Open Letter to Yukon Conservative MP Ryan Leef December 7, 2014 Share Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Reddit Share on LinkedIn Email December 5, 2014 Ryan Leef, Member of Parliament 204 Black Street Whitehorse, Yukon Y1A 2M9 Dear Mr. Leef, I am writing to address the statements you made in support of Bernard Valcourt’s assertion that Yukon First Nations are not considered governments under the terms of the Umbrella Final Agreement. To be clear, under Chapter 1 of the UFA, “Government” is defined as “Canada or the Yukon, or both, depending upon which government or governments have responsibility… for the matter in question”. It seems clear that this definition of “Government” isn’t an exclusive definition, negating the entirety of Chapter 24, which outlines Yukon Indian Self-Government. It simply is a short hand way of saying that the UFA is not going to define which jurisdiction the governmental responsibilities fall under—likely for ease and because jurisdictional issues are already clearly set out in ss. 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Secondly, I would like to address your comment about the adequacy of consultation done with regard to Bill S-6, An Act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio economic Assessment Act and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act. Your comment was that “[t]here was consultation over a one-year period. Yukon First Nations were provided $100,000 for consultation, which was receipted and billed back to the Canadian taxpayer.” $100,000 is not a lot of money for consultation on an issue as large as making changes to the way environmental assessment is conducted, as required under Chapter 12 of the UFA. Furthermore, if the recent Yukon Supreme Court decision on the Peel watershed regional land use plan has taught us [you] anything, it’s that the processes that were established under the UFA cannot be changed unilaterally by the government. Justice Veale has said “[t]he Government of Yukon is required to act honourably and respect its treaty obligation. If it has not respected the legal and constitutional limits that govern in this context, that is an error of law” (at para 137). Presumably the federal government is held to the same standard. Even the government is not above the law, and the honour of the Crown applies in the implementation of modern treaties, including the UFA. If your First Nation constituents (yes, we are your constituents, too, whether you like it or not) say you are not acting honourably, then maybe you should listen to our concerns, instead of making us go to court to voice our concerns. This brings me to my last point on your statement about the $100,000 being billed to the Canadian taxpayer. We know that the government has an obligation to consult and, where possible, accommodate, First Nations people. This obligation is not simply a moral obligation. It is a legal obligation. The Supreme Court of Canada has said this countless times, from the Haida and Taku decisions, to Mikisew Cree First Nation v Canada, to Beckman v Little Salmon/ Carmacks First Nation. The Court has had to restate its position so frequently, because the governments keep trying to circumnavigate their legal duties, which results in expensive litigation. Litigation costs First Nations and non-First Nation Canadians multiple millions of dollars each year. (Heck, it probably costs us that much each month.) But there is also an emotional cost to First Nation people—we don’t want to have to go to court every time we want to be included in discussions on land use planning, especially when we’ve invested millions of dollars to establish a land use planning process that achieves a level of fairness—a process that was agreed to by all governments under the UFA. As Justice Veale stated, “treaties are as much about building relationships as they are about the settlement of past grievances.” When you decide to make changes to treaties, by rewriting the environmental assessment process, for instance, you are damaging our relationship with the government, and there is an emotional (and financial) cost that comes with that breach of trust. And First Nations people have to bear those costs, too. What concerns me, as a First Nations person and as a taxpayer, is that your government is creating an “us vs. them” mentality that is often ending up in the courtroom. This is not the relationship we built, under the UFA, and it is not making me feel like a welcomed part of your constituency. Sincerely, Claire Anderson, President Aboriginal Peoples’ Commission (Yukon)