Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 12th, 2009

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

If I could interrupt, my question was whether or not they're better now since the implementation than they would have been--and I know we have to speculate--had the agreement not been signed.

[Paul Kaludjak]

Yes, I'm getting to that.

Many people said, “Why change over to Nunavut? We were better off when we had NWT, because we had more opportunity.” Some said that. But we have to be patient to have the economic side eventually roll around to Nunavut, and we're still not there. Nunavut is only 10 years old today, and we want it to progress as well as we can and as fast as we can, but we cannot take those steps as quickly as we wanted to because government takes time to grow. It's only 10 years young. We still expect those benefits to be maximized, especially on the economic side.

But I can tell you there has been some progress. There have been many steps taken that were positive. But again, there are difficulties, and they were known to be coming forward.

We understood at the signing of the government's existence through our claim that, for example, 85% of those hired in government were supposed to be Inuit. And we realized the capacity issue we were facing for Nunavut for skilled workers; we realized that. We could not reach those levels at that certain time. But we said, okay, we're going to live with 50% for now with our claim. We knew that the government was new, so okay, let's settle for 50% Inuit employment within the government for now; later we're going to go to 85%, I hope. Now I believe we're at about 55% or so, which is good news to us, and it's growing. We want more Inuit to be employed within the government, and our ultimate goal is 85% or better.

Those are improvements. Those are improvements for the people we represent. Okay, you guys go and get those jobs. We've achieved some of those jobs.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We'll have to wrap it up with that if we can, Mr. Kaludjak. Thank you very much, and thank you, Mr. Albrecht.

Now we'll go to Mr. Bélanger.

Vous disposez de cinq minutes, Monsieur Bélanger.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few comments and then a suggestion, I guess, to the committee.

Gentlemen, thank you for being here.

I'm going to draw a parallel between the aboriginal communities of this country and the francophone or linguistic minorities, principally the francophone one because it's the one I know best, being a member of it. I share a great deal of the views in the sense that this government, past governments, all governments--federal, provincial, sometimes even municipal, if you look at what's going on in B.C. right now with the Olympics--have fallen down in their responsibilities in terms of respecting the Constitution of the country, the history of our country, the federal structure, the deals that were made when we created the country, the laws of the country, the Official Languages Act, and the Constitution. And for matters of official languages, despite having a quasi-constitutional act, we also have a Commissioner of Official Languages to see to the implementation of that act. It has been in place for forty years and it's still lacking, to a great extent, in its application.

So I sense there's a great deal of similarity between the francophone minority communities and the aboriginal communities.

One question that Monsieur Lemay asked was whether or not there would be usefulness to having a special cabinet committee. I believe there would be. When I was in the cabinet and I had responsibilities for official languages, I had access to an ad hoc committee, which I transformed into basically an ongoing monthly committee. We also had a secretariat in the Privy Council. Without those two instruments, there's no way I would have been able to make some policy advancements, some implementation advancements. So I think they're on the right track in terms of those tools. A secretariat in the Privy Council and a cabinet committee, I think those are valid instruments, and if you can get them, all the better.

Mr. Chairman, as a new member of this committee, I would benefit greatly--I don't know about the other members and I can't speak for them--if we could dedicate at least one meeting, or perhaps we need more, to exploring a concept that I keep hearing referred to by representatives of the aboriginal communities as honour of the crown. It's a concept that I ran into when I was dealing with another local matter dealing with lands, and that's how I saw it first applied in consultation, in how the Government of Canada conducts itself in the consultations with the aboriginal communities. The concept was applied, and basically the government was not doing what it should do. The crown was not doing what it should do.

But I'd love to get a very solid grounding and understanding of this concept of honour of the crown as it applies to treaties, as it applies to land claim agreements, as it applies to ongoing cooperation or consultations, as it applies to implementation of treaties and land claims agreements of all kinds, specific or general, and how it relates to the Indian Act and to the charter. I think we might benefit greatly by understanding that and trying then to impose it on an overarching basis on what it is we're trying to achieve here and perhaps trying to change the culture of those who are implementing these agreements. It's a suggestion I make for certainly my own benefit, but as a member of this committee I dare to think that perhaps others would benefit as well.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay, you have another minute left. I don't know whether witnesses wish to comment or we can--

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

As I said when I started, I didn't have a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay. Would you wish to comment? There's a brief time left.

[Paul Kaludjak]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Bélanger.

I think when we're talking about honour, that's what aboriginal people are all about, because we open up our lands to visitors so much so, for example, in Nunavut, that you take a back stage. I would welcome you, and you can take my fishing hole on the lake. That's no problem; that's hospitality. That's how much we move to invite people and to be welcoming to our lands.

And when we go out here, I cannot find a parking spot in Ottawa sometimes, and that's not very welcoming, but I'll live with that. Those are the differences we have. We cook you a meal, and that's the difference. That's how much fairness we want. When we come here to say you must live up to the claim, we want the same thing as we gave you in our lands--the same thing. It's simple. If somebody cannot figure that out, we can teach you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Kaludjak, and thank you, Mr. Bélanger.

We'll go finally to Mr. Payne, for five minutes.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming here today and for your opening comments and so on.

I have some questions around self-government. I hope you can give me your thoughts about self-government and your capacity to do that. Then I'll follow up with another question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Either Mr. McKay or Mr. Kaludjak could answer.

[Paul Kaludjak]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Payne.

As I said, on the Nunavut side, on our side in the Arctic, when we agreed that the Nunavut side would split from NWT to Nunavut, we saw that as a self-government initiative and we thought, holy smokes, we're going to be able to govern and dictate how the public body, the federal government, can cater to the Inuit population in Nunavut. We perceived that as a kind of self-government vehicle. That's the difference, I guess, on the Nunavut side, where a government was created from a claim. Article 4 in our claim created a government, and there has been no other, as I said before, in a claim. I don't know if it has ever been done before, but our claim built a government. It directed a government to be formed through the claim, which was signed in 1993, and it became a reality in 1999.

That's the uniqueness of some of these claims. They even can create a government like that. That is so different, and it's a way of self-government.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

You still have some time, Mr. Payne. Go ahead.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Did you want to comment, Mr. McKay?

[Kevin McKay]

Very briefly, Mr. Chair, from the Nisga'a perspective, “Nisga'a government” is the term we use for self-government. It was very important in our pursuit of the land question.

The process of re-empowerment for us was as important as any other part of our Nisga'a Final Agreement. For us it was all about re-empowering our citizens to govern themselves. This has been an issue ever since the imposition of the Indian Act into our daily lives 130-plus years ago.

The way I describe it very graphically, Mr. Chair, is that our oral history tells us that we've been on the land since before the beginning of time. In one of our Nisga'a villages we have archeological evidence that places our ancestors there in the tens of thousands of years. Throughout all that time, Mr. Chair, the Nisga'a people were a vibrant, proud, self-reliant people. The Indian Act was imposed on our lives for a little over 130 years, and it did a lot of damage in that 130 years, so much damage that we are still, almost a decade later, implementing our treaty and encountering the hangover effect of what the Indian Act did to our people.

So the process of re-empowerment through Nisga'a government is very important to us, and it has been since the very beginning.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

You have about a minute left, Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you.

In terms of ongoing self-government and the economic viability of self-government, have you any thoughts about how you would manage the ongoing costs of running your government and running programs that you might implement?

[Kevin McKay]

Well, with the Nisga'a, we have no qualms about at some point in the future being totally self-reliant. The fiscal financing agreements that we seek to negotiate with the Government of Canada right now are a very important building block in that process.

We can't be clearer to Canada. We don't expect to be here, hat in hand, forever, ad infinitum. That's not what the treaty is all about. We are trying to rebuild our nation from the damage done by the Indian Act. That's going to take some time, and we need the help of all levels of government to achieve that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

Do you have a final comment, Mr. Kaludjak?

[Paul Kaludjak]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Payne.

In response to the economic opportunities, our claim has been a major economic contributor to Nunavut. The Nunavut government relies on the discretion of the federal government to fork over economic funding for its operations. It relies totally on whatever is given to it from the federal side. And I know it always gets crumbs.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you both.

It has been a very informative session. To you both and the other leaders of the aboriginal communities who have joined us as guests this morning, we appreciate your attendance. On behalf of all of the members, we wish you all the best with your conference here in Ottawa over the next two days.

[Kevin McKay]

Mr. Chair, thank you very much for the opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]