Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 5th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Commissioner.

Mr. Gaudet, you have five minutes.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, this is the first time I have sat on the Aboriginal Affairs Committee in six years. I'd like to know what powers your commission has.

[Richard Saunders]

The commission was created by the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act itself. The way it works is there's a Governor in Council appointment of commissioners based upon recommendations from the Cree Regional Authority and the Naskapi band. So there's a two-step process: recommendation by the aboriginal leadership and appointment by order in council.

The functions of the commission are spelled out in the act, but basically there are two fundamental functions.

One function is we hear what the act calls “representations”, which means complaints, by anybody that someone is not carrying out their responsibilities under the act, or not doing things they should be doing, or they're doing things they shouldn't be doing, according to the act.

By extension, because the act empowers bands, in paragraph 21(j), to act under their powers that are recognized in the agreements.... There was a debate between Indian Affairs and us about whether we look at issues arising out of the agreements. Indian Affairs is in agreement, now, that we do.

So we hear complaints. We are required, where there's a valid complaint, to investigate it and to report on our findings and recommendations to the individuals, to the band, and to the minister, and we do that. The amendments will also require us to report to the Cree Regional Authority where they're impacted or affected.

So that's one function. The other big function is that we make a report in four languages to Parliament, to the minister, who tables it in Parliament every two years.

Those are the two functions derived from the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

I read in the notes that your commission has been in existence since 1984. A number of governments have been elected since that time: Liberal, Conservative, Conservative, Liberal. However, you still have 32 recommendations. Something's not quite right here.

Do the governments in power turn a deaf ear to you? Why are there still so many recommendations? Were they determined in council? Is there a reason for that?

[Richard Saunders]

That's a very difficult question.

The answer will be my answer. You'll have to take it for what it is.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Don't look at the government; look at me.

[Richard Saunders]

You know, we have run into difficulties in terms of recommendations with Liberals and Conservatives. We have had good support at other times from Liberals and Conservatives. I think the constant in all of this is not the political stripe of the government of the day, with all due respect. I think our problem essentially has not been with ministers.

We have had a lot of situations, to be blunt about it, where a minister has said to us that something specific will be done when we've sat down and met with the minister, and it didn't happen. We frequently had that confirmed in writing more than once.

What we found was way back in 1986 the bureaucracy did not frequently fully agree with the minister. We've observed before that in the 20-year period, there were eleven ministers. And if you have a big department like Indian Affairs and Northern Development, it takes a minister a long time to get a good grip on the issues, the programs, all the first nation partners, to fully get into the bureaucracy and make it work.

I've been a bureaucrat. There's an attitude among some public officials that they've been there a long time, they know how to do things, they've heard all this before. It's, “Yes, Minister; yes, Minister”--as the British comedy says--and then the minister goes away.

If you're a public servant and you do not do what you're supposed to do with money, there's hell to pay, and so there should be. There's the Financial Administration Act, there's the public accounts committee, there's the Auditor General. If you fool around with money, you're going to get caught. But if you mess with policy, quite frankly, you're going to get away with it a lot of the time, because there are not appropriate accountability mechanisms for follow-up on decisions that Parliament makes, that cabinet makes, and that ministers make.

If you're a public servant, quite frankly, you're more likely to get away with not following instructions from the government than if you're dealing with money.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Commissioner.

Merci, Monsieur Gaudet.

Now we're going to go to Mr. Albrecht for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm not sure I'll need all five minutes.

I want to thank you for appearing today.

On page 6 of your comments, you point out that over the past 25 years, the act “has not maintained pace nor evolved with the exercise and practice”. Then, on pages 7 and 8, you list 32 different outstanding items. In the proposed amendments that are before the House now, are none of these 32 items addressed? To me, there appears to be some duplication in these 32 items, in that some would fall under some of those listed previously. Are any of them addressed in the upcoming amendments?

[Richard Saunders]

Yes. Item 20 certainly is addressed. It's the one concerning Ouje-Bougoumou.

Beyond that, I would like Philip to comment. He did some of the research on these specific items, so I think Commissioner Awashish may want to answer that more fully.

[Philip Awashish]

These 32 points you see on pages 8 and 9 come out of our various reports, of course, and the investigations that the commission has conducted. These are the reasons to update the act, as we say, so that it reflects the present reality and the evolving dynamics of local government and the state of aboriginal and contemporary law.

Over the years, I think we have gone beyond just simply stating these reasons for amending the act and have also suggested how that should be done. From day one, we have recommended a process, a meaningful process whereby the parties can get together to discuss reviewing the act and then discuss possible amendments to the act.

My chairman has mentioned the problem with the bureaucrats. They would say to us, “Well, we'd like to hear from the Cree and Naskapi local governments about establishing a process”. We'd tell them that they make representations to the commission and that we make reports and recommendations based on what they're telling us. The report goes to the minister. It's tabled in the House in four languages. What more does the government need for it to be advised and informed of what the problems are and what should be done? But that's basically the reaction of the bureaucrats.

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

Could I just follow up in relation to a few of the points that are in these 32? For example, to me, points 1, 11, and 25 are saying, if not exactly the same thing, then fairly close to the same thing. Or am I misreading your recommendations there?

[Philip Awashish]

Number 11?

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

Yes, numbers 1, 11, and 25. My interest here is not to try to throw stones at what your recommendations are. It's in the interests of maybe collapsing some of the outstanding issues into a more manageable framework in which the government and the Cree and Naskapi nations can move forward to address some of the outstanding issues. I think it would be helpful.

[Richard Saunders]

Let me comment really quickly on that again. I think one of the issues here is that since the 1982 amendments to the Constitution, the recognition of aboriginal and treaty rights, and the court decisions that have flowed from that and have given some substance to it, a lot of people will come forward and say that something is a treaty right or an aboriginal right. Sometimes they're correct and sometimes they're not.

Where they are, if there's an aboriginal right of self-government, which some governments have said there is, then that right of self-government isn't really recognized anywhere. When you get down to dealing with what that means, lawyers, government officials, and others will say, “Well, what does the legislation say?” They'll get out the Cree-Naskapi act and they'll look at it, and they'll look and look and look for something that addresses that kind of issue.

So at the risk of being slightly repetitive, we have focused on that several times.

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

Okay.

If I have any time left, I have just a very short--

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

You're right on the edge. You can have a very short question.

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

On the issue of quorum, could you identify for me what the quorum is? I don't know the act inside out. Is it a percentage, a number? How is it arrived at?

[Richard Saunders]

The act specifies a number of percentages, depending upon the issue being voted on. As I say, some of them are really difficult to get--

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

Could you give me the number or the percentage for a land transfer to a school board, for example?

[Richard Saunders]

No, I couldn't. I'd have to look it up; I'm sorry.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Albrecht.

Now we'll return to Ms. Crowder for five minutes.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I have a quick comment on the issue around referenda.

I know that in British Columbia--it may be the same in other provinces--there's a mechanism that allows the municipal governments to just post a notice. If there's enough petition from the community, they then need to go to a referendum, but otherwise, if there's not enough interest, the council can go ahead and implement it. That would seem to be a simpler solution than being forced into what can be expensive referenda for issues on which you already know there's agreement. I don't remember the legal term for it, but it's used quite frequently.

It's a bit confusing here because we're muddying the new proposed legislation, the amendments, with the commission's report. I want to touch on housing for one moment. I know that in 2006 you raised housing in your report, and it's here again in 2008. Can you say a little bit more about that? I know that housing is an issue in many communities.

[Richard Saunders]

I think we recognize that inadequate housing--inadequate either in number or in quality--is an issue in most aboriginal communities across Canada. The population increase in aboriginal communities across Canada is much greater than in non-aboriginal communities.

In the case of the Crees, there is a central argument they keep bringing forward. They didn't bring it this year, but they brought it in the previous report, and it's still true. The argument is that their particular population growth is greater than others across the country.

The way the department determines how many housing units you qualify for is based on a regional formula, the region meaning the region of Quebec in this case. In most aboriginal communities, although the population growth is very high, there's an outflow of folks looking for employment and other things in the cities and the towns, and they're leaving in significant numbers. Although the population in most reserves is going up, it's ameliorated somewhat by an outflow of folks leaving the community, mostly for employment reasons. The Crees, however, have a 95% retention rate for their young people--95%--so the very success of those communities, economically and educationally and otherwise, is part of the pressure that has created an increased population growth.

The Crees look at the regional formulas developed for Quebec and say, “That's great, but it isn't adequate to deal with our issues to the extent that it's adequate to deal with others”. Others will say it's not adequate for them, either, and they're right, but it's even less adequate for the Crees for that reason.