Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 24th, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Good morning. I'd like to call to order the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.

We recognize during this important period of Canadian history that we're on the unceded territory of the Algonquin people, an example of many of the treaties and commitments that we as settlers made with indigenous people and never fulfilled. This process led many of us to look at investigating and understanding treaties, but more specifically land claims—specific land claims, comprehensive land claims—as well as self-government and modern treaties as things are evolving. We're at a time of history when Canada is finally willing to look at these things, understand the truth, and move towards a process of reconciliation.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are undertaking a study on specific claims and comprehensive land claims agreements. Today we're very pleased to host two panels. Our first panel is here, with representatives from Kitigan Zibi and the Naskapi Nation.

The way it works is that you will have 10 minutes each to present, but you don't need to use the whole time. If you come close to the 10 minutes, I'll try to give you signals for three minutes, one minute, wrap up, and cut to give you an idea of how the time is going, so just look up once in a while. After that we'll have rounds of questioning from the MPs on the committee.

We're anxious to hear what you have to tell us, especially on how we can fix the system.

Over to you, Chief Whiteduck.

[Chief Jean-Guy Whiteduck, Chief, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nation]

Kwey gakina. Good morning.

Again, welcome to unceded Algonquin territory. As you're all aware, we launched a court action dealing with some of the territory, including the Parliament buildings, about a year ago.

Basically, we're not very happy with the whole structure of comprehensive claims or specific claims. Our community is one of 10 Algonquin communities, basically nine in Quebec and one in Ontario, who make up the Algonquin nation. The Algonquin nation never surrendered its territory in the Ottawa Valley. There's no clear evidence that there was an outright surrender. Our reserve was a pre-Confederation reserve, established by special legislation in 1851, and then it came into place in 1853.

We have approximately 50,000 acres of land presently and about 3,200 members, of whom 50% live on reserve and 50% live off reserve. Many Algonquin communities, though, have much smaller areas of land that they occupy presently.

The problem we have with the whole process of claims is the restrictions these policies impose. For example, in the specific claims, there are limitations. Basically the whole game is decided by federal employees, because the game plan is well established. Here's the policy, here are the rules. Is there really a negotiation? Often there isn't, because there is a format that everybody follows, and you have to follow in line.

One of the biggest areas of concern is the famous 80-20 rule, 80% simple, 20% compound, on lost revenue. Our community has many claims. In the early days of the formation of our community, the lumber barons, with Indian agents, were able to wheel and deal and take our land, and with much research we found that these lands were taken illegally. We have a number of claims in the negotiation process and a number of claims still in the process awaiting some answers.

We had a large claim dealing with about 20 or so parcels of land within the town of Maniwaki. These claims were negotiated. There was an offer on the table. We delayed...because it was a tribunal making the decisions. The Specific Claims Tribunal made a decision on the formula issue, the 80-20, coming out and saying, no, you should be considering compound. So we went back to the drawing board with the specific claim, saying, look, based on the tribunal decision and the recent court decision, you need to relook at this whole calculation formula that you have, which is really not favourable to us.

It is in the process right now. We are negotiating that and really looking at our band fund expenditures, but it's a long, slow process. Some of these claims have been in the system since the 1980s and 1990s. It's a very, very slow process. In my view, the process could be accelerated. We could have a better system in place. Get that formula issue straightened away, and allow a little bit more room for negotiation rather than have a system that applies to everyone when it comes to a specific claim.

When it comes to the area of comprehensive claims, we've never agreed with the comprehensive claim policy. We don't agree with extinguishment. We don't agree with the principle of certainty. We do agree that there has to be an arrangement where all parties are going to live on the territory and we all have our place. Many of our Algonquin communities are living in extreme poverty on land that's extremely wealthy, gold mines behind their homes, and they're living in poverty with 80% to 90% on social assistance. There is no reason for that. I feel that the Algonquin people should be able to have their rightful place, be able to enjoy employment, and be able to enjoy the same standard of living as other Canadians, something we do not presently.

The policy as it stands would never be accepted by my community. Extinguishment is a no-no. We say let's set up a process where we have our place. Yes, in our case, we overlap with Ontario, and we overlap with Quebec, because the heart of our valley is the Ottawa River watershed, which is north and south of here. We feel strongly that, with the level of governments in place, the federal and provincial governments, we can find our way. We don't agree either with the recent agreements made with Pikwakanagan in Ontario. We have an offer on the table. We were not consulted, and we don't agree. We think the offer that's on the table is ridiculous. It's equivalent to what was happening in the days when trinkets were thrown on the table: “Here are the trinkets. Take it or leave it.”

First nations shouldn't have to prove anything. The Government of Canada should prove that they're occupying a territory legally. We shouldn't have to prove anything. Why should we have to do more and more research to prove who we are and that it's our territory? We know it's our territory. You know it's our territory also. The government is well aware. All levels of government have studied this to death.

The Royal Proclamation of 1763 laid out a process for the taking of our land, that the land would be surrendered to the crown before it could be sold. We argued that...up until the 1800s, when the British regime at the time committed themselves to that process. They quickly forgot it as time went by. If it had not been for the native people in 1812, 9,000 warriors who helped defend this country and push back the Americans, we'd all be Americans today. That was quickly forgotten also after the War of 1812, when we became less important because our group had been diminished by disease and other problems.

We think there should be some clear recognition that the Algonquin people are there; it's their territory, and we need to figure out how we can coexist. It's not to push anybody around. It's not to get rid of third parties. Let's set up a proper process where the first nations—the Algonquin people—have their place in this country. They don't have it right now. They live in squalid conditions in many communities.

My community is more fortunate. We're closer to the city. Our education levels are increasing. But it's a long, slow process. We have not benefited from the economic development around here. We should be party to the development. There's a lot of federal land still available here. We say we should be parties in the development of that land, and benefits should flow to all the Algonquin nations. It shouldn't be contribution agreements that are subject to many regulations. It should be, “Here is your share of resource revenues. This is your share. You decide how you want to govern yourself, and you decide how you want to spend this money to better your communities.” That's the way it should take place.

Definitely the two policies are outdated. There are court rulings for the specific claims policy. That needs to be amended and modernized. The comprehensive claim, as far as I'm concerned, should be thrown in the garbage. It's useless. There has to be a recognition of our people, and we need to find our place. Yes, there will be a negotiation process, but we can find our place. We don't have to displace anyone. For the Algonquins to get their place is getting urgent. A lot of young people in some of our Algonquin communities are having a hard time. We have a large youth population. It's a time bomb. We need to deal with that and the sooner, the better.

Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Meegwetch. Thank you for those powerful words. Throwing out the agreement is an interesting concept. During the question period, you'll have to tell us what to replace it with.

Chief Swappie, you have 10 minutes.

[Chief Noah Swappie, Chief, Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach]

Hello, everyone. I'm Chief Swappie. I'm here with Robert Prévost. He works with us on various files with the Naskapi Nation.

We weren't expecting 10 minutes today. We'll skim through the 14-page presentation we were going to give. I'll start with the introduction.

The Naskapi nations have in the past always depended on caribou. Prior to contact, they occupied and lived off a very vast territory spanning from the Lower North Shore area of the province of Quebec in the south, up to Ungava Bay in the north, and including a large portion of what is known today as new Quebec—Nunavik—and the Labrador Peninsula.

Following various unilateral decisions by the Hudson's Bay Company as well as Indian Affairs, which were made without consideration of the Naskapis' interests and concerns, the Naskapis were finally relocated in Kawawachikamach, according to anthropologist Alan Cooke.

Located 10 kilometres northeast of the town of Schefferville, near the Quebec-Labrador border, Kawawachikamach is the only Naskapi community in the province of Quebec, with a population in 2017 of approximately 904 community members out of a total of 1,300 registered members.

In 1978 the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach entered into the Northeastern Quebec Agreement,known as NEQA, with the Province of Quebec and Canada. The NEQA is a modern treaty, protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. As such, its provisions are legally binding for Quebec and Canada, and the rights granted therein to the Naskapis attract constitutional protection. The NEQA was signed in the same historical and political context as the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the JBNQA, and effectively puts the Naskapis on par with the Crees and the Inuit under the JBNQA, as Quebec's and Canada's treaty partners. The JBNQA and the NEQA perform on a vast tract of land corresponding to the area previously known as Rupert's Land—the territory.

The land regime of the territory falls under the auspices of both the NEQA and the JBNQA. Namely, the NEQA establishes the Naskapi area of primary interest. The NEQA also delineates a portion of the territory shared between the Naskapis and the Inuit, referred to as the “area of common interest”. Together the Naskapi area of primary interest and the area of common interest formed the Naskapi sector, which covers more than 100,000 square kilometres. The Naskapi sector represents approximately 10% of the area covered by Quebec's Plan Nord, and is straddled by the Labrador Trough, a mineral-rich belt where major mining development has taken place since the 1950s.

The NEQA and the JBNQA lay out some rights, structures, processes, and resources necessary, but not always sufficient, to the development of the nation. They allowed the creation of a strong local government in Kawawachikamach and ensured the provision of the services of policing, health care, social services, and education in the community. Since 1978 the community has grown significantly. Investments in infrastructure include a school, a CLSC, a police station, and numerous public facilities. Several business opportunities were also created by the nation, promoting economic development and Naskapi employment.

Since the signature of the NEQA, the Naskapi Nation has developed significantly, and the realities of the Naskapis, including their needs, have dramatically changed. Thirty-nine years after its establishment, a dialogue needs to be opened to revisit the NEQA in a manner so as to improve its enforceability and performance.

We have a non-exhaustive summary of the components of NEQA and the JBNQA that we believe should be improved.

I'll hand this over to Robert.

[Robert Prévost, Advisor, Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach]

I have a big document I will send you that explains some stuff. Because of the short period here, I will go over it more in summary.

Many will tell you that where the NEQA is providing services, it is going well, but a lot of commitments in the NEQA are not well implemented or we don't have enough funding to implement them. We will give you a summary of where it is going wrong.

In terms of health and social services, it's a good thing that we just got a new CLSC building in Kawawachikamach that will open in the next month. This is really positive; the community has been seeking that for years, and it's happening. However, according to the NEQA, Quebec “shall” fund a full range of health and social services. But we've realized over the years that the funding is not enough to offer all those services. Compare Kawawachikamach with other Cree communities of the same size that are under the JBNQA. For example, a Cree community of the same size as Kawawachikamach could have funding of about $4,000 per capita. For the Naskapis we're talking about more like $2,500. There's a big drop when we compare the Cree with the Naskapis. We have much lower funding than they do for implementing the same kinds of commitments that are in the JBNQA and NEQA.

It's the same thing for non-insured health benefits. According to the NEQA, non-insured health benefits should be covered through the NEQA through Quebec. Again, the Cree get full reimbursement, 100% of those costs. The Naskapi need to take it from our own CLSC budget, so we are limited and we don't have enough funding to cover all those costs. We lack funding in health.

In terms of education, I can say education is going well. We have a good school, JSMS, the Jimmy Sandy Memorial School in Kawawachikamach, offering primary and secondary levels. We just opened an adult education program last year. Even though it was in the NEQA—we were supposed to have funding for that—we have had 12 years of negotiations with Quebec and Canada. We have that education service offer now.

We have about 100 Naskapis studying outside the community in post-secondary and vocational training right now, which is really positive. However, one of the challenges is that when Naskapis go outside the community, sometimes the programs are not adapted to them; sometimes there is culture shock. The nation and the school want to have a vocational training centre in the community to offer that kind of service in the community, as with the Cree and the Inuit. Even though it already exists in the Cree and the Inuit territories, it still doesn't exist still in the Naskapi. We're still in negotiations with Quebec and Canada to implement that service.

Regarding hunting, fishing, and trapping, the hunter support program is a program that the Cree, the Inuit, and the Naskapi have, although they're a little bit different. It provides funding to the Naskapi to keep their traditional activity of hunting and fishing on the ground. The issue on that in the NEQA is that when it was signed, they said they would give $60,000 per year and that it would be increased by inflation, but they never thought about the increase in population. The population has tripled since 1978, so we have three times more people for the same pot. We don't have enough funding to keep that program going.

When the Inuit and the Cree signed the JBNQA, it took into consideration the increase in population and the increase in participation. So over the years, the difference in funding between the Naskapi and the Cree and the Inuit has become very high. Right now, 40 years later, we are in big trouble.

We also have an issue around environmental consultation of the nation. Under the JBNQA they created different instances that oversee environmental assessment on the territory. One of them is the Kativik Environmental Quality Commission. On that commission we have some people nominated by Quebec and some nominated by KRG, the Kativik Regional Government, where the Naskapi have one of 17 seats. The Naskapi have been requesting to have a part in the Kativik Environmental Quality Commission for quite a while; we don't have a seat there, so the Naskapi are not implicated in those assessments.

Maybe you can jump to the conclusion, Noah.

[Chief Noah Swappie]

Yes. With our limited time, I'll jump right to the conclusion.

In almost 40 years of hindsight, the disparity has further deepened in terms of the funding allocated to implement the NEQA and JBNQA—on the one hand to the Naskapis, and on the other hand to the Inuit and the Crees.

As detailed in this document, funding per Naskapi beneficiary is lower than per Cree beneficiary in regard to health and social services. The same situation applies to the program to assist hunting, fishing, and trapping when comparing the Naskapi program with the Inuit and the Cree programs. In terms of education, the Inuit and the Crees have set up vocational training centres in their communities, while the Naskapis still strive for one for the education of their youth and adult members. Funding for policing is another problem area for the reasons cited herein. Numerous other instances of funding disparity between the Naskapis and the Crees and Inuit could be added to this list, yet....

Am I done? Okay.

You have the document. You can read it over.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Please submit all the documents. They'll be part of the record, and we'll have an opportunity to read your full brief.

I didn't mean to cut you off that abruptly. You can complete your statement, if you wish, if it's just a few seconds. Otherwise, we will go on to the questioning, and you can include it in that portion.

[Chief Noah Swappie]

Okay. Thank you.

I just sincerely hope that this is not put aside. These are very important files, I think, that have been dragging out for many, many years.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We've been across the country, to Vancouver and Winnipeg. We met with the Mohawks of Belleville. We were in Quebec, and just yesterday we came back from Yellowknife. That is just to say that the situation is difficult across the country. Some people have done better, but your expressions hit home with us, I think, in a very eloquent way. When we give the opportunity for our members to begin questioning, you can elaborate on areas.

We'll start with MP Zahid.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to both chiefs for coming out today.

My first question is on community engagement, and I'd appreciate it if both chiefs could provide their input. We have heard about these cases, whether for specific or comprehensive claims, which are obviously extremely important to your communities. How are you assisting with community engagement and education on the claims process, and do you have any best practices you would like to share with the committee here today?

[Chief Jean-Guy Whiteduck]

In our case, we've dealt with a number of specific claims. Our community is well informed. We have to understand that when we accept a claim, we have to go to a referendum. There's a whole slew of information that goes out to the membership, and people are well informed. The dollars are secured in a trust, whenever possible, to ensure that they're there for the future also.

But we have not settled the broader question of our territorial claim. Specific claims are limited. They don't bring in a lot of revenues, except for a few that are now in the negotiation process, and those could help the community to some extent to improve its services. We have the same problems other communities do. When it comes to programs and services, whether for policing or health services, there's never enough money to go around. Obviously, if we are able to get some claim dollars, we will be able to improve the services for all of our membership.

[Chief Noah Swappie]

I'm going to have Robert answer this question, because he's more involved in education.

[Robert Prévost]

The NEQA created the Naskapi school, which is funded 75% by Canada and 25% by Quebec. Every three years we have a negotiation with Quebec and Canada to determine our three-year funding budget. I would say that it is going well at the elementary and secondary levels. As I said, we have a lot of Naskapis outside, 100 doing post-secondary and vocational training. Right now our challenge is to have a facility in Kawawachikamach to do vocational training and post-secondary training here in Kawa.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

My next question is on comprehensive claims. When you are engaging in the comprehensive claims process, a number of support mechanisms are in place to assist. Do you think that new support systems need to be put in place or that adjustments to the current ones need to be made to better support our indigenous communities who are undertaking the comprehensive claims process?

[Chief Jean-Guy Whiteduck]

As I mentioned earlier on, we don't support the policy as it stands. Any policy that extinguishes our rights is not acceptable. That's why we say the policy must be changed and amended to be more in line such that we have our rightful place and we're allowed to govern our own affairs—but no extinguishment. Clearly, the rules of engagement have to be well established and the benefits flow, but we have to have our place, like the governments have and like the province has.

That's why I say the policy, as it stands, is not acceptable to our nation, clearly because of the extinguishment requirement to have a treaty. We don't think we should have to extinguish anything to have a workable arrangement.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Would you like to provide some recommendations that could be put in place?

[Chief Jean-Guy Whiteduck]

The recommendation is basically to redo the comprehensive claim, remove the extinguishment requirements, and move more toward a process whereby our governments are recognized and we can benefit from the resources on our traditional territories. Those resources belong to our people too. We were there first, and we feel that's a process that really helps us rebuild our governments and our communities, deliver all the essential services, and ensure employment for all our people. As I said, it is sad; many, many of our people live on social assistance, and that shouldn't be the case.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

Perhaps you would like to add to this, Chief Swappie. When engaging in the comprehensive claims process, a number of support mechanisms are in place to assist. Do you think new support systems or adjustments need to be done at present, or do you have any recommendations to support our indigenous communities?

[Chief Noah Swappie]

We do have in place the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, a modern treaty, and it doesn't really apply to us.

One thing I wanted to mention was that we don't really have control over our territory, because we fall under the Kativik Regional Government. We've been having issues with the Kativik Regional Government that we've brought forth. We are still in discussions regarding a few issues with land, with the KEAC, which is the Kativik Environmental Advisory Committee, and the KEQC. Both tables have the KRG reps, but nobody from the Naskapi Nation. This doesn't sit well with the Naskapis.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

We'll move to the next round of questioning. That's with MP Waugh.

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

Thank you.

Thank you for being here. A year ago, an agreement in principle was signed by the governments of Canada and Ontario, as you know, along with the Algonquins of Ontario for this land that we're on right now—the House of Commons, Lebreton Flats, the Supreme Court.

Two months later, your group, Chief Whiteduck, came forward with a title claim. There are lots of complexities when we talk about overlapping situations like we have here today. You've been very strong in your statement about starting all over, but maybe you could just talk about the complexities, when you're dealing with several groups here, on a land claim that includes the House of Commons, the Supreme Court, and Lebreton Flats—which would be yours, you claim.

[Chief Jean-Guy Whiteduck]

I really believe the government was remiss in dealing with one community. Some years ago, our community tried to launch a process under the comprehensive land claims process, because it was the only game in town since before the Tsilhqot'in decision where title was recognized. We tried to get the communities together, and we had six or seven communities. What we got back from Indian Affairs was, no, we're not moving with you unless all the communities are on board. But then they turned around and negotiated with one community initially, with Pikwakanagan. They negotiated with them, and other communities sprang out of nowhere, self-declared Algonquins that the government recognized somehow; they don't even fit in within the Indian Act as status Indians.

The government should have said to the nation then what they told us: you guys get your act together and we're willing to negotiate with the nation as a whole. Right now that's not the case. The government chose to deal with one community only, while with us they kept refusing it.

We don't understand the game here. We still have issues with a community just north of us, where the Government of Canada went into a trilateral discussion over resource management and all the other communities were left out. The divide and conquer principle is taking place here.

It's an Algonquin territory, it belongs to the nation, and the benefit should flow to the whole nation. The government should have taken this position: We're willing to sit down with you, the nation. If we do meet with one community and agree to enter into an administrative agreement, that's okay. It's without prejudice to the rights of other people.

Right now, we don't agree that Ontario could negotiate our rights away. They could negotiate their own; our rights will remain on the territory in question. But really, the Government of Canada was remiss in allowing that when they refused us in Quebec.

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

Two months later, you filed a claim. Where's it at? Two months later, from October when it was filed by Canada, along with Ontario and the Algonquins, to December last year, when you filed your claim: have you been heard at all since that time?

[Chief Jean-Guy Whiteduck]

Well, clearly we had to do something. We don't agree with the process, and we let them know.

The Department of Indian Affairs has agreed recently to engage in discussions through a memorandum of understanding. We're laying out the principles and the subject matters to be discussed. We've agreed possibly in the interim to put our case in abeyance while the discussion goes on.