Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 20th, 2007

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Building a bridge is a very costly undertaking. I don't think any community would have the necessary funds to build this kind of structure to span the George River.

[Michel Roy]

Under the agreement currently being negotiated by Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Namagoose, the Cree will assume responsibility for the obligations set out in the agreement. Perhaps then funds will be made available to move forward with this project.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

On the government side, Mr. Albrecht, please.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

It's more a comment, possibly, than a question.

I'm somewhat frustrated by the fact that we had the Cree-Naskapi Commission report to us, and it was clear to me that a large proportion of their talk was devoted to housing—housing needs and housing gaps. I guess I was expecting that today we would have an opportunity to focus more on that.

It's certainly no reflection on our witnesses. They weren't aware of it. But I think it underlines the fact that maybe we're missing something here in terms of getting an adequate response from the department, at least those in the department who could have addressed some of the issues that were raised as it relates to housing, and specifically talking about the 1,548 units backlogged, another 213 units that require total replacement, and another 913 units that require major renovations. We haven't had an opportunity to even address some of those issues, and I think that's unfortunate, especially given that our committee has wanted to focus on housing needs.

So nothing to the witnesses, but just a comment that I think the committee should take seriously.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, are there a few more minutes yet?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Yes, there are.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Okay.

I'm not sure if you received this Library of Parliament report, but there was something in it that was interesting to me. It was in relation to the negotiations for self-governance in Nunavik and that the Cree-Naskapi were of the view that “Canada has been derelict in its duty to protect our rights and interests,” as the outcome of the negotiations “would in fact be an ethnic government having jurisdiction over a large part of our traditional lands and many aspects of our lives.”

Have you noticed that actually has been the case on the ground? Are the Cree concerned about the Inuit having some degree of political governance or control over those lands?

[Michel Roy]

The information that we have up to now is that the Cree are not too concerned about that aspect of the self-government negotiations. They are kept informed. When our negotiator wants to keep them informed, they will be there. They will be participating in meetings.

The Naskapi have a different problem. It's more difficult to have some dealings with the Naskapi, but we understand that they have some issues. As I said, we will be following up on the proposal from the commission about establishing a quadripartite forum, inviting the Naskapi to participate. So we are hoping that we will be able to address their concern.

But up to now, we understand that the Cree do not have a major problem with what is going on with the Inuit right now.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

What size of a population would the Naskapi be within this territory, and how would it break down in terms of political control?

[Michel Roy]

We think it's around 2,000 people.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

How is that relative to the larger population?

[Terry Sewell]

The Cree population of northern Quebec I think is in the order of 14,000 or 15,000. I don't have the numbers on the Inuit of northern Quebec, actually, at this point. We can get those three numbers for the committee, if that would be of interest to you.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

I guess it's just the idea of how they all tie in together--for instance, just the claim that there's concern that this one group would be under the two. So are there negotiations to break them out into their own political jurisdiction, or are they intermixed within the entire whole?

[Michel Roy]

In the kind of process we have there, around negotiations with one of the groups, we have to make sure we keep all of the three groups involved and informed, because eventually, if ever we have to amend, for example, the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act to reflect the new agreement, we will need the support of the three parties. So it's important for us to always be very sensitive to the needs and the perspective of all of those parties if ever we want to be successful in the implementation of those agreements.

So that's something we are keeping in mind, and we try to find ways of addressing those perspectives and those issues.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Okay.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Madam Crowder.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of points. One is that there has been a significant amount of talk about implementation agreements. My understanding is that there is a coalition of a number of nations that have land claim agreements around some very serious implementation issues, so I would suggest that implementation is not just a problem with Cree-Naskapi, but that it's a problem with many of the nations. That's just more of a comment.

I also think it's important that although there is a recognition that conditions have substantially improved for many people as a result of this agreement, there is still much work to be done. In the conclusion of this report, it talks about the fact that Canada has been derelict in its duty to protect their rights and interests in light of their present situation as described in the past and present reports of the commission. They go on to talk about the Guerin report and the Sparrow report, and they're talking about the duty of the federal government to act in a fiduciary capacity.

On page 42--and I think this comes to the heart of it--is the discussion around inherent rights. The commissioners made a recommendation that section 9 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and section 7 of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement should be amended to provide for, among others, the following provisions: a full and explicit recognition of the inherent right of self-government, and a recognition of the existence and application of traditional law.

In the department's response, my understanding from this is that although the government recognizes the inherent right of self-government as existing under section 35, it has developed an approach to implementation that focuses on reaching practical and workable agreements on how self-government will be exercised, rather than trying to define it in abstract terms. The commissioners go on to talk about the fact that they're concerned about the fact that Canada's recognition of inherent right is merely a policy.

This seems to be fundamental to not only comprehensive land claim agreements, but to implementation and to further negotiations around self-government. So can you comment on whether or not inherent right is considered more than a policy from the department's perspective?

[Michel Roy]

On the question of inherent rights, you're right. That's the position we always took about the fact that we have a policy of inherent right to self-government. What we are trying to do in our negotiations is really to find some ways to implement that right and not trying to define, but trying to implement the right, to be practical in those terms.

Minister Prentice right now is asking us to rethink the approach in terms of recognition and he wants us to have further discussions on where we are going with the inherent right policy on self-government. There is a desire to be able to move forward with the inherent right policy.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

How are first nations involved in this discussion? Because it's fundamental to them as nations, the inherent right to self-government, and it has been recognized quite clearly by the courts.

[Michel Roy]

We are having some discussions with the Assembly of First Nations. We have some working groups with the Assembly of First Nations, and of course through the coalition of the land claim agreements we will have some discussion. I don't say we are too far advanced in the discussions. We are starting that thinking and those discussions. But in the meantime what we want to do is really try to achieve agreements on self-government that are a practical implementation of the inherent right to self-government, so to find practical ways of implementing the self-government component.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Does the government have any more questions?

We're just about out of time.

Are there questions from the opposition?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

I have just a general comment and then I'll throw it back to the opposition to give them some bonus time. Maybe we can get some credit for that at some point in the future. However, I doubt it.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I don't think we operate that way.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

As a general comment in relation to negotiating treaties, negotiating land claims agreements, of course this must be difficult to accomplish. But the concept of the final agreement, of aspiring to that final agreement and trying to find a way to get to that point, where there almost doesn't need to be any further discussion between Canada and a first nations or Inuit group, because it's all settled, this would be the goal for future agreements—at least it's the goal that I'd love to see implemented—so that this is the way it's laid out. You don't ever need to call us again, because we've all agreed to these terms, and you know that you're going to be able to proceed with your own future based on these terms.

So reading this and thinking about how we need to keep going back, redefine, and come up with new terms, maybe I'm being idealistic, but I thought I'd put that out there for the day.