Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Sept. 28th, 2017

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

There's never been one from Natural Resources or from Agriculture, or from—

[Grand Chief Constant Awashish]

No. They always say the negotiations are going to relate to this ministry or that ministry. It's always like that. “We're going to go see what they think and we'll come back to you at the table.” It's always like that. It's a long process.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Would you not agree that not only do they need the mandate to negotiate in good faith and to have the power to negotiate but you actually need to have the different representative departments at the table speaking for those particular political entities that they're representing?

[Grand Chief Constant Awashish]

I think it would accelerate the process. I represent the young generation, and that's the way we think. We want this to be over now. We want to start working. We want the tools to develop ourselves and also to develop this country and participate in the country's development. But to do so, I think the country needs to invest in first nations like us to give us the opportunity and the tools to create a momentum so we can have better input in that development.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

You have 7,500 people in your community. What percentage of those people are actually working in the development of your potential territory?

[Grand Chief Constant Awashish]

Let's say, just quickly, 30% are on EI and maybe another 30% are on welfare.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

So a very small percentage of your people are actually benefiting from the development that's happening within your traditional territory.

[Grand Chief Constant Awashish]

Yes, and most of the workers work for the band office. That's the main employer, which is an extension of Indian Affairs.

[Mike Bossio, Liberal, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Questioning now moves to MP Cathy McLeod.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you.

Thank you to both witnesses. It's certainly a pleasure to be here in Quebec City. It's a beautiful little city. I haven't been here for a couple of years.

This question will go to both our witnesses because it really speaks to a larger issue. As you're aware, the government has decided to split Indian Affairs, INAC, into two parts, one dealing with the relationship of the crown. I think we're going to reserve judgment. I think there is opportunity within her plan, but there are also challenges in terms of having just another bureaucracy.

If you were going to advise the minister on her new department and her mandate in terms of moving these issues forward, and again it relates to land claims, the education agreement, and self-government agreements, what advice would you give her? She's in the process of doing this work as we speak.

[Eleanor Bernard]

My first advice would be to do something, to make a decision, and do something, because it's been too long that we've been idle with no decision coming from the government.

I think Constant also mentioned that negotiators come with no mandate, and that's the most important thing we need to hear from them. What is your mandate? Who are you? Who do you represent? Those are very important questions that need to be answered up front.

[Grand Chief Constant Awashish]

For my part, since it was all fresh news when we heard about that a couple of weeks ago, we were wondering what's going to happen with this. I know it's a new direction, a new step.

My first advice would be to really work with first nations. First nations are the ones who benefit from those services. They are the ones who know, really, what exactly they need to help the community, the nation, to better itself. That's the first advice I would give to Minister Philpott.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Has the government reached out to you at all in terms of asking for any input into how the design of these new departments should be?

[Grand Chief Constant Awashish]

So far, all we got was a letter saying what their intention is. They also invited us to offer input, but we're still analyzing what our priority is with that and what our input will be with this new change. We're also trying to assess our worries with this new approach. As I said, right now we're analyzing. It's all fresh and new, so we're still looking at the outcome of that.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Was it through the announcement, though, that you first became aware that it was happening? Was there any pre-consultation process, or are you aware of any pre-consultation process?

[Grand Chief Constant Awashish]

Personally, I was not aware of any pre-consultation. Everyone was taken by surprise. With the people I work with, it was a surprise. We're still trying to figure out if it is a good thing or a bad thing. Maybe it's a good thing. One is going to deal with the relations with first nations, and the other one is going to deal with providing services with first nations, so maybe it will take less time to get the services we want.

However, as I said, we're still analyzing what the outcome of that will be.

[Cathy McLeod, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you.

Forty years is way too long for a negotiation process. What are the stumbling blocks? You talked about the negotiators. Are there some real touch points, or have you settled a number of different issues?

I appreciate and certainly sympathize with the ongoing turnover of negotiators, but in terms of the real stumbling blocks, are they identified? Is there a path to overcome them right now?

[Grand Chief Constant Awashish]

From my young experience—I was not even born when they started negotiating—what I think is that there are many factors, and one of the factors is good faith. For a long time good faith was not present at the table. It has started getting better for a couple of years maybe. For two or three years it's getting better and is taking place at the table but also there is something very particular with our negotiations at the Atikamekw first nations. We're negotiating

an agreement in principle.

I don't know how you say that in English. This agreement in principle is very detailed. There is a lot of detail. It's almost acting as a final agreement, so maybe that's the reason it takes longer for the Atikamekw Nation. For a while we were questioning this approach. In my mind in an agreement in principle you put the number, you put what's going to be in the final agreement, what's the size of the territory. It's the big picture. That's what is supposed to be in an

agreement in principle.

But for us our agreement in principle is getting very detailed and in the end it's going to act as a final agreement. Maybe that's one of the reasons.

Also, as I mentioned earlier, the negotiators are always changing. Sometimes it's federal and the good faith is not there. Sometimes it is provincial and the good faith is not there. We are stuck in between. At the provincial level natural resources is their competence, so sometimes natural resources are a big issue and it's hard to get an agreement on this. It's a mix of different factors that is making this a long time.

There is no major project on our territory. Maybe that's the reason. There are some places in Canada where they had major projects and what the government needed was to develop those projects and they put all their resources, everything to get an agreement very fast because there was something major going on in this land and they wanted it done really fast. Maybe for us that situation is not there.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We're now going to hear from one of those people maybe involved in one of those major projects, MP Romeo Saganash.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

[The member speaks Cree]

I want to begin with you, Grand Chief Awashish. I am delighted to speak to you in French, because we have held several meetings strictly in English, and I also want to give the interpreters some work to do.

You said several things in your testimony that raised several questions for me. You spoke about an agreement in principle that was signed, and about the more intense development of resources on the territory. I want to know if you think there is a link between the two, particularly since this committee must study specific and comprehensive land claims policies, and we will have to make recommendations in that regard.

You spoke about the length of your negotiations. Do you think there is a link between existing policies, on the one hand, and the ongoing length of those negotiations, on the other? If so, what are the obstacles that currently exist at the federal level?

I agree with you. The backdrop is a very unfair situation, since while you negotiate, the development of your traditional territory is continuing and its resources continue to be exploited.

I'd like to know if you have any recommendations to make. Should we impose a moratorium in this type of situation? I would like to hear your opinion on that.

[Grand Chief Constant Awashish]

There are definitely some issues with the comprehensive claims policy.

You are talking about moratoriums, but moratoriums have already been imposed in Quebec, precisely to stop the development of our lands during the negotiation. That worked briefly, but, as I said, it does not last long. The development continues, as the economy must keep going, and that's very disappointing. I don't know whether the committee has the power to change things when it comes to the development of our lands and whether it has the mandate to make the necessary recommendations. I don't know if the government has the will to take that kind of action to stop development on our land. That can certainly hurt the economy. I think that the economy may currently be the strongest voice in the world.

As I mentioned, we feel that the comprehensive claims policy should be reconciled with the economy. That is what the Atikamekw believe. Negotiators at Canadian central tables are following a negotiation framework, and they cannot depart from it. That often causes problems from one region to another. Certain approaches may work for someone in British Columbia or in the Northwest Territories, but not elsewhere. The coast-to-coast approach does not work. I think that approaches should be more specific to a particular region, especially when it comes to economic development.

For your information, the Atikamekw Nation is currently participating in two tables, at the national level, with 40 other nations and the federal government. One of those tables is considering the financial relationship with first nations, and there seems to be a will to develop a new approach in that respect. The other table is trying to determine what fiscal approach should be used in comprehensive negotiations with first nations. We have a number of approaches, a number of questions. We have brought a lot of grist to the mill. We are trying to change the new approach. That is what's important today. I believe that economic development is important for the Atikamekw Nation and the new generation of Atikamekw. We are trying to find solutions that will benefit everyone—us, as well as Quebeckers and Canadians.

Earlier, I talked about the interconnectedness of all Canadians. First nations must have the means to develop, so that they can contribute to a better Canada. We need realistic approaches to accomplish that. We are working extensively with indicators to try to find an approach that would be specific to each nation, while taking into account remoteness, education levels and community infrastructure. So several factors need to be taken into consideration.

The Atikamekw Nation is ready. If the government wants to talk about the economy, economic development, catching up socioeconomically and closing the gap, the Atikamekw Nation is ready. We have been leaders at those tables so far. We have put questions to both other first nations' representative and government representatives. When figures—indicators—are requested, other nations don't have them. We do, and we are ready to get things done in a positive way so that the project would be viable over the long term. The coast-to-coast approach is often problematic, since every region has its own specific characteristics.

Those indicators are not set; they have not been selected. We, the Atikamekw, are ready.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

How has the deadline you mentioned earlier—I believe June 2018—been viewed? How has it been viewed, and what have you planned to do after June 2018?

[Grand Chief Constant Awashish]

I'm not sure....

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We'll have to save that answer for another question.