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

[Dr. Paul Wilkinson]

This is an issue of concern to the nation, because the preamble to the agreement in principle says that Canada is taking part in these negotiations in a way that is consistent with the federal aboriginal self-government policy recognition of the right to self-determination. That's a huge problem for the Naskapi. I didn't dwell on it today, but if Canada, through its policy, is party to granting more self-government powers to the Inuit over Naskapi lands, it will make it impossible for the Naskapi to ever exercise their own inherent right of self-government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, Mr. Wilkinson.

Thanks, Mr. Russell.

Next from the Bloc is Monsieur Lemay.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I very much appreciate your coming here today. Since Kawawachikamach and the Makivik Corporation file are of much greater concern to my colleague Yvon Lévesque, the Member for Abitibi—James Bay—Nunavik—Eeyou, I would prefer that he put the questions to the two witnesses. However, thank you for meeting with us.

[Dr. Paul Wilkinson]

Thank you for the support that you have shown the Naskapi since the spring of this year.

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

I believe that my role as an MP is to obtain justice for all groups that make up my riding. I feel that this is fundamentally important. It is my duty to ask the federal government, as Minister Benoît Pelletier has done in Quebec, to take similar action. Therefore, the request and process must be justified. That is why I have invited you here to explain your position.

The colour map of the Naskapi territory which you produced for the committee claims to show land occupied by the Naskapi from 1940 to 1956. Why does it not cover the period up to 1977, when the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was signed?

[Dr. Paul Wilkinson]

This map was produced for a special study. I did not have time to alter it. It shows land occupied by the Naskapi for the past 4,000 years or so, land that they continue to occupy to this day.

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

I see.

To my knowledge, following the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec agreement, the annual reports produced by the Cree-Naskapi Commission were fairly clear on the subject of land claims. Such claims are not new. I know that you have also had meetings, if I am not mistaken, with Makivik Corporation, to discuss land-sharing arrangements.

What came of these meetings?

[Dr. Paul Wilkinson]

Regarding this matter, the Naskapi met with representatives of Makivik Corporation on several occasions, but the latter never accepted that the Naskapi Nation should be recognized as a party to the negotiations. There were talks and tripartite meetings with representatives of Makivik Corporation of Quebec and Canada. Unfortunately, the outcome of these meetings did not prove satisfactory in the least to the Naskapi.

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

Thank you.

[Chief Philip Einish]

I am Chief Phil Einish of the Naskapi Nation.

The elders, especially our elders who have benefited from the land since the time of their grandfathers and grandmothers and time immemorial, have expressed their views on this new proposed Nunavik. They say they have always shared their traditional Naskapi territory within just below the limits of what is now Kuujjuaq. They have always shared with their northern neighbours, the Inuit. The two cultures have always shared, and they want this relationship to keep going for the future ones. What they don't want is an Inuit-dominated government to take over our future ones. They would like to keep this tradition in a solid direction so the relationship between the two cultures does not fade away. In this way, the Naskapi themselves want their traditional interests the way they were.

We support their having greater powers in their traditional coastal areas, but not in our traditional lands. That's the vision of the elders for the future ones. Only in the last 45 years have we benefited from the government. In the past we didn't benefit from anything except the land itself, and we want this vision to be in a solid state that benefits our future ones.

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

How much time do I have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Two minutes.

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

I will ask my questions in quick succession and you can answer them all together.

Did the Inuit use or travel over Naskapi land at the time? Also, did the Naskapi use the coastal area? That's my first question.

I have another question. The letter from Minister Pelletier specifically notes the following:

Moreover, the agreement in principle stipulates that the parties will invite the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach to discuss issues such as the participation of the Naskapi in the Nunavik Assembly, the creation of a bilateral committee to examine certain issues concerning that portion of the land involving the Naskapi [...]

Are you all right with our referring to the portion of the land pertaining to the Naskapi, rather than to Naskapi land, as well as to the Naskapi's position on the scope and aim of the negotiations?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

You have one minute.

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

Following the signing in Quebec of this agreement in principle, did you take part in meetings? Have there been talks between the Naskapi and the Inuit?

[Dr. Paul Wilkinson]

As far as land use is concerned, traditionally, the Naskapi used the land extending as far as the region known at the time as Fort Chimo, and known today as Kuujjuaq.

I believe the Hudson's Bay Company opened a trading post at Fort Chimo in 1831. The company wanted to trade with the Naskapi, not especially with the Inuit. The region south of Kuukkuaq was and still is teeming with sable. Sable pelts were extremely valuable back then. The Naskapi were the only ones trapping sable. The Hudson's Bay Company set up business in Fort Chimo in order to have access to the pelts of the sables trapped by the Naskapi.

Obviously, the agreement in principle was only signed on Wednesday of last week. We expect to meet with Makivik Corporation and with Quebec and federal negotiators by the end of January or by early February. The Chief sent out a letter dated November 26 proposing such a meeting. We expect a positive answer to be forthcoming shortly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

Chief Einish.

[Chief Philip Einish]

Our Naskapi territory has been covered, square inch by square inch, by our traditional Naskapi hunters and trappers, because during the winter months our snowshoes go as far as the Hudson Bay coast and the Atlantic coast. My people have travelled all this area. During the winter months, because of deep snow, our snowshoes have covered every square inch. We had some dogs, but dog sleighs and dog teams can't go in deep snow. Our snowshoes cover that during the winter months. During the summer months, our campfire sites are all over the place, from the east to the coast.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Crowder.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming before the committee today.

I want to briefly go back to the report that originally raised this matter before the committee. This is the 2006 report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission, and there are two things I want to touch on.

One is the fact that the Naskapi talked to the commissioners, and the commissioners went ahead and held a meeting in which the Department of Indian Affairs refused to participate. They invoked section 167 of the act, saying they wouldn't come to the commission on that matter.

Subsequently, recommendation 25 that came forward from the commissioners said:

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.

I'm going to paraphrase the government response rather than going through the whole thing. They basically said there would be a four-party process that would include Inuit, Naskapi, Quebec, and Canada, to consider the issues. Subsequently, they said they expected it would yield positive results. The commission reported later that it hadn't produced any desired results.

This committee heard those concerns, so what if anything has the federal government done to address Naskapi concerns since this report of 2006 was raised?

[Robert Pratt]

The answer is nothing, to date. We have, however, had a positive response from Quebec, and that's documented.

To make it very simple, we are here today to ask for the same kind of support from the federal government as Quebec appears to be now willing to give to the Naskapi. Simply put, that is to have the Naskapi at the negotiating table, when these agreements are put into place for greater powers for the Inuit government, when those powers extend to the areas that are Naskapi areas under the Northeastern Quebec Agreement. That is all the Naskapi are asking for, to be at the negotiating table when there's a question of those powers extending to where the treaty recognizes as Naskapi territory.

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

When you say there has been nothing from the federal government, there's no explanation about why they're not responding, based on their own response to the Cree-Naskapi Commissioner's report? There's no response from the government based on what they initially said they would do, and no letters explaining why they have not?

[Robert Pratt]

We've had meetings with various representatives of the federal government. The general response is to let Quebec take the lead. Canada says, let Quebec take the lead; this is mostly their responsibility. However, we have always said, take on your responsibility as a fiduciary; protect the Naskapi interests.

We haven't been that encouraged, and it's really been Quebec that has taken the lead. And finally, we have this commitment from Benoît Pelletier to have the Naskapi interests represented when these extra powers are going to be granted that would have effect in Naskapi territory. We are here today to ask for the same commitment from the federal government.

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

I'm really struggling with how the federal government can simply abrogate its responsibility. There have been a number of court decisions, as you point out, the fiduciary responsibility and other court decisions that talk about the honour of the crown. The federal government is a partner in this, so how can they not be at the table?

[Dr. Paul Wilkinson]

We are as mystified as you.

When we first got involved in this file in 1990, when we went to Kuujjuarapik to meet the Inuit, we had always assumed that Canada would be the Naskapis' strongest ally in this file, and we have 17 years of amazement, disappointment, and inability to understand why Canada has consistently refused to play the role it should.