Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 11th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Good afternoon, everybody. We'll try to get started here.

Before I welcome our guests, I would just like to start by drawing the attention of the committee members to the agenda. There's one small change. We are welcoming two groups of witnesses today. The first, from now until 4:25, is the Naskapi Nation, and then from 4:25 until 5:15, we'll have the Makivik Corporation.

You'll note that from 5:15 until 5:30 we will have some committee business in camera. There are two issues. One is a notice of motion from Ms. Neville, and second, I want to deal with the requests I have received from several members for an additional meeting this week. We'll stop at 5:15. I'm hoping we can accomplish all of that in 15 minutes, but if some of my colleagues wish to take longer to express themselves, I want you to know that I have lots of time tonight, and I don't need to rush off to anything at 5:30.

[An hon. member]

Are there votes or something?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

To my knowledge there are no votes today. I understand that there's lots of time. We're going to be here right until Friday until two o'clock. So I'm sure that we can hold the votes later in the week if we need to.

I would like to welcome to the table representatives of the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach. Today I would like to welcome Chief Philip Einish; Robert Pratt, who is the legal counsel; and Paul Wilkinson, who is a special adviser.

I'd also like to note that we have in the room today several other representatives from the Naskapi Nation: Mr. Paul Mameanskum; Mr. Edward Shecanapish, also a counsellor; Isaac Pien, a counsellor; and John Mameanskum, director general. Welcome to all of you. I see you brought your weather with you here to Ottawa today.

What we'd like to do is give those at the table the opportunity to make a presentation. If you could hold it to about ten minutes, whether that's from one person or collectively, we would appreciate that. It allows us to get on with our questioning.

I will need to bring this portion to completion at 4:25. With that, who would like to make the presentation today?

[Chief Philip Einish, Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach]

Good afternoon.

[Witness speaks in native language]

My name is Philip Einish. I am the chief of the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach. On special occasions, such as at meetings with government people, when I present something, I always start off in my mother tongue because language is an important issue in my community. It's a priority.

I am grateful to the committee for agreeing to hear our presentation here this afternoon. We hope to seek a better future for my people. Our presence here reflects, in particular, the efforts of Mr. Yvon Lévesque. Many thanks, Mr. Lévesque. Other members who have already demonstrated an interest in our rights are Jean Crowder, Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Rod Bruinooge, Todd Russell, and Marc Lemay.

Dr. Paul Wilkinson, who has worked with us for over 30 years, will present our brief, and Robert Pratt, our legal adviser since 1970, will assist in answering the questions that will be put forward.

[Witness speaks in native language]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Wilkinson.

[Dr. Paul Wilkinson, Special Advisor, Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ladies and gentlemen, I will be presenting the Naskapi's brief in English, but if you have any questions or comments in French, we will be happy to respond in the language of Molière, or of Gilles Vigneault, as the case may be.

Compressing 5,000 years of Naskapi history and 17 years of work on this particular file into ten minutes is a little bit of a challenge, but I shall do my best.

The first thing you need to understand is that traditionally the Inuit of Quebec, particularly the Inuit in the area of Ungava Bay, have been a coastal people. This is generally true of the Inuit from Siberia through to Alaska.

On page one of our brief, you will see a map prepared by Makivik Corporation that shows that in the area of Ungava Bay, the presence of the Inuit was limited to the coast. On page two, you will see that, for the very same reason, all of the contemporary Inuit communities are either on or very close to the coast. Page three will show you that the interior land south of Ungava Bay was traditionally occupied by Naskapi and this started approximately 5,000 years ago, shortly after the glacial ice receded in that area.

The next important fact that you need to know is that, unlike certain other aboriginal groups in Quebec, the Naskapi did want to sign the James Bay Agreement, and in 1975, under the guidance of the Northern Quebec Inuit Association, the predecessor of Makivik Corporation, the Naskapi made a strenuous effort to become a signatory. They were not, however, allowed to. Time ran out, and the parties decided to stick to the deadline of November 1975 for the signing that had been agreed to in the agreement in principle of 1974.

The consequence of this was that the lands of the Naskapi and the rights relating to those lands were given predominantly to the Inuit, even though the Inuit had never used and occupied those lands, and I'm referring here principally to this area shown on the preceding page, north of the 55th parallel.

Among other things, the jurisdiction of the Kativik Regional Government extended south to the 55th parallel even though that had never been traditional Inuit lands, and that is shown on the map on the following page.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

If I can interrupt just for a minute, the copies that we have are in black and white, but I understand we actually do have some colour copies.

[Dr. Paul Wilkinson]

There are colour copies. We brought additional colour copies.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

There are colour copies there, if we could have them.

I'm sorry to interrupt. Please continue, Mr. Wilkinson.

[Dr. Paul Wilkinson]

Thank you.

The Naskapi were excluded from the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, but they were given a commitment by the signatories to that agreement that a comparable agreement would be negotiated with them. But first the Naskapi had to go to the Inuit and say, “Please, Inuit, will you give us back our lands? Will you please give us back our rights?” That was a humiliating exercise, because the Naskapi are a first nation--and were recognized as such by the National Assembly in 1985--that is in every respect equal to the Inuit first nation.

The Inuit didn't want to hand back to the Naskapi most of what they had taken from them. The Inuit at that time were under great pressure. The James Bay agreement had been endorsed by the Inuit by only a tiny minority, and the three Inuit so-called dissident communities of Puvirnituk, Akulivik, and Ivujivik were threatening legal action at that time to have the James Bay agreement overturned. So politically it wasn't very easy for the Inuit to go back to their electors and say, “Look guys, we signed this agreement and we're now going to give away about a third of the land we got, the rights that go with it, and so on.”

The consequence was that the area over which the rights of the Naskapi were recognized under their agreement—the Northeastern Quebec Agreement of 1978—covered only a small portion of their traditional lands north of the 55th parallel.

On the following page we have indicated in red the area of traditional Naskapi lands that the Inuit refused to give back to the Naskapi. We use the word “expropriated” in our brief. So although the Naskapi got their own land claims agreement, they and their lands remained under the jurisdiction of the Kativik Regional Government. They were given one seat out of 14. You're politicians, so you know how much power or influence a group that holds one seat out of 14 exercises over decision-making.

One of the particularly painful things for the Naskapi was that they were not allowed by the Inuit to have any important representation on the committees of environmental and social protection created under section 23 of the James Bay agreement, even though those regimes were created primarily to protect the hunting, fishing, trapping, and other rights of the native people.

Paradoxically, since 1990 when the Naskapi first became involved in this file, they have supported the desire of the Inuit to obtain enhanced governmental powers, with one important nuance. That nuance is that the Naskapi wish the Inuit to get those powers over the traditional lands of the Inuit, but they don't want the Inuit to get any more powers over the Naskapi or their traditional lands. The Naskapi are increasingly being put in a relationship with the Inuit in which the Inuit are a colonial power exercising authority over Naskapi lands and Naskapi people.

The Naskapi have tried unsuccessfully since 1990 to obtain a seat at the Makivik–Canada-Quebec negotiating table, or if not a seat, at least some meaningful representation. The Naskapi believe that Canada has a particular special duty to protect its rights and interests in this matter. But Canada has consistently failed to do so.

As I mentioned earlier, the Naskapi have one seat out of 14 on the council of the Kativik Regional Government. They believe that in many ways the Kativik Regional Government has consistently discriminated against or neglected their interests. If you're interested, we can cite examples to support that belief.

The Naskapi, despite all the deficiencies of the Naskapi agreement—the Kativik Regional Government authority, no representation on key committees, and so on—signed the Northeastern Quebec Agreement in 1978 because it offered them great advantages. The first was the possibility of negotiating a new village, which they obtained, and which has transformed their quality of life. The second was the possibility of getting self-government legislation, which was achieved in 1984 through the adoption by Parliament of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. Another was $9 million of compensation, and so on.

Their fear is that if a new Inuit-dominated government is granted greater powers, the government will exercise those powers. Since the government would be dominated by Inuit for centuries to come, the Naskapi fear that it will exercise its powers in a way that adversely affects the culture, the economy, and the society of the Naskapi.

The original position of the Naskapi was that they wanted the Kativik Regional Government to get out of their traditional lands entirely in exchange for new powers. That position was followed for many years. It became obvious that it was not very likely to succeed.

The compromise position adopted by the Naskapi is that they wish no new powers in certain areas, such as natural resources, wildlife management, taxation, land management, culture, toponyms, and language. They wish no new powers in those fields to be granted to the new regional government unless the Naskapi have consented in advance to that granting.

[Robert Pratt, Legal Counsel, Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach]

You mean over their traditional lands.

[Dr. Paul Wilkinson]

I'm sorry, it is over the traditional Naskapi lands, now known as...you had difficulty pronouncing Kawawachikamach; I have difficulty pronouncing Nuchimiuschiiy, which is the Naskapi name for the traditional Naskapi lands.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Could you wrap up, please?

[Dr. Paul Wilkinson]

There is a ray of hope. Minister Pelletier, responsible for aboriginal affairs for the Government of Quebec, visited Kawawachikamach in August 2007. He reacted very positively and very sensitively when the Naskapi explained to them this compromise position relating to the granting of new powers.

In his follow-up letter of October 3 he gave a commitment to the Naskapi that they would play an important role in the stages of negotiation following the signing of the agreement in principle. The chief and I attended the signing of the agreement in principle in Quebec City last Wednesday. We understand that on November 28, I think, the Quebec cabinet endorsed the position, the commitment, given to the Naskapi by Minister Pelletier, although for reasons of cabinet confidentiality we have not yet seen the specific document that was authorized.

Every Minister of Indian Affairs since 1990 has made promises to the Naskapi. I would say none of those promises has been kept. We feel that the position of the Naskapi would be greatly improved if, like the Quebec cabinet, the federal cabinet endorsed a strategy designed to offer reasonable protection to the rights and interests of the Naskapi. Our request to you as a committee is that you make a unanimous recommendation that the federal cabinet endorse such a strategy.

I've run over a little bit, but in 5,000 years there's a lot to talk about.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I appreciate that, Mr. Wilkinson.

We're going to go into our first round of questioning. We will have time for one round only. We will have seven minutes each. I will give people a one-minute warning, because I will have to cut it off at seven minutes.

Mr. Russell is first.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you Mr. Chair.

I certainly welcome some familiar faces to Ottawa. I had a chance to meet with your delegation this last spring to discuss this particular matter. There's no doubt it's a sensitive one, but you've put forward a forceful case.

I have a technical question, first of all. Am I to understand that you've been excluded from any type of negotiations relative to this new regional government?

[Dr. Paul Wilkinson]

Yes.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

What has the rationale been for the exclusion? Have they made an argument that...? You're represented already under this umbrella group; did they represent the interests of the Naskapi nation?

I have another question: what obligations does the Government of Canada have under the Northeastern Quebec Agreement to consult, to involve the Naskapi people, when it comes to other types of negotiations that could impact upon your traditional lands or your rights and interests?

I have a third question as well, and I want to be clear: are the Naskapi people looking for extended jurisdiction outside the land base that was negotiated under the Northeastern Quebec Agreement?

[Robert Pratt]

I think I can answer your question.

The reason Quebec and Canada and the Inuit have excluded the Naskapi is that all parties claim the treaty rights under the Northeastern Quebec Agreement and the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement of the Naskapi are not being affected by the expansion of powers to be given to the Nunavut government. In other words, the hunting, fishing, and trapping rights, and the other treaty rights are not being affected, the argument being that there was a secession of all aboriginal rights in the territory by all parties and an expropriation by Bill C-9 in northern Quebec, and that these are new powers.

The Naskapi argument is not that their treaty rights as such are being affected; it's that they wish not to be dominated in a jurisdictional manner by another ethnic group, which is the Inuit. With regard to their traditional territory, they would like the legislated powers to remain with Quebec. They feel they would be protected by Quebec, but once these powers over resources and other sensitive matters are given to the Inuit, they feel they'd be discriminated against. That's the reason.

In terms of consultation, as I say, the attitude of Quebec and Canada is that consultation is not required because the treaty rights as such are not being affected. We're talking here, broadly, about something else called interests. It's a matter of governance, and these are new powers.

[Dr. Paul Wilkinson]

On the last point of your question, the Naskapi are not trying to extend their jurisdiction in any way. They're not looking for new powers, they're not looking for existing powers over other lands.

As Robert said, the position of the Naskapi is that they would feel more secure if the powers that are currently exercised by Quebec and Canada continue to be exercised by Quebec and Canada. Because Quebec and Canada have no reason for favouring Inuit interests over Naskapi interests, they would be more even-handed.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Yes, but if you listen to your argument, you could almost say that has happened since 1990, since these negotiations have taken place, that there's been a certain favourable propensity to Inuit interests over.... I'm not making that jump necessarily, but from your presentation that seems to be the case.

[Dr. Paul Wilkinson]

Yes, that's correct, but what I didn't mention was that one of the reasons the Naskapi signed the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, despite its shortcomings, was that the powers of the Kativik Regional Government, as they exist now, are really very minor. They're so minor that they can't do any particular harm to Naskapi interests.

But the nightmare example we keep talking about is this. Imagine this new government got power over natural resources and, in particular, power over whether to issue a lease for a mine. Imagine there was a mine, a potential mine, near Kuujjuaq, and imagine there was a potential mine near Kawawachikamach, but for some reason both these mines couldn't go ahead—there wasn't enough electricity for two mines, so you couldn't transport the ore for two mines. If an Inuit-dominated government had to decide which of these mines went ahead, our fear is they would choose to authorize the mine near Kuujjuaq, because the benefits--the jobs, the contract--would flow to Inuit. They wouldn't authorize the mine close to Kawawachikamach because they wouldn't benefit from it.

This is why we're afraid of certain kinds of powers. But the Naskapi agreed in 1978 to accept the Kativik Regional Government as it was and they're not trying to back out of it. They don't always like it, but that's the deal, and they've got to stick by the deal.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

So when you look at the agreement in principle that was signed last week, have your fears been heightened or lessened or are they the same?

[Dr. Paul Wilkinson]

The agreement in principle doesn't bind anyone to anything. It doesn't create any legal obligations. All it says is that the parties are going to keep on negotiating. First of all, they're going to try to negotiate a deal to fuse the Kativik Regional Government, the school board, and the health and social services board. If they succeed in doing that, they're going to have more negotiations to decide whether to give additional powers to the new government. So the Naskapi' fears are no greater because of that and they are reassured by the commitment that Minister Pelletier and the Quebec cabinet have given them to make sure they're properly represented. They would feel even more reassured if the federal cabinet gave a similar commitment.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

It's very interesting that when you separate governance—this seems to be a governance debate—from aboriginal treaty rights, because of course many aboriginal people would say that self-government is a right in itself, to make decisions regarding your own people, your own culture, your language, your resources, your lands.... How do you differentiate those?