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

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

There are wounds to be mended.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

There are 10 seconds left, so that ends that round.

We're moving to MP Romeo Saganash.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My thanks to our two witnesses. I completely agree with what my colleague just said. That's a very clear example of a specific claim that did not move forward.

You mentioned reasons that are quite understandable but unacceptable. I don't want to criticize my friend Mr. Amos, but I have visited the Essipit community at least a dozen times in the past 20 years. I even went to one of its outfitters with Sylvain Ross, with whom I studied law and who remains a friend. I know he has gone hunting, but I would like you to say hello to him from me.

You mentioned the federal government's dishonourable behaviour in those cases. I find that behaviour quite deplorable. In our previous hearings, a number of people mentioned the need to establish an independent process for those specific claims. For the time being, the federal government remains both judge and jury, which seems completely unfair in those types of cases. Could you elaborate on that? In addition, in your recommendations, you said that there is monetary compensation only and nothing else. In the communities, that type of situation often creates tension between aboriginal and non-aboriginal peoples.

We may see this in terms of the exemplary damage claims that are sometimes referred to the tribunal. This lack of remedy for the tensions that have been caused is a major issue for us. We have often faced this problem in a number of regions in Quebec, including mine in northern Quebec. I think your proposal for a joint development fund is extremely generous, especially in light of what happened with those two specific issues. In a way, it is to bring about peace, as Mr. Chaloult has just said. Could you expand on that? I think it is important when we talk about reconciliation to propose concrete actions to that end.

Have you previously proposed anything similar to the federal government or is this the first time you are doing so, here before the committee?

[Chief Martin Dufour]

With respect to comprehensive land claims, we have asked that a common development fund be set up, and it has been, but it will only be active once the treaty is signed. I like to say jokingly that comprehensive land negotiation is older than me or that I am younger than it. We don't know when that will be resolved. There was a March 31, 2017 deadline. We're nearing the end of 2017. I won't go into it any more except to say that we took steps at both levels of government to get money that we could spend jointly with the surrounding municipalities, or even the RCMs.

[Marc Chaloult]

I would simply like to add that this is still a fairly new concept.

While the squabble was in full swing, in 2008, we withdrew from any fight where people would go so far as to shout.

The council, which wasn't yet being led by Chief Dufour, but ended up being during this process, went to see the company that was hiring in the region, Boisaco. Its leaders knew that cubic metres of territory had to be allocated to us through the treaty, which had not yet been signed. The workers are fetching wood in the area of Manicouagan, right now. We told the business leaders that we could work together. We have also offered to invest in the processing of wood waste into pellets.

The beauty of all this is that we would seek as many grants as possible from the federal government. As a First Nation, we have access to grants. A person could meet with a municipal representative to see what we could do. And that's what we did. The company announced a partnership with Essipit and, a week later, the posters disappeared.

We understood something. We realized that this was a rather innovative way of working. It doesn't work like this everywhere.

Then, Chief Dufour continued the work with several other companies.

[Chief Martin Dufour]

I simply want to add that we have signed memoranda of understanding of mutual respect and partnership with our neighbours.

First, we signed a memorandum of understanding with the Bergeronnes. Then we continued with the Haute-Côte-Nord RCM. Finally, lastly, we signed an agreement of mutual respect with Tadoussac, the oldest Canadian village, where the great alliance of peoples with Samuel de Champlain and the great Innu leader Anadabijouhttp took place in 1603. We thought it important to do so. We continue to believe that such actions must be taken with a view to reconciliation.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

That concludes the period for your portion and we're moving on to MP Bossio.

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

Thank you both for being here today and sharing your story. I have to concur as well with my other two colleagues that it is probably the most graphic, detailed overview of the level of animosity that can occur between levels of government, between communities, and just how what could go wrong did go wrong, and seems to continue to go wrong.

You've gone through the comprehensive land claims agreement. You've gone through the specific claims process, through the tribunal's specific claims process, yet you're really no further ahead. I'm a little dumbfounded that you went through all of the processes over 30-plus years and still you're in the same position you were at the beginning of the process, for the most part. How do we correct the process so that we can come to a position of finality so that you can get on with your lives?

[Chief Martin Dufour]

In addition to not being further ahead, we have a debt of $12 million, which must be paid by a population of 450 people. However, thanks to Bill C-3, which follows from the McIvor decision, the community now has 751 members.

I talked about $12 million, but it's closer to $13 million. We didn't think of it as a debt, but rather an investment. In addition to not having any tangible results, we have a debt of $13 million.

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

Through the process, just to add insult to injury, you went into this debt, but that debt actually didn't even cover funding for research, for you to do the background research, not just research on the claim itself but research in relation to the opportunities lost. You noted other areas in terms of compensation that aren't being considered. It's only expropriation measures that are being utilized and not the other measures.

Did you have to use your own funds to do that research or have you been able to do that research and been able to establish the level of compensation that you feel should come as a result of that?

[Chief Martin Dufour]

There are two separate cases.

In the case of specific claims, which we spoke of earlier, we are obliged to pay out of our own pockets. The $13 million in debt stems from the comprehensive land claims, in which we are involved with two other Innu nations.

The Regroupement Petapan brings together the Innu Nations of Essipit, Mashteuiatsh and Nutashkuan. More than half of the Innu population of Quebec is represented by this group. We are in the process of drafting a brief that we will send to you in the coming weeks. Petapan began to prepare a brief, but given the short amount of time prior to appearing before the committee, we didn't have time to prepare a presentation.

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

If I look at this whole process now, over the last few days, and yours in particular, I can see that it raises a number of different, specific areas that need to be dealt with. Under the comprehensive land claims agreement, there's no arbiter of last resort, so there's no tribunal. Even under the Specific Claims Tribunal, there's no final resolution that the tribunal can rule upon.

It can rule that, yes, you won, but whoop-de-do, what do we do as far as compensating beyond that goes?

There are no timelines involved in the negotiating process. The negotiators themselves don't have a mandate at the table to be able to make the decisions necessary to reach a final agreement. Then you don't have the funds for negotiation and you don't have the funds for research on either side of it without having to go into debt.

Are there any other areas that you could add to that where there are really glaring examples of inequities or tools that need to be added?

[Marc Chaloult]

Mr. Saganash was saying there is no sense in the fact that you have to pay to negotiate. We're trying to get back something that was taken. Chief Dufour said earlier that if somebody leaves with your furniture and your house and gives it back, he's not your friend until you can trust him again. So that's one thing.

I think the other aspect, in answer specifically to your question, is that the government tells us that we can't negotiate and get land back, and we understand that. It's all municipal territory around. We won't start another war. We tried to get 0.4 kilometres a few years ago, and it nearly did start a war. We're not going to do that again. But we're told that we're not going to get money either, so we're trying to come up with innovative ways of doing things, like the funds that we're suggesting.

We have a problem right now with water, and we share that problem with Les Escoumins, and maybe we could do something together, that type of thing. We were mentioning simple things like maybe retribution through words, saying, “We're sorry we've done that. Maybe we shouldn't have done that. Is there any other way that we could fix...?”

In other words, what we're saying is that it's the mentality that makes no sense. We had to go through a process that cost us a fortune, not in the millions but in the hundreds of thousands of dollars until we ran dry and had to beg for more money to continue. We had a judgment in January of this year that says you are right, but now we're in a situation where we're being asked, what exactly have you suffered as far as money is concerned? And we just said so. We're at war with our neighbours. We've been at war with our neighbours for almost 100 years, and you want us to put money into that. It's hard. It's difficult. Yes, we're trying to do it.

Had we had access to the gulf.... We're fishermen and we're hunters. We hunt seals. Had we had access to the river maybe we could have done.... But, no, they were all cliffs; we couldn't reach the river. The only place where there was a sand embankment wasn't on the reserve. How do you put money to that? Yes, we could have been a bigger reserve. No, probably other people, families, wouldn't have left and gone to Pessamit. They would have stayed there.

There are many aspects that are hard to put money to. That's why we're looking for innovative ways and we're saying, “Let's change the system.” We do understand that there are exceptions to this rule, but in our case I don't think they apply. I don't think we could go back and say that this municipal territory is not yours anymore, but it's ours because we were stolen from. We couldn't do that.

Through territorial negotiation, we are going to get some land back, which is great.

I have said what I had to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Very well.

MP McLeod.

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

Thank you.

Thank you for your articulate testimony. It really illustrated the challenges, the frustrations, with concrete examples, so thank you for that.

What you have also done, as my colleague Romeo Saganash said, is that you've been very generous in terms of your relationship with your neighbours. Some witnesses have talked about it a little bit, saying, we need public education, we need to do some things, but I think you did it in the most concrete way that I've heard.

Really, that is the federal government's job. You're doing the work that perhaps the federal government should have been taking on in terms of working with communities, working that whole community relationship piece, in terms of your neighbours understanding what the history is, why the government is doing what it's doing, and what our legal obligations are. You're having to deal with the brunt of very difficult relationships, and I thank you for that.

I also was very intrigued by your suggestion in terms of relationships, basically a reconciliation infrastructure kind of thought, something to move communities forward in a positive way. I thought that was certainly a very interesting recommendation. As we know, communities have lived side by side for many thousands of years in that area, but some of the people who live there in the communities now are innocent of the government's misdeeds also over the years, so we have that work to do.

I can't recall. I know it's in the comprehensive and we've heard from other witnesses, but within the specific claims process is there significant cash settlements or something up front for willing seller, willing buyer? Has that been any part of the strategic...? Perhaps someone has a strategic piece of property and you see that as an important part of your interests. During your transitional time frame of negotiations, have there been any opportunities in that area or is there any recognition of that?

[Chief Martin Dufour]

We need to work with the government to determine the amount of compensation. That's the last stage, and it will also go before the tribunal.

We didn't wait to start buying land adjacent to the nation's reserve for potential enlargement so that it would be the least difficult for us and so that we would have the fewest possible problems on the coveted land, which is right next to the reserve. Basically, it's the land we didn't have. We hope we'll recover this money when compensation is given, since we have received a favourable judgment from the court. It's the land that should have been surveyed in 1892.

[Marc Chaloult]

The land we were looking at and that we've bought is in municipal territory. If we were to have it through the agreement, it would put an end to a situation that has always existed where we have always tried to have access to Route 138, the only road on the north shore. There's just one. It's always been denied by the municipalities, saying, “No, the Indians will not have space on the road because then they would start selling things to tourists, and that would not be good for our businesses, and blah, blah, blah.”

If we were to get that land, it would give us access to the road, which would be very good, because as was mentioned, we are a commercial people. We'd like to start tourist businesses, those types of things, but you don't see our operations from the road. You have to get into the reserve.

I just wanted to add that part, because what Martin just said is that these lands we bought, we purchased them. They're just not part of the reserve.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you. Your five minutes is up.

We're moving to MP Amos.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I would like you to talk about a legal aspect of the agreements that have been signed with respect to specific claims. The aboriginal community is being asked to compensate the federal government for future applications. In my riding, the Kitigan Zibi community is opposed to this notion of compensation against any other claim that may be made in their specific claims.

I don't represent that community, but I think it's opposed to it because other Algonquin communities could make claims on lands that are part of specific claims.

Do you have any comments on this aspect of the specific claims document? Does that concern you?

[Chief Martin Dufour]

In the 2004 agreement-in-principle, there is no real territorial overlap between our ancestral lands, which we call nitassinan, and those of the Innu nations. Our neighbours are the Pessamit and the other nations further north are the Mashteuiatsh.

Since the 2004 agreement, we have established territorial boundaries and talked to elders. At the time of the CAM, there was a major study to find out who practised the Innu Aitun, the traditional hunting, trapping and fishing activity that takes place in the areas. We were still able to define the ancestral territory nitassinan in this way.

[Marc Chaloult]

On the central theme of the negotiation, I would add that we've never been in favour of the “just in case” approach because we can't predict the future. If I understood you correctly, all the potential lawsuits would be suppressed by putting money on the table.

In 50 or 75 years, we can't expect first nations to be frozen into a model and not move. If society moves, the first nations will move as well.

First of all, as Mr. Dufour said, we don't have problems with the first nations around us because they are Innu with whom we already have signed agreements. Second, the idea of paying in advance for wrongs that might occur has never been in the logic or the dynamic of the negotiations so far.

As for the legal aspect of your question, I can't comment too much.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

The intention is to eliminate the past obligations to establish an atmosphere of certainty and to move forward, which might make it possible to conduct other negotiations on other issues.

Thank you for your comments.

[Marc Chaloult]

The obligations aren't extinguished; it's not in the logic of our negotiations. It's the same kind of situation, as Grand Chief Awashish said earlier. We don't follow a logic of extinction. Aboriginal titles and ancestral rights remain at the centre of our current negotiations.

[William Amos, Liberal, Pontiac, QC]

I understand.

The purpose of specific claims is to resolve past disputes over certain territories, while comprehensive claims are intended to resolve broader claims.

[Chief Martin Dufour]

I invite you to consult Regroupement Petapan's brief when it's ready. It may provide you with more specific answers.