Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 12th, 2009

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

I do not think that the translation was clear.

Let me respond to Mr. Duncan. I never said that I wanted the federal government to be eliminated. What I said, and will say again, is that we have to have a way of managing the federal government's handling of specific claims files. I hope that the translation will be better this time, no reflection on the interpreters' abilities, quite the opposite.

I have a problem with one of your recommendations. You say that we must:

... establish a cabinet committee on aboriginal affairs to oversee and coordinate the full involvement of federal agencies in ongoing treaty implementation activities;...

You are going to have to explain that recommendation to me, because, if things are not working at the moment, the problem is with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

What makes you think that a cabinet committee could work any faster? Would it not be better to have a representative from the Prime Minister's Office? I am just asking. I have a slight problem with it. I would like to understand.

I asked myself another question. Could we not establish a super-commission to look at land claims? Could you tell me what you think about that, and especially about the “cabinet committee on aboriginal affairs“, which I have a slight problem with.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Go ahead.

[Paul Kaludjak]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Lemay, for that.

That's why we are here today. There are challenges that we cannot control. On many occasions when we've met with respective government officials or ministers, we have outlined that if somebody is going to be tasked with coordinating an implementation process, we want it tied to the PMO, the Prime Minister's Office, somehow. That's one step we've been delivering for some time now. There has to be a direction from him so that somebody can directly be in charge of implementing the process, and his sole goal and mandate will be to specifically coordinate that effort.

As you know, INAC has been that department, but in their work they have to involve many different departments around the federal government, where the coordination seems to get lost. That's why you need a body of some sort, like the cabinet, to task someone to coordinate the implementation process, to spearhead it via a control office.

We tried to create on the Nunavut side a Nunavut secretariat, and we want them to be that. I'm sorry to say again today that the Nunavut secretariat, which we've so heartily supported, did not materialize as we expected, but we are working on that as well. In terms of the coordination of it, there's a lack of it, I'm sorry to say. That's why there's difficulty. We know that. We understood that. Somebody has to get on the horse and ride it, but there's nobody to ride it right now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

You have a minute left.

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

I will end by saying that i would like you to write to us once a year to update us, or, better yet, you should come back before the committee, if necessary.

I have taken notes. I am certain that the minister is coming here on May 26 and I assure you that I will be asking him these questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

You do have time for a brief comment. Is there anything else to add?

[Paul Kaludjak]

I agree our transportation costs are very inflated up north. If the committee were to pay our monthly visits, we would be obligated....

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Very good.

Thank you, Mr. Kaludjak.

Thank you, Mr. Lemay.

Now we go to Mr. Clarke for five minutes.

Mr. Clarke.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I thank the witnesses for coming here.

A couple of things here bother me, and I speak from my heart. Being first nations, having family still living on-reserve, having lived on-reserve, having worked on-reserve, and having aboriginals on the committee, when I hear opposition telling us we should be embarrassed about our treaties.... I take treaties as a very personal matter, especially internationally. I talk to many aboriginals across the world. As Canada, we as first nations should be proud, because we're sitting at the bargaining table negotiating, trying to make all first nations and aboriginals better overall.

Using the words “being embarrassed”--I take offence to that. I'm not looking for pity. I don't think first nations are looking for pity. We want to progress as first nations people.

We hold treaties as part of our traditions and we're proud of our treaties. As Canadians, we work together, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. So when we use the word “embarrassment”, that embarrasses me as a first nations person.

I shouldn't have to say any more. I'm sharing my time here, but I'm sorry; that's my tirade.

In your situation here--and I'm kind of curious--how much have they costed for this policy? What would it cost, and how much would it cost the government to fully implement it, and how much would it cost in its first year?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Go ahead.

[Paul Kaludjak]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Clarke, thank you very much.

As I was listening to the member's comments this morning, I perceived, if I understood it right, the embarrassment was within the government system, not related to our own Nunavut claim or, I understood, with the other treaties that are signed across Canada. I understood it that way, unless it was my oversight. I know we have no embarrassment and there is none to be had in our claims, because they're unlike any other around the world. They're so different and unique. You will never see anything like it around the world. I think these claims are one of the most unique tools one can have, and no one I know of has ever said they're embarrassed about their claim, that I know of, unless somebody other than me has said it.

In terms of working with our claims and the cost of implementing, right now there's no cost, because we're being failed. We're trying to claim our loss right now at the Nunavut side, because we've lost a lot. We've lost millions, and that's what we're all about today. We signed the claim in the hope that those benefits would flow into the 25 communities we represent in Nunavut. But I failed them, because the federal side failed us. That's why we're in a challenge today, because we lost millions because of lack of implementation. The challenge is there. But in the policy right now, there's no money, not one dollar, because nobody is doing anything about it.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Mr. McKay, you have 30 seconds left.

[Kevin McKay]

I want to speak on the cost very briefly, Mr. Chair.

It's a legitimate concern that government has with regard to any change and establishment of new resources to deal with implementing treaties. But with respect, I think the irony is that the cost of not doing it would be far greater in the long run for Canada.

They should look at this not as an expense but as an investment in Canada, because we're here to tell you that without an implementation of our treaties in an effective way, it's going to cost Canada in the long run, because we won't realize and maximize those opportunities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. McKay.

Now we'll go to Madam Crowder, and there are three others after Madam Crowder. That will take us to about twenty to eleven. I think those are all the speakers I have on the list, so let's carry on.

Madam Crowder, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to be absolutely clear, on the record, that my comment about embarrassment on the international stage was to do with the government's performance, and I want to quote from the UN Special Rapporteur on Human Rights and Indigenous Issues from 2004:

The Land Claims Agreement Coalition...have called upon the federal Government of Canada to pay urgent attention to full and meaningful implementation of the socio-economic and developmental objectives of these agreements, warning that if conditions among signatory peoples continue to fail to improve meaningfully after the signing of such agreements, other Aboriginal peoples may conclude that there is no benefit flowing from such agreements...

In the past the Government of Canada has also been cited for its policy on extinguishment, which it has now reversed, and it has been cited on its policies around women and violence--the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women--on violence against aboriginal women, and its lack of action. There are numerous cases where the Government of Canada, both current and past, has been cited on its track record with first nations, Métis, and Inuit. I want to be absolutely clear that this is what I was talking about.

I was pleased to hear Mr. Rickford acknowledge that the government has capacity issues in dealing with land claims implementation, because certainly my experience in working with Nunavut and Yukon first nations is that they've more than ably demonstrated capacity in terms of dealing with justice on education, on economic development. In terms of the government's lack of capacity to deal with these issues, I wonder if you could comment on what you see as being important for the government to put on the table to fulfill its legal and international obligations.

Before you answer that, I also want to say that the government has also failed to sign on to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. I believe the record will show I said “governments”, which suggested all the governments that are currently involved. If we want to get into that, that's fine.

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

That's fine. You acknowledged there were governments, but I want to talk about the federal government capacity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay, it's not point of order, but that's okay.

Let's carry on. Madam Crowder, please.

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

I would like to ask Mr. Kaludjak some questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Please proceed, Mr. Kaludjak.

[Paul Kaludjak]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Madam Crowder.

I want all of you around the table to understand that you have the same heart. We all do. We misunderstand sometimes, but we make amends to understand. From Kevin's and my side, we don't worry about your party lines up north. We worry about your heart. We worry about your team. We don't care which party you represent, I'm sorry to say, as long as you can help us. Do your party lines among yourselves, but the ultimate goal for us is that we count on you to help us, no matter what. We may disagree, but we go down the line to agree at the end of the day, to be able to talk tomorrow and not walk away from our differences. The differences make us who we are, to make that difference in line with two people, and we count on you as well.

I want you to understand. That's why we're here. We don't see you as different groups. We see you as one, and that's why we're coming forward to you. We need help. If we didn't, we wouldn't be here. If things were kosher, if the implementation was working well, we wouldn't be talking to you. We would say “Good job, guys” if everything was hunky-dory up there. But no, our people need you. As Mr. Clarke said, we cannot turn our backs on the local community. They rely on us to deliver. We rely on things to work; that's why we put forward recommendations to the governments. This is the best vehicle. You might want to explore that. We can't tell them what to do; we can recommend stuff to them, but that's as far we can go.

In terms of capacity, that's our own problem because of the lack of implementation. The Nunavut side lacks capacity due to lack of action. The provisions in the Nunavut claim that were supposed to be acted on and funded did not reach those levels. That's the capacity difficulty for us.

I cannot speak for the government side, I can only say that when they want to make any kind of mandate within the government, there's no excuse of money.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Kaludjak and Ms. Crowder.

Let us hear from Mr. Albrecht.

Mr. Albrecht, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

One of the things you can be sure of, as it relates to this committee and especially this government, is that we do have a heart for the continuing economic development opportunities for aboriginal people. Specifically today I'd like to speak to Nunavut. One of our major concerns is the economic development opportunities.

Point 6 in your submission was a direct quote that Ms. Crowder made, I believe from a UN document, which was that if socio-economic conditions among signatory aboriginal peoples continue to fail, you could conclude that there is no benefit flowing from such agreements.

Mr. Kaludjak, you made a statement a few minutes ago saying that in Nunavut you have lost major employment opportunities and major economic development opportunities. Are you saying then that currently Nunavut is worse off economically and in terms of employment than it would have been without the signing of the 1993 land claims agreement? Has there been progress in terms of employment and economic opportunities since the agreement has been implemented?

I had the opportunity to visit Nunavut a few times over the last number of years, and I agree with your statement that things are probably not hunky-dory. There are challenges. But my sense, as I spoke to people in Nunavut, was that there had been significant advancement and progress made in the opportunities that they have and in their sense of hope, going forward.

I wonder if you could respond to that.

[Paul Kaludjak]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's good to see you again, Mr. Albrecht.

In terms of Nunavut, when the legislation creating it was passed in 1999, we had highest hopes and we had unlimited expectations. Okay, we're going to control our own destiny as Inuit. We're going to have a government that is like the Inuit, that is going to be Inuit-relevant. Along the way, we realized that it was not going to be so glamorous after all. We had challenges, as you said.

I must say yes and no to your question about progress. Economically speaking--and I will pick that one first because it's more of a challenge than ever--opportunities in Nunavut haven't been as forthcoming as expected. They have opportunities--