Evidence of meeting #38 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 cree.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Larry Bagnell Liberal Yukon, YT
Since the Auditor General's comments, has there been an increase in resources for implementation? If so, what type of proportional increase in resources to help with implementation has been put in the department?
11:45 a.m.
Director General, Implementation Branch, Claims and Indian Government Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
It's not so much a question of resources; the resources are increased as new agreements are put in place. The task at hand for us is to more wisely invest the resources we have as we move through the implementation business. So we try to take advantage of the advice of the Auditor General and others to figure out better ways of implementing the agreements.
I would like to point out as well that the objectives of our land claim agreements are mutually shared objectives. So all the parties to a land claim agreement have responsibilities in the implementation phase. Finding the best ways to work together to maximize our energies I think is the real key to implementation.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
I want to focus specifically on the housing component. I know that some of my colleagues have already mentioned it, but I have in front of me the report submitted by Chief Billy Diamond. I know he was very focused on solutions, instead of just compounding studies on the lack of housing. He also has a line in here on page 6 that Canada has taken the position that the JBNQA has not created an obligation to provide housing, other than what is available from programs. And he states that there hasn't been the same treatment for Inuit and wonders why different logic was applied to two different people in one agreement.
Also, I'd just like to get a report on what the response has been to the actual report.
11:45 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Claims and Indian Government, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Unfortunately, we don't have with us the report you are talking about.
As I said, the housing issue is being addressed through the regular programs of the department and the CMHC; they are the ones who are dealing with that issue, and we are not dealing with that issue at our level.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
We're out of time, unfortunately. We'll be back to you fairly quickly.
Mr. Bruinooge.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before I start with some other questions I was preparing, I just want to go back to your response, Mr. Sewell, to a question from Mr. Bagnell. You said that from the work of the Auditor General and the recommendations from that office, one thing you perhaps needed to do more of was pursuing the objectives of the agreements. I was wondering if you could elaborate a bit more on that concept, because it's not something I've heard of before.
11:50 a.m.
Director General, Implementation Branch, Claims and Indian Government Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
The whole question of objectives versus obligations has been a particularly interesting discussion between us and the Auditor General.
Let me put it this way: the obligations themselves are important and are significant, and we need to regard the obligations inside land claim agreements as a critical piece. Beyond those, most of our land claim agreements state the objectives of the land claim agreement—to provide certainty of title and certainty of processes for access to resources.
Another of the objectives, once we had that certainty, would be for the economy to grow. The obligation is to put in place the regulatory regimes and to establish the certainty of title, but the question of whether those resources will be developed once you have certainty of title and the regime in place will depend on the marketplace and a variety of things outside the control of the land claim agreement. So the objective is a healthier economy as a result of the land claim agreement, but the land claim agreement does not guarantee that objective is going to be attained.
So putting in place and implementing successfully an agreement will hopefully set the stage and provide the jumping-off point for an improved economy, but they won't be the guarantee of that.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
So in essence, to achieve the objectives of the agreement one might consider redefining elements like the hard details negotiated in the agreement, if they're not achieving the goals or objectives of the agreement. Is that what you're suggesting?
11:50 a.m.
Director General, Implementation Branch, Claims and Indian Government Sector, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
I'm suggesting that the objectives are a statement of what the parties to an agreement hope will come about as a result of the settling of the land claim agreement, but there will be many other factors not necessarily within the control of the parties to the agreement. So I'm trying to draw the distinction between those things the parties to the agreement can directly affect, and those things that are going to rely on other things happening. For instance, you can have certainty of land and title, as we do in the Yukon with many of the land claim agreements settled there, but that doesn't result in diamond mines developing in the Yukon; it requires other forces at play.
So we need to be aware of the objectives and need to make sure our actions contribute to moving towards the objectives, but the agreement and implementation of the agreement do not guarantee the objectives will be obtained.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
I can see it being very challenging when an agreement is negotiated and hard details are put into it and the net result is that the objectives are not achieved, yet the deal, unfortunately, has been signed. I guess it becomes a question of how much latitude there is in the deal or original arrangement, and whether or not the deal is open to interpretation. That's the sense of what I got from your statement.
If you look at the presentation of the Cree-Naskapi, they talk openly about this, in the sense that demographics have changed their housing requirement, whose explosion they couldn't have predicted. In essence, I guess that's something they are trying to build into this implementation process. I can see it being very difficult for your body to try to go back to the original agreement and add in these elements to accommodate a reality that you couldn't have predicted.
I'm going to move on to another part of the Library of Parliament's presentation or its document put before us.
11:50 a.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I'll keep it short, because I want my colleague to have enough time to put all of his questions to the witness. This situation directly concerns him. I'm trying to understand why an agreement that is being negotiated would not contain directives for its implementation. We've seen this in the case of Nunavut and other communities.
Why is there a gap of sorts and why is the implementation process seemingly so complicated? Take the Cree, for example. What's missing in their case? Am I not understanding something?
11:50 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Claims and Indian Government, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Lemay, you've put your finger on the problem. When the agreement was negotiated with the Cree 30 years ago, the process did not involve the negotiation of an implementation plan. It was the first modern-day treaty. Since then, new agreements have been negotiated and all have contained an implementation plan. The treaty is negotiated first, followed by the implementation plan.
That wasn't the case with the Cree. Theirs was the first treaty negotiated and the government was testing the waters, so to speak. There was a mistaken belief that once the agreement was signed, implementation would follow naturally. This created considerable tension and led to some difficult relations with the Cree. However, we are working to resolve this situation. Not having an implementation plan was the real stumbling block.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Yvon Lévesque Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
I'm very interested in self-government and in your ongoing negotiations in the area. Are we close to reaching an agreement? How long before we can expect one?
11:55 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Claims and Indian Government, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
We are currently negotiating self-government with Nunavik, not with the Cree. We are negotiating a separate agreement with the Cree concerning an implementation plan. Then we will go one to address the issue of self-government.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Yvon Lévesque Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
So then, you're still not negotiating self-government?
11:55 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Claims and Indian Government, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Not at this time with the Cree.
11:55 a.m.
Bloc
Yvon Lévesque Bloc Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
You're negotiating self-government with the Inuit. When the time comes to negotiate self-government with the Cree, will consideration be given to the fact that some Cree communities are located on Nunavik land?
Consider, for example, Whapmagoostui where more housing is needed. Money for construction could be forthcoming, but there is no room to build more housing units. Most likely, a bridge would need to be built over a river so as to make any remaining land accessible.
In a case like this, is it up to the department to provide the funds needed to build a bridge, so that additional housing could be built in the community?
11:55 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Minister, Claims and Indian Government, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Sewell may want to say more on the subject, but the government has an O & M agreement with the Cree pursuant to which funds are available to meet specific needs. If a bridge needs to be built, I would imagine the Cree will use O & M funding, unless the need is truly out of the ordinary. In that case, they could ask us for additional funding. However, money is available to them under an O & M agreement.