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

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

A very short answer.

[Michael McGoldrick]

I only have the English version of what the Quebec minister, Minister Pelletier, wrote, but I understand from the English version that he's committed to consulting the Naskapi when new powers come to the negotiating table.

We've set up a side table, and the negotiators have invited them to participate at the negotiation, at the table, on numerous occasions. They've been consulted. To date, I think there have been four different meetings between the negotiators and Naskapi representatives. So there have been a lot of discussions, but there's been no real engagement on the substance yet, because the Naskapi, I believe, are not satisfied with, I guess, the mandate or the scope of the discussions. This is still under discussion right now. There's been an exchange of letters that we're hoping will allow for further discussions, even now, and there's already been a series of meetings between the negotiators and the Naskapi representatives on what we've been negotiating.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Crowder, for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you for coming before the committee today. The discussions that we've had today demonstrate how difficult it is when you have people from different backgrounds, with European concepts of government primarily, superimposed over peoples who traditionally, for many years, have shared territories, supported each other, looked after each other, and families intermarried. Now we have a system that's coming in and defining rights and property that to a certain extent doesn't fit into the traditional view of how people lived. I think it's very unfortunate that we're in this position, because clearly the Naskapi people don't feel their voices are being heard.

Coming back to the report of 2006, it appears from the report that this has been an ongoing problem. It's not something that just arose since 2006, that the Naskapi did not feel their voices were heard in a meaningful way at the table. So I think it puts everybody in a very difficult position, because I'm sure the Inuit want to get on with economic development and governing in their territory, just as the Naskapi do in theirs.

I wonder if you can see some light in terms of finding a way whereby really families aren't pitted against each other. I wonder if you have any comments on that.

[Harry Tulugak]

I would comment to the effect that we don't view this as a problem in any way, shape, or form--the Naskapi concerns and our aspirations. From the Nunavik area, for over 30 years we've aspired to establish a public form of government, but in the process, in the existing structures of the treaty of JBNQA and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, we will always remain open to discuss and find solutions to issues related to the Naskapi concerns. There is no question about that.

Our political leader, Mr. Pita Aatami, president of the Makivik Corporation, always has his hand out to invite and to try to find ways to have dialogue between the federal and provincial governments, along with the Makivik Corporation, the Nunavik component, to make sure we always....

We want to find a solution with them, except that we've extended this invitation so many times and it has been not well received at times. But we want to keep a good dialogue going. We want to find solutions with them on issues related directly to their concerns, as I'm sure they've said to us they would like to see our aspirations blossom also.

So we're trying to find ways to accommodate each other as we go along. In our agreement in principle, we have section 6.5, which addresses a bilateral committee, and also in the future the door is always open. We'll just keep repeating that the door is always open.

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

I want to go back to what Monsieur Lévesque was talking about in terms of the letter that came out from Minister Pelletier. It seems that the Quebec government is trying to open a door that would encourage the Naskapi to be considered in a more fulsome way.

I know one of their requests today would be that the federal government would behave in the same way. I wonder if you could comment on that.

[Michael McGoldrick]

My understanding is that the federal government has already stated they want to consult the Naskapi on all of what we're doing. They've already written to that effect, as far as I know. Certainly the negotiators have signed letters saying, please come to this table that we're setting up to discuss issues of concern to the Naskapi.

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

In the 2006 report, again, when the commissioners commented on their recommendation, they indicated that although there had been some talk about setting up this four-party process, in fact this process wasn't moving along in a way that was satisfactory to all parties.

You'll forgive me if I'm a bit cynical about letters from government. And it's not a political comment about the Conservatives; I don't care which political government it is. But letters from government are not meaningful unless they're followed up with real action.

So if in the Naskapi view there is no real action as a result of this recommendation that's come out from the Cree-Naskapi Commission, if there are simply letters, I would argue that's not good enough.

[Michael McGoldrick]

Well, one, there were letters signed by all of the negotiators. Several meetings have taken place--in Quebec City, Montreal.... So meetings have taken place; we've discussed these matters. I think we're there wanting to discuss. All the negotiators have gone to these events.

My understanding is that the Naskapi leadership went to the Cree-Naskapi Commission, they placed their concerns, their perspective, before this commission that looks at Naskapi issues, and they said yes.... We didn't present ourselves--

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

One minute.

[Michael McGoldrick]

It's for an advocate for the Naskapi to come forward and say, yes, please do something.” We think we have opened the door for that dialogue to take place.

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

My understanding of this process was that the Cree-Naskapi commissioners did invite the federal government to come and participate in the process, but the federal government refused, I think under section 167. They claimed they had no authority to come and appear before the commission on this particular matter. I think that in itself is a statement about the federal government's willingness to come to the table to talk about this, if they refused to discuss it with the commissioners.

You can't comment on that. That's the federal government. I'll leave it at that.

I just think the discussion today highlights the difficulties when we have people who have very different points of view about what's going on. I'm sure people would be very interested in having the federal government take a leadership role in moving forward to resolve this, because they do have a fiduciary responsibility.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, Ms. Crowder.

Mr. Bruinooge, seven minutes.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for your presentation.

I have a number of questions. I'll just ask you a bit about your perspective in relation to public governance.

I know of a great number of aboriginal communities throughout Canada that operate governance models that cannot be filled by any public member who lives within that community. I think the phrase has been referred to as “ethnic-based government” today. Can you explain to me why you believe the public governance model is better? Could you give me more on why you believe that this method of governance, offering it up to all public members, is better than the other approach that has been suggested?

[Harry Tulugak]

It was stated at the outset when the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was in the process of being negotiated.

At the time, our negotiators and leaders were under duress, but still the presence of mind of our leadership at the time, taking leadership and taking guidance from the cooperative movement that brought this notion of governance, chose the public form of government way back then, in the late sixties, knowing and having heard of and seen--when they were beginning to travel--the situation of the first nations and their reserves. This imprinted on the minds of our leadership at the time that they should be taxpaying citizens, and that this opens up more responsibility for the people who choose to live together.

It was, I think, a very basic and simple but very deep conviction that this was the only road to take at the time when this was being expressed. The notion of democracy was already in the minds of people who were self-governing before, when they had no one to answer to but themselves, before the qallunaaq came, the Europeans, and they chose this public form of government.

I think it's quite simple.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

So you're suggesting, then, that this notion of public government wasn't imposed upon you, but rather, you chose this?

[Harry Tulugak]

No one imposed it upon us. It's an avenue that we, as a society, chose, seeing that we were all-encompassing. We readily accepted the Scots and the Brits and the French who came to our region to make a living. I'm a product of those interactions. My mother's father was a Scot. We recently discovered a family member in Scotland. This being said, we embrace anybody who chooses to come to live with us.

I think it was very simple. And it works. It actually works.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

That is really my next question. Do you feel that was the right choice for your people?

[Harry Tulugak]

Yes. All of our leadership are acknowledging that today.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

I appreciate that. Thank you.

As a parliamentarian, I need further explanation as to some of the comments put forward by the previous witnesses representing the Naskapi.

In relation to the Nunavik government and the agreement in principle that will perhaps be ratified at some point in the future, there is a lot of concern that this new government could almost be akin to a colonialist government. I thought that phrase was maybe a little over the top, but perhaps you can explain whether you feel that the new government would come anywhere close to what you perceive to be a colonialist government.

[Harry Tulugak]

Absolutely not--been there, done that. It's not a pretty sight to see a society being killed by kindness and having all drive driven out by welfare. Everything seems to be coming at us for free now in our society, whereas my father had to go out hunting every morning, every day. My grandfather had to go out and hunt to survive. Now a lot of us are waiting for our welfare cheques. A lot of us are waiting for our Raglan Mine trust payouts annually. This doesn't work.

It's a misleading statement. We would never impose ourselves on any other society that lives in and around our environment. We've seen that it just kills the spirit. We wouldn't impose that on anybody else.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

I have no further questions, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you to all committee members for your timeliness, and thank you to our two witnesses today. I think we've had a good meeting in the last two hours.

[Proceedings continue in camera]