Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 14th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Albrecht.

We now move on to the Bloc Québécois.

Mr. Lévesque, you have five minutes.

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

I would have liked to have let my colleague speak, but if I follow James and Marc's example, we will be here for the rest of the morning.

[Some members]

Oh, oh!

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

Just a second! I will let Yvon speak, but before he does I would just like to welcome you. I apologize for having arrived late. I had an urgent meeting with the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador regarding another file — not that yours is not urgent, much to the contrary; it is very important. I know that Yvon is very interested in seeing your issue resolved.

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

In the agreement you had, there was something about Washaw Sibi, but I do not remember all of the details. I do not know if we are the ones who asked a question in that regard. We nevertheless know that the Washaw Sibi issue generated the same kind of debate as the Oujé-Bougoumou file at the time, and that this is still ongoing as far as the Kitcisakik issue is concerned. Oujé-Bougoumou serves as a model and is putting pressure on the federal government to resolve the Kitcisakik issue. In the case of the Washaw Sibi file, have the talks begun?

It was stated earlier that Quebec always served as a model for Canada. Quebec also had close relations with the First Nations. Indeed, Quebec's fate is the same of that of First Nations: the issue is the recognition of one's autonomy.

This question I am putting to Harold: what is going to happen to the billion dollars in 15 years? I hope that between now and then the Cree will have become an autonomous and self-sufficient nation, capable of making its own decisions, making its own regulations, and that it will be on a even footing with the other peoples of the world.

For example, are you affected by bill C-28, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves, or are you excluded, given the agreement you have?

[Bill Namagoose]

Washaw Sibi is the Cree Nation in this area that doesn't have a community and is seeking to have one. It opened up the issue with the federal government years ago, but that has now been transferred from the federal government to the Cree Nation government as part of this package. So it'll be up to the Cree Nation government to establish the community, acquire some land, and provide the resources for the capital costs of that community. While those processes are going on, we will establish a corporation that will manage the construction of Washaw Sibi. That's been decided already by the Cree Nation government. But we have not decided yet what capital resources are required.

So the process is under way. Washaw Sibi will be the first Cree urban community, or urban reserve if you like that terminology, and it will be in the Amos area.

That issue will be solved by the Cree Nation government, since it has been transferred from the federal government. However, we will be back to the federal government about the legal status of the community in the future and other obligations with respect to communities. So Washaw Sibi will become another Oujé-Bougoumou and will be the tenth community of the Cree Nation.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Lévesque.

Mr. Rickford.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and welcome to the witnesses.

My first question is actually my colleague Harold's last question. I want to give you an opportunity to develop it a little more.

Bill-28 provides authority to develop regional bylaws. You said it was going to be an opportunity to be a framework for allocation of resources for regions and communities. I notice that in proposed section 9.2 there's a capacity for bylaws that can prohibit activities. Have you thought about what they might be? You talked about what it could facilitate, but what could it prohibit?

[Denis Blanchette]

The idea of these amendments was essentially to replicate what the bands can or cannot do. So we elevate these powers and possibilities, including the possibility in the future of enacting bylaws to prohibit something. But at this time I can't think of an example.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

That's fine. I was just curious.

I want to talk about the new relationship agreement--sort of a retrospective view on the consultations that called for discussions between the Cree Regional Authority, the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach, and the Inuit of Nunavik during the development of this legislation. Can you provide an overview of those consultations and describe what aspects of them you found beneficial?

[Bill Namagoose]

We had to consult with the Inuit of Nunavik in northern Quebec, since some Inuit people were living in Chisasibi, one of the Cree communities. They have certain rights specified in the treaty--how they occupy and enjoy their rights within the Cree community of Chisasibi. Those discussions went well with the Makivik Corporation. There were good, courteous discussions and consultations between the Cree, the federal government, and Makivik.

The Naskapi are affected by the legislation. It is called the Cree-Naskapi Act, and they fall under that act as well. We informed them that we wanted to amend the Cree-Naskapi Act to empower the Cree Regional Authority to act as an interim Cree government. That legislation affected them, so that was the context of our consultations with them. So they are in favour of it, and they're happy the Cree are making another incremental step toward autonomy or self-government.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

In a previous meeting where we were discussing this, it was clear that these agreements were far-reaching in terms of their impact on other communities or other regions. What I'm hearing you say is that it's particularly beneficial from the outset to get into discussions with those folks and identify them as key stakeholders and move forward collectively.

[Bill Namagoose]

Yes, they were notified right from the outset about what our intentions were.

[Denis Blanchette]

If I may add something, Mr. Chairman, there is a specific clause in the legislation that seeks to speak to the fact that nothing in this legislation should affect the rights of the Naskapi and the Inuits under the JBNQA, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, or under the implementation legislation.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I have no further questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Rickford.

Just momentarily, I'm going to go back. Mr. O'Reilly, I think, was indicating he wished to speak.

Mr. O'Reilly, did you have a response to Mr. Lévesque's question? I didn't see until afterward that you perhaps wanted to respond to his question in the last round. Did you have something you wanted to add?

[James A. O'Reilly]

I'm not involved in Washaw Sibi as such, so I can't speak for them. I think Bill Namagoose has communicated the position. The only parallel I wanted to make is that he, Mr. Lévesque, is right that it is very analogous to what happened with the community. The hope is that they won't have to fight every inch of the way to get recognition from both Canada and Quebec and that they finally can be the community. And it'll be for the benefit of not just Washaw Sibi and the Cree Nation, but also the whole area.

That is the only comment I would have made. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Very good. Likewise, thank you very much.

Ms. Crowder, you can ask a very brief question.

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

I just have a very brief one.

I noticed that you said, about the non-consultation of drafting the bill, that the Department of Justice was at the table throughout the process. I'm reminded that the Auditor General did a report back in 1998 that said that the Department of Justice was rarely at the table until the very end, and that's often why some of these agreements went sideways.

Am I understanding that it's an unusual experience to have the Department of Justice at the table throughout a process? Could you say a little bit more about your experience around that?

[James A. O'Reilly]

Don't forget that in this particular case, with the Cree-Canada New Relationship Agreement, several court cases have been resolved. I've been involved in all of them, but this one was 1989, 1990, 1996. Quite often, the justice department lawyers are very suspicious, and their mandate is to think just in terms of the litigation, primarily, and then perhaps negotiations. In this particular case, what happened was that they got beyond that and they had a series of department lawyers from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Justice lawyers, and then an external lawyer or two—I mentioned Ms. Corber, and Mr. Namagoose mentioned Mr. Chrétien and some of the lawyers from his firm—so that they got a team together inside and they were coordinating with the draftsmen and draftswomen on the legislative end.

So that's the way they got around that. They, in effect, formed their own internal team and they were able to interface on all levels. The usual experience has been maybe one or two negotiators, and they're thinking of the crown's position, the crown as a defendant, and this didn't happen in this particular case. There was a will to try to resolve it.

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

I just think it's an interesting model, because again, coming back to the Auditor General, she has identified time after time, on treaties and comprehensive land claims, that these agreements have been signed, that there was a spirit and an intent around those agreements. If we agree that there was a spirit and intent around those agreements, it would make sense that we used a more collaborative approach to look at implementation or problem-solving as problems arose.

I just think it interesting for the committee to note that there is another way, a less adversarial way, to approach implementation agreements. I think that's a really important point to highlight for the committee for perhaps looking at other issues that are facing us.

So thanks for your time today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Ms. Crowder.

Now we'll go to Mr. Payne.

You didn't have a question? Okay.

Mr. Bélanger.

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

Mr. Lévesque tried to draw a parallel between traditional native claims and the claims to autonomy of the Bloc Québécois. He did not extend this parallel to land partition.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We'll take that as a comment, I guess.

Monsieur Vellacott?

There being no other questions at this time, I must express on behalf of all members our thanks for your appearance before the committee today on this very important piece of legislation. In many ways it caps a very long and comprehensive process that you have been involved with. Our compliments to you in the hard work you've undertaken to get it to this stage. You made the point that here is still more work to do, but it's somewhat satisfying to see that at least this step is getting to a point where we'll see it through to the House of Commons and the Senate, I hope in the weeks ahead.

At this point, members, we are going to suspend for five minutes, tops. Then we will begin the next segment of our meeting, when we'll invite officials from the department to be on hand. The intent here is to move to clause-by-clause consideration of this bill.

We'll suspend for five minutes. Thank you.