must provide for comparable standards that are at least equal to comparable standards under provincial laws; and fourth, in the case of education, it's simply a question of if there is an inconsistency with respect to laws, say with applicable federal and/or provincial laws, which law would prevail? In the case of education, it would be the Sioux Valley Dakota Nation law. That's the case in most areas.
However, the exception to where a federal and/or provincial law would apply in accordance with constitutional legal principles would be where those laws and that inconsistency pertain to matters of peace, order and good governance of Canada, if we look at it in that case — in the matter of health, for example, the same criteria jurisdiction in relation to specifically the promotion of health, public health and health services. However, it then talks about what the laws may include, such as regulating the practice, for example, of practitioners and traditional medicine. Ultimately, if there is an inconsistency, and this is a bit of a hybrid in organizational structures of health care facilities on Sioux Valley lands, Sioux Valley law would prevail. However, if there is an inconsistency with other applicable federal or provincial laws, federal and provincial laws would prevail, such as in matters involving the national health of the country.
With respect to child and family service matters, there are the same criteria. The jurisdiction is described ultimately as what the law may provide for and ultimately cases of inconsistency. The interesting thing here in the case of child and family services, we have on-reserve and off-reserve structures. This jurisdiction would not apply until Sioux Valley entered into an agreement with the comparable provincial and/or federal authorities.
With respect to clauses 18, 19 and 20, you have the overall structure of the governance agreement. Therefore, further to what Senator Watt had suggested, does this mean Sioux Valley is a self-governing First Nation or about to become one? Ultimately, the opportunity is there for Sioux Valley to develop at its own pace to evolve laws that make it ever more self-governing as it displaces the Indian Act. Ultimately, the objective is to retain only two provisions of the Indian Act. As we discussed, one is the provision pertaining to the registry. Canada has stated they want to keep the registry and who has status and doesn't have status pertaining to the registry. The other opportunity and advantage is with respect to the exemption of taxation, which provides under section 87 the opportunity for some advantages with respect to tax-free status for transactions on reserve.
Ultimately, the balance of the Indian Act can be displaced. That's going to take time and a lot of hard work, but therein lies the opportunity so that first, section 35 is not ignored, and second, Sioux Valley is not initially self- governing but is recognized to have that opportunity. However, Sioux Valley must develop that.
The Chair: That's helpful. I understand that the agreement between Sioux Valley and Canada is online. It's voluminous, but it's available on the departmental website.
I also understand that Westbank was a comprehensive claim and a self-government agreement. As Mr. Slusar explained, this bill we're discussing today is not a modern treaty or a claim, if that's helpful.
Mr. Webber: If I could just pick up on one bit of language. You said you understand that Westbank was a comprehensive claim and a self-government agreement. Westbank has a comprehensive self-government agreement, but it does not deal with ownership of lands and resources, so it's not a land claim agreement.
The Chair: Okay, comprehensive self-government agreement. Thank you for correcting that.
Colleagues, we've canvassed a lot of issues. We have been requested by the chief to participate in a photo op, just before we break, for the community newsletter.
I would ask Senator Watt and Senator Meredith to be concise with their questions. We have to be out of here for reasons beyond our control, so could you be quite brief, please?
Senator Watt: I guess we're not going to have another opportunity with the same witnesses.
The Chair: We are scheduled to discuss this important bill at our meeting tomorrow, but I don't believe the witnesses, at least all the witnesses, are available.
Senator Watt: In that case, I'll go quickly on three points I would like to mention. One is the general laws of application, which is provincial. How is that going to be dealt with during the transitional period while you are still negotiating in order to shore up the self-government? If the general laws of application are going to apply, at what point will it be cut off for negotiation purposes?
The second one is on timing of your negotiations. When are you going to get into actual negotiations in terms of fulfilling the framework?
Third, I believe the representative from the Department of Justice highlighted the fact that there is a letter of undertaking. I would like to have that tabled if we haven't already got it.
The Chair: I think that was an MOU as it was described. Is that something the committee could see, Mr. Webber, the MOU on the next steps?
Mr. Webber: The signing of the MOU is not yet complete. We are doing what's known as signing in counterparts, which is to say that the First Nation has signed, back in Manitoba, and now the MOU will be submitted to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs for his signature in Ottawa-Gatineau. Once that second signature has been effected, then we will have a completed MOU. It would be premature to share the MOU with you at this stage.
Also, I'm not 100 per cent sure — and perhaps my colleague Mr. Slusar can help me on this — what arrangements we have in the MOU regarding confidentiality. If the parties have not stipulated that the MOU is confidential, I would think that the MOU will be posted on the Aboriginal Affairs website.
The Chair: Senator Watt had two other questions.
Senator Watt: Those are the three that I highlighted because of the tightness of our schedule. I believe you mentioned that there will be more witnesses on this issue tomorrow or tonight.
The Chair: No. We are going to discuss the bill tomorrow, but I don't think that at least some of the witnesses are going to be available. That's the situation.
Does anyone have any further comments on Senator Watt's other questions?
Mr. Slusar: We can try to answer them quickly, Mr. Chair. I might indicate, given the importance to Sioux Valley Dakota Nation, that, if necessary, I'm sure we could make ourselves available if that would be helpful. I want to make that point.
I think, Senator Watt, you indicated the provincial section 88 of the Indian Act and the applicability of that provision. Section 88 talks about provincial laws of general application applying. That doesn't change until, of course, effective date, and effective date doesn't come about until the Act of Parliament, and, ultimately, the province, as we've seen through the Governor-in-Council, becomes effective and is proclaimed.
Section 88 makes reference then to provincial laws applying, subject to any Act of Parliament. So we can see how through the Act of Parliament. Then, ultimately, it also makes reference to provincial laws and provincial acts. They would then, in a sense, prevail with respect to section 88. Section 88 can ultimately become inoperative because it's displaced by the governance arrangements, the bilateral and trilateral agreement, which then allows Sioux Valley to make its laws. The laws vis-à-vis applicable federal and/or provincial laws will be dealt with subject to the agreement. They continue to apply; it's just that Sioux Valley has an opportunity to displace them. As we've seen, either Sioux Valley law will prevail, determining if there's an inconsistency, and/or the provincial or applicable federal law will.
The cut off, to answer your question pointedly, is simply the effective date in that regimen.
The Chair: Quickly, please.
Mr. Slusar: What was your second question? You talked about the negotiation for the framework. That's a separate process that really has nothing to do with this. We would add that this is not the first MOU. The minister has already signed an MOU, in excess of a year ago, with some other Dakota nations, and that process has been taking place. It's just that Sioux Valley has made this a priority. Now, it wants to logically continue with the off-reserve issues. Hopefully, that will start here within the next week or so. I think that's it, isn't it, Senator Watt?
The Chair: It has to be it. I'm sorry. I'm an imperious chair.
Senator Meredith, could you save your questions for tomorrow?
As to whether we make witnesses available, I'm going to refer that to steering. We're meeting this afternoon, and we will take your comments into view.
I'd like to thank everyone very much. We covered a lot of ground, and there were excellent questions covering a lot of issues. I would like to ask senators if they could remain for a few moments for a photo that has been requested by Sioux Valley.
Thank you very much, Chief, and your colleagues. Good day.
(The committee adjourned.)