VICTORIA — As the new federal adviser on how to fix treaty-making here in B.C., Vancouver lawyer Douglas Eyford must already have a good idea of the challenges involved in rescuing a troubled process with First Nations.
Eyford has been on the case since Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed him as special representative to engage First Nations on the development of some $100 billion worth of energy projects on the West Coast.
“This will not be dialogue for dialogue’s sake, but dialogue in search of solutions,” said then natural resources minister Joe Oliver in announcing the appointment in March 2013. “We don’t want another process. We want a product.”
But Eyford was not long in signalling that Ottawa could expect no quick fixes on the aboriginal file here in B.C.
Much time had already been lost in building support with First Nations and many communities were simply not ready for the pace of decision-making that governments and industry now expected of them, he warned.
“First Nations communities are expected to become experts in energy policy and make decisions that may permanently alter their cultural connection to their traditional territories,” Eyford told a conference on liquefied natural gas in September 2013.
“These projects are profoundly challenging for aboriginal leaders, and confrontation and resistance are the likely outcomes if their communities are not effectively engaged during the planning and development stages.”
Then came his end-of-the-year report to the prime minister, which suggested that the federal government had fallen short in the basics of relationship building.
“Canada must take decisive steps to build trust with aboriginal Canadians, to foster their inclusion into the economy, and to advance the reconciliation of aboriginal people and non-aboriginal people,” wrote Eyford as a prelude to recommending measures for “deep engagement” with First Nations.
He expanded on the theme of federal neglect in a speech to a conference of treaty negotiators in June of this year, referring specifically to Ottawa’s decision to let Enbridge take the lead in engaging First Nations on the Northern Gateway Pipeline.
“I’ve been surprised at the extent to which the federal government has been content to allow project proponents like Enbridge to engage aboriginal communities with little or no Crown oversight, direction or assistance,” Eyford was quoted as saying in the report by Justine Hunter of the Globe and Mail.
“I was struck that some of the communities that are today threatening judicial proceedings and civil disobedience were at one time requesting meetings with federal officials and making what I believe, in retrospect, were feasible proposals to address the environmental and other issues associated with the project … Regrettably, there was no uptake.”
Against that backdrop of criticism came the announcement Monday by federal Aboriginal Affairs Minister Bernard Valcourt of a revised approach to treaty making here in B.C.
Plus he appointed the author of those criticisms, Eyford himself, as “ministerial special representative to lead engagement with aboriginal groups and key stakeholders to renew and reform the comprehensive land claims policy.”
Many of the sweeping changes, reported by Peter O’Neil in The Vancouver Sun, echo what Eyford and others had already been urging.
Ottawa will now be open to negotiating incremental agreements, as interim steps on the road to treaties. It will establish new standards for consultation, incorporating principles laid down by the courts, and take leadership in resolving overlapping claims, a major obstacle to pipelines and other large-scale projects.
Finally, after years of pleadings by First Nations and the province, Ottawa will come to the table with a revised mandate on the fishery.
The federal government will abandon one of the more perverse disincentives for aboriginal people to participate in the development of lands and resources. No longer, when First Nations develop their own sources of revenue, will Ottawa deduct those from federal transfer payments for health, education and social services.
Plus, by appointing Eyford to revitalize the treaty process, Valcourt addressed what many natives see as a sucker’s game — where they are obliged to borrow money against future proceeds from treaty settlements to participate in talks that have produced only a half dozen treaties in 20 years.
First Nations have collectively taken on about half-a-billion dollars in debt via the treaty process to date. By comparison, in that landmark aboriginal title case won by the Tsilhqot’in people recently, the tens of millions of dollars in legal costs were paid (per order of the court) by the government.
“I am pleased to be a part of this initiative to advance reconciliation with aboriginal people,” said Eyford, in the quote attributed to him in the press release. “In my (earlier) report, I noted the importance of open and constructive dialogue between governments and aboriginal communities. To this end, I look forward to hearing the views of all parties on how best to reform the comprehensive land claims policy.”
Long overdue, as the government background paper itself confessed. The federal policy on land claims goes back to 1973 and hasn’t been updated since 1986.
But in recruiting Eyford for the makeover, the government has at least chosen someone with demonstrated expertise and a willingness to tell Ottawa where it needs to mend its ways.
