Evidence of meeting #33 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Noon
Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator
To the best of my knowledge, drawing on my experience, if everything else stays the same, but we create laws that necessarily incarcerate more people, I would predict that at least the same proportion of aboriginal offenders will be caught in that growth in incarceration. So if everything else stays the same, the actual numbers will grow.
There is some reason to suspect that some of the particular crimes that are being addressed by bills that are before Parliament may themselves have an impact on aboriginal offenders that is disproportionate to the rest of the community, or to non-aboriginal offenders. That's speculative--
Noon
Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator
--yes--because of course we don't know the final form of the law.
Noon
Liberal
Noon
Liberal
Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL
I just want to make a comment.
Certainly this is having a huge impact on us here at the committee. When you talk about systemic discrimination, then by definition it's the system and what's in the system. And that's why, when my colleague raises the whole issue around the new justice bills that are coming up, I think you need to put an aboriginal lens over it. Otherwise you're going to continue with the same type of discrimination, and not only within the correctional system. Systemic discrimination in other areas is leading to certain people being incarcerated in the first place.
That's why you need an aboriginal lens over the supposed “tough on crime”, where you want to put younger people in jail for longer periods of time, or keep people in jail for longer periods of time, it's harder to get parole, it's harder to have conditional releases, and all these types of things.
From what I'm reading here, would you say that aboriginal inmates are going to have a much more difficult time accessing the programs that are supposedly there to help? It's a vicious cycle.
12:05 p.m.
Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator
Again, let me preface this by saying “if everything stays the same”. So if we see an increased population of aboriginal offenders going into federal penitentiaries, and those offenders continue to be, in my opinion, over-classified and held at higher security levels than they need to be, then they will have increasingly delayed access to programs and they will be delayed in their return to the community and the cycle will continue.
What we are talking about here is the focus of my mandate, which is to be responsive to the concerns and the complaints of offenders and the oversight that we bring to the operations of Correctional Service Canada and pointing out systemic issues that come to our attention because of the individual complaints that we respond to as an ombudsman. Significant in those complaints are delays in access to programs and to release.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for appearing today.
I think all of us around the table today agree that we want to see offenders treated fairly, and certainly I would support any initiatives to speed up any re-classification initiatives that need to be done. I would support that. But it seems to me that it goes without saying that if there are a high number of offenders, there are also a high number of victims.
One piece that's missing--I know it's not in your mandate, and it's not your particular assignment--and that we need to also consider is the needs of the victim. Are there any programs available that would help to provide counselling or care to the victim following the violence--all too often it's women and children--so that these people will not be caught in this continuing cycle of violence? Are there any programs like that available? Or are the victims ignored in this process?
12:05 p.m.
Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator
I'm sorry, but clearly part of your question is really so far outside of my mandate and my competence that I really would hesitate to answer. I am aware of programs that do deal with victim needs, but specifically, when we look at some of the initiatives that are available under sections 81 and 84 that involve aboriginal communities, particularly under section 84, you'll often see circles brought together in terms of the supervision or the reintegration of that offender in the community. That will often involve victims along the same lines that the National Parole Board uses--a process of having circle hearings or elder-assisted hearings that may or may not involve victims. Of course, now victims are eligible to participate in, or at least attend, parole hearings.
So there are a number of opportunities for victim involvement. The Correctional Service of Canada also has a restorative justice unit and they have achieved some success there as well, but beyond that, it's really beyond my expertise to comment on specific services to victims.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
I'll have to call that the end. It's unfortunate.
Thank you very much to the witnesses for appearing before the committee.
12:05 p.m.
Correctional Investigator, Office of the Correctional Investigator
Thank you.
12:05 p.m.
Executive Director, Office of the Correctional Investigator
Thank you very much.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
We appreciate the information, and the shocking information, and we thank you for taking the time today for this.
We'll take a few minutes so that the next delegation can come forward. Then we'll return.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
Committee members, we will reconvene here.
Our second witnesses are from the Cree-Naskapi Commission. We have with us Richard Saunders, the chairman; Robert Kanatewat, commissioner; Philip Awashish, commissioner; and Brian Shawana, director general.
Thank you for your attendance at the committee. We'll proceed with the presentation and then we'll be asking questions from the various sides of the government.
12:15 p.m.
Richard Saunders Chairman, Cree-Naskapi Commission
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the committee for agreeing to hear us. I think there are some worthwhile things that flow from each of our appearances at these hearings, and we very much appreciate it.
As you probably know, the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act, which created the commission, requires us to report every second year to Parliament on the implementation of the act. Our reports are tabled with the Minister of Indian Affairs. We ordinarily meet with the minister shortly after that. We haven't had an opportunity yet to meet Minister Prentice, but we're looking forward to that in the fairly near future.
After these reports are tabled in the House, as you know, according to the Standing Orders they are referred automatically to this committee. Whether or not we appear is a matter of discretion for the committee, and I'm very appreciative of the fact that you have decided to hear us.
That's particularly important because our reports are based upon hearings that we conduct with members of the Cree and Naskapi communities. The leaders, elders, youth, and others come to us, and they spend a fair amount of time making presentations. They know that any important points they make will end up in our reports. They're aware at the time they're doing their homework on those presentations that the information they put forward eventually will be in the hands of elected leaders, members of Parliament, as well as the minister. So they put a fair amount of time into it and they certainly anticipate that their remarks will be heard far and wide, and this is an opportunity to ensure that happens. So it's more than just a formality and we're very pleased with that.
This report, the 2006 report, is the tenth report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission. In the course of preparing those reports, we did a little bit of a look back and realized that in the twenty years since the first report, there have been ten ministers. While it isn't our job, really, to comment on when Prime Ministers appoint ministers, and when they replace them, and so on, the fact of the matter is that one of our concerns over the years has been the extent to which ministers actually direct policy.
I suppose that's true for many ministers, not merely the Minister of Indian Affairs, but if one considers that a minister has two years on average--ten ministers in twenty years, that's two years each--in which to carry out his or her mandate, and when you realize that ministers, quite properly, take fairly heavy criticism, as they do in the democratic system, for mistakes that are made by their department, and of course take credit for wise decisions that are made, the fact of the matter is that with only two years and over 600 first nations, many Inuit communities, and many Métis communities, and with the responsibility for scores of programs as well as for policy that's being developed at a time when the law on aboriginal and treaty rights is evolving quite rapidly, it may be that if one of you were the Minister of Indian Affairs, you would want a little bit more than two years in order to carry out government policy for which you're accountable. I think that's just a bit of framing, a contextual piece that we wanted to mention.
I should at this point introduce--it works quite well in terms of what I'm saying--my two colleagues. They're fairly modest people and likely won't tell you themselves, but the fact of the matter is they were both negotiators and signatories to the original James Bay agreement in 1975. They were among the treaty makers, along with Billy Diamond and many others.
The treaty makers at the time, it seems to me, had a vision of where the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was going, along with the subsequent Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act. Where is this going? What's it all about? It's not just about building dams.
From my perspective, it occurs to me that the treaty makers had in mind an ongoing, viable Cree Nation, and a viable Naskapi Nation in the case of the northeastern Quebec agreement, that could continue the traditional values, the traditional activities, and the traditional way of life, maintain the language and maintain the culture, and yet operate in the 20th and 21st century as effectively as anybody else. The agreement was seen in part as an instrument, I think, to do some of that. There are times when we must measure the results against that kind of standard.
The Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act has been in force since 1984. It was a new step forward, cutting-edge legislation, and it was one of the first attempts to move from the Indian Act to a piece of legislation tailored to the needs and special circumstances of the communities involved.
We had a meeting not long ago with some of the leadership at the Six Nations, who of course have a set of issues of their own to deal with. Their basic question to my colleagues was, how did you guys arrange to get out from under the Indian Act? That's a question many first nations are asking themselves. It's easy to say, let's get rid of the Indian Act, but it's quite another matter to come up with some alternative governance institutions, structures, and laws that work.
The Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act was an honest attempt by all parties to do this, but it was passed more than 20 years ago. The experience that's been gained, as well as the evolution of the nature of governance in the communities, has meant that some amendments are necessary. Some are small housekeeping amendments, such as the quorum that's required in order for a community to approve short- and long-term borrowing—no doubt a different quorum for any changes in land tenure, and so on.
But there are big-ticket amendments, and Commissioner Awashish will talk about them in a little more detail. There are big issues, too. Governance has evolved from the Indian Act model of a band here and a band there, with a chief and council with prescribed powers and duties. Here we're looking at a Cree Nation, which more than just a collectivity of individual communities, and a Naskapi Nation, whose character is quite different from a simple band. Appropriate tools are needed; some are legislative, and obviously some are social, political, and community tools.
One issue that I would like to talk about in a bit more detail is housing. I know that this committee has been paying particular attention to the housing issues of first nations across Canada. There is no doubt that housing is at a critical stage in the majority of first nations across this country—and the committee is more aware of that than me.
The situation is slightly different in the Cree communities, and one of the reasons is the success of those communities, subsequent to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement. This success has meant that economic opportunities in these communities are somewhat greater than in the average first nations community in Canada. As a result, whereas in most communities a very large proportion of young people migrate off the reserve to find employment opportunities, for education or for whatever, in the Cree communities the retention rate of young people is over 95%.
Now that's a good thing, but one cost is the demand for housing. The demand for new family units is even greater than in many other communities, which are less favoured economically. It's a reality.
We had a presentation during the course of our hearings from Chief Billy Diamond, on behalf of the Grand Council, around housing. We have not tabled it, out of respect for all committee members; the French translation is not yet complete.
Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure about committee rules, but if they permit and if you agree, we would like to send you a copy, which is very detailed, as soon as the French translation is available.
Highlights of the report include that in the 28 years from 1977, which was two years after the agreement was signed, to 2005, there was a 117% population increase. That's phenomenal, especially considering that most of those people have stayed in their communities. In actual numbers, the population was 6,727 in 1977, then 14,588 in 2005, and it's over 15,000 at the moment.
According to a count in 1999, there was a housing backlog of 1,403 units. Current reports are being prepared; however, the backlog is growing, not shrinking. That is cause for concern. It impacts the formation of new families. It creates social pressures that you've heard about in other situations, which apply in this case too. This needs to be addressed on an urgent basis.
The Cree proposal involves a very balanced approach, and I was profoundly impressed by Chief Diamond's presentation. He wasn't saying, you guys should go ask the government for more money. No, he was talking about a balanced approach in which—and I quoted him in the notes that have been distributed— “We have to change our attitudes and approaches to housing from 'entitlement' to 'ownership' and from 'social assistance' to 'investment.'”
What he is talking about is expecting individuals who are benefiting from the economic situation to pay according to ability. If they have employment, they pay as though they had employment. He's looking at the Cree themselves investing in housing as a community and a government. And yes, he is looking at some government funding too, but he's advocating a balanced approach. He has also indicated a willingness to sit down and work through the details of what such an agreement might entail.
There is no doubt that social housing assistance is desperately needed in many communities. I'm certainly not questioning it, nor am I questioning the need for continued government support for some of the housing activities in the Cree communities. Clearly that's needed. But to their credit, the Crees have stepped forward and said they are ready to go with a balanced approach, using their own resources as much as possible. This is a proposal that makes sense.
One final issue that arises out of our report is in relation to the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach. As you know, the Naskapi Nation is in the area of Schefferville, in northeastern Quebec. They have the Northeastern Quebec Agreement as their guiding document; they are party to the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act and are covered by it. But they do have some unique problems that are quite different from those of the Cree. Unfortunately, one of them is in relation to the proposed development of the regional government of Nunavik in northern Quebec.
The concern is that the Crown, in right of Quebec and Canada, has failed to take into account their interests in the development of the Nunavik regional government. They argue that Indian Affairs has failed to protect their interests, to discharge its fiduciary duties, and to discharge its activities in a way that's consistent with the honour of the Crown; that they have allowed formal discussion to take place on the development of a regional government that impact their interests in their lands under the Northeastern Quebec Agreement.
Frankly, I think the governments need to sort it out. The Naskapi need to be at the table; they need to be consulted. Certainly they have no issue whatever with the Inuit of northern Quebec having their own regional government, but they insist that their interests under an agreement that they have already signed ought to be honoured, respected, and taken into account in the development of another succeeding regional government.
All we can say is that we believe the parties have to come to the table and discuss these things. Quite frankly, we wrote to the previous minister and the response was, we've appointed a federal negotiator, Mr. Donat Savoie, to look into this: talk to him. We talked to him, and he referred us to a lawyer in the Department of Justice, who basically said it was none of our business.
Well, blah, blah, blah. That's all fine and dandy, but the fact of the matter is that the Naskapi people have an issue here. Do we really want it to go to court and be another big hassle for ten years in the courts, or do we simply want to get to the table and sort it out?
So whether it's our business or not, whoever's business it is, please, come to the table and sort it out.
My time is limited, so I'd like to wrap it up and turn this over to my two colleagues. Commissioner Kanatewat will begin, Commissioner Awashish will finish, and then we'll try to answer questions. If there are more questions after the time has expired, we would be happy to meet any individual member who may wish to follow up on these items.
Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Robert.
12:30 p.m.
Robert Kanatewat Commissioner, Cree-Naskapi Commission
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As mentioned, the Cree-Naskapi Commission has been reporting for the past 20 years, and it is my pleasure to be here today. I have been a commissioner for the Cree-Naskapi Commission for the same amount of time, with the exception of one year.
What I would like to do is highlight some of the findings of the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach from our recent special implementation hearings with the Cree-Naskapi leadership from February 13 to 16, 2006, for the preparation of the report.
Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to mention the Nunavik Commission. The Naskapi Nation expressed their concern in writing to the Government of Canada. They have questioned Canada's aboriginal self-government policy. The Naskapi Nation awaits a full written response to their questions, and so far Canada has not fully responded to all of the questions raised. In light of this, and following a representation complaint from the Naskapi Nation, the Cree-Naskapi Commission decided to hold an inquiry pursuant to paragraph 165(1)(b) of the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act.
However, representatives of the Department of Indian Affairs, by invoking section 167 of the act, refused to come to a hearing of the commission on this matter. Canada is currently asserting that the commission lacks jurisdiction to hear the representation of the Naskapi Nation. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has also responded by saying that a four-party--Inuit, Naskapi, Quebec, and Canada--process had been set up to consider the issues raised by the Naskapi Nation.
The department has also responded that it was in the process of providing detailed information to the Naskapi and DIAND, confident that this process would yield positive results. This section can be found on page 38 of our report. It is fair to say that the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach has concluded that failure to appear before the commission is consistent with their view that Canada has been derelict in its duty to protect our rights and interests in the face of a sustained effort by Makivik Corporation. This section can also be found on page 38 of our report.
The commission recommended in its 2004 report...and l quote from page 48 of our report:
The Government of Canada must adequately discharge its responsibility and undertake timely and appropriate measures in consultation with the Naskapi Nation to ensure the protection of Naskapi rights and interests in the present negotiations respecting the establishment of a Nunavik government.
The commission, as stated in the conclusion of the present report, considers that Canada has a legal obligation to act in the best interests of the Naskapi Nation. In this matter the commission intends to pursue the Naskapi representation and report on it, despite Canada's position.
In terms of other Naskapi community issues, earlier our chairman mentioned housing. We have reported that the housing allocations for 2007-08 and beyond for the Naskapi community are not yet known due in part to the housing allocation process of the CMHC. This can be found on page 39 of the report.
With regard to policing, the Naskapi Nation has stated that there is a cost-sharing dispute in the cost of police services delivery in the province of Quebec.
In closing, l would like to quickly quote the Cree-Naskapi Commission recommendations for the Naskapi Nation. This can be found on page 52 of our report:
The Government of Canada, Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach and other parties concerned should forthwith settle the mandate of the Naskapi-Inuit-Canada-Quebec Working Group which should commence to address the concerns of the Naskapi Nation respecting the current negotiations on the establishment of the Nunavik Government.
The Government of Canada should settle its cost-sharing dispute with Quebec over the costs of providing policing service to the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach.
The Government of Canada and the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach should settle the issue of the housing allocation process of the CMHC and determine the present and future housing needs of the Naskapi.
I wish to thank the honourable committee members for this opportunity to bring forward the concerns of the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach.
Thank you.
12:35 p.m.
Philip Awashish Commissioner, Cree-Naskapi Commission
Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to speak on our report of 2006.
I wish to speak on a particular aspect of our recommendations from our 2006 report. This particular recommendation is also something that came out of our past reports. In other words, in many of our past reports—this is our tenth report—we have recommended again and again that the parties concerned, that is, the Government of Canada and the Cree-Naskapi government, review the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act, establish a process for reviewing that act, and determine certain ways and provisions for amending the act.
Our chairman has already given you a brief background on the act itself, but it all starts, of course, from the modern-day treaties. For the recognition and the protection of their rights and interests, the Cree and Naskapi nations negotiated their respective modern-day treaties, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement of 1975 and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement of 1978.
The Cree and Naskapi nations view these agreements or treaties as reaffirmations of their rights. These treaties establish a framework for meaningful and positive relations with the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec, as well as with contemporary society.
Pursuant to section 9 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and section 7 of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement respectively, the Government of Canada undertook to recommend to Parliament special legislation concerning local government for the James Bay Cree on category 1A lands and suitable legislation concerning local government for the Naskapi of Quebec on category 1A-N lands.
The special legislation contemplated by these agreements, which became the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act, was passed by the House of Commons on June 8, 1984. This special legislation provides for an orderly and efficient system of Cree and Naskapi local government, for the administration, management and control of their community lands.
Except for the purposes of determining which of the Cree and Naskapi beneficiaries are “Indians” within the meaning of the Indian Act, the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act replaces the Indian Act, which does not apply to the Cree and Naskapi First Nations, nor does the Indian Act apply on or in respect to their community lands.
The representatives of the Cree and Naskapi parties and the Government of Canada arrived at a shared understanding as to the implications and impact of the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act, in the statement of understanding of 1984, best summarized as follows:
The Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act is the cornerstone of the achievement of the full potential of the James Bay and Northern Quebec and Northeastern Quebec Agreements. The new structures which were created by the Agreements were meant to interface with properly constituted local governments. The Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act is also the basis upon which the relationship with the Federal Government will be redefined. By way of the new Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, the Cree and Naskapi will be able to go beyond the restrictions inherent in the Indian Act and thereby assume full control in the administration of their communities and management of category 1A-N and 1A lands.
The implementation of the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act must enable and facilitate the development and the evolution of Cree and Naskapi local government by taking into account the social, economic, and political realities and conditions prevailing from time to time in the Cree and Naskapi first nations. Hence, the proper implementation of the act bears exceptional significance and tremendous consequences on the aspirations and goals of the Cree and Naskapi first nations as self-governing peoples.
As our chairman mentioned, this act has been enforced now for about 23 years. The meaning and practice of local self-government has evolved and been redefined over the past 23 years in a manner consistent with the aspirations, goals, and political will of the Cree and Naskapi first nations. The Cree and Naskapi people are using their governments to meet needs such as housing, economic development, traditional pursuits, policing, administration of justice, education, health, delivery and administration of programs and services, community development, environmental protection, and political representation to conduct government-to-government relations.
The full potential of local self-government, with its dynamic and evolving nature, has not yet been realized or achieved by the Cree and Naskapi first nations because, as one principal constraint, the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act, after 23 years, remains an inflexible, rigid, and unchanging instrument. However, I may mention that the treaties themselves, the modern-day agreements, have been amended from time to time. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement has been amended 18 times.
However, for the past 23 years, the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act has not maintained pace or evolved with the exercise and practice of the Cree-Naskapi local government and the state of aboriginal and contemporary law. In fact, certain existing provisions and terms, and the absence of essential provisions, of the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act constitute serious obstacles and constraints for the Cree and Naskapi local government and administration.
The past and present reports, discussion papers, and lessons learned from investigations of the Cree-Naskapi Commission result in conclusions, findings,and recommendations respecting the review and revision of the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act to achieve various objectives, such as updating the act so that it reflects the present reality and evolving dynamics of the Cree-Naskapi local government and the state of aboriginal contemporary law.
We prepared this presentation for the committee, and on pages 4 and 5 we've outlined the various reasons for amending the act. I imagine this particular document is available to the members to read, so they can read for themselves the various reasons for amending the act and updating it so that it conforms with the present state of law as well as with the aspirations of the Cree and Naskapi peoples.
I'd like to conclude that the trust and fiduciary responsibilities and obligations of the Government of Canada must be exercised, on a government to government basis, for enhancement of Cree and Naskapi local government. One way of doing that, of course, is for the Government of Canada to undertake a serious exercise and process in reviewing the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act and seeking possible amendments to enhance further the exercise of local government by the Cree and Naskapi peoples.
Thank you.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
Committee members, I allowed longer presentations because I think the information contained in these presentations is of more importance to us than the questions.
Now I'll turn it over for five minutes to Mr. Russell on the Liberal side.
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL
Good afternoon. I want to thank you for appearing before the committee. My name is Todd Russell. I come from Labrador, and I represent the riding of Labrador.
Certainly this is not an uncomplicated matter that you're bringing before the committee in terms of the report. Your report basically says you want a process. You want the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec to engage with the Naskapi and Cree nations to amend the Cree–Naskapi of Quebec Act. Is that right? That's the overall recommendation.
As I understand it—and I may be corrected—you have asked for this in earlier reports. Is that right?
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL
What rationale has been given by either the Quebec government or the federal government to not engage in negotiations to amend the act?
