Evidence of meeting #78 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was agreement.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
It could take a while. You originally were left out of the so-called agreement back in October of 2016.
Chief, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nation
What do you mean we were “left out”?
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Well, it was signed on October 18 of 2016 and then you found out you weren't involved in it.
Do you reach out to other first nation groups when we're trying to do these complex and overlapping...when we're dealing with not only the federal government but provincial governments?
Chief, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nation
I don't think we were left out. I think we have rights and we can launch.... If the Government of Canada doesn't want to take its position to make sure our people are treated fairly, we have no choice but to go to the other courts. We're saying, look, we have no other choice; other communities have done it. We will go to the other courts for all our territory when it comes to the title issue, but we would much prefer to negotiate and have an acceptable process. That's our preferred route any time.
When that doesn't take place and the conditions are so harsh against us, what choice do first nations have? They go to court.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
I think you have 54 specific claims. I was just looking at that here. That's a big number.
Chief, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nation
Yes, but there are a lot of small claims. A lot of these claims are money claims. They're fairly simple.
With a specific claims process, the problem is the formula: the 80-20. The 80% simple and 20% compound is problematic for us. There have been two or three decisions recently. That has to be modified. Maybe it doesn't have to be 100%, but it has to be something fairer, in my view.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
Well said.
We'll move now to you, Chief Swappie. Thanks to you and Mr. Prévost for being here.
With “40 years of hindsight” in funding, are you proposing, then, that all agreements should be treated the same? We've heard your story: you feel the Naskapi are not getting treated the same as Cree or Inuit programs are. Where are we coming from on this?
You obviously signed earlier, and you didn't get the cost of living brought into your agreements. I can see that, and now you're paying for it. Are we looking at “one agreement fits all”, or...?
We have done some tours. I'm probably the sharpest one here today, because the rest got in late from Yellowknife; I didn't accompany them. What we've heard as we've gone on is “we want specific claims for us”, but now on the funding situation I'm hearing, “Well, they got this and they got that, and we were left out and we want what they got.”
Can you clarify that a little? You've spent a lot of time talking about about what you don't have and what they have, and you want what they have. I'm wondering, then, is it one cookie cutter for all? I didn't hear that when I went on the trip about a month ago. People want their own funding agreements.
You've fallen behind and now you want to catch up, and you've looked at other jurisdictions to catch up.
Liberal
Chief, Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach
I believe it's safe to say that part of it is our fault. Leadership hasn't been very progressive in following up with the agreements, so this is what's happening right now: we're just following up and playing catch-up.
Chief, Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach
We'd like to have the agreements revisited because we think a lot of things were left out, like the day care facility. There is nothing in the agreement that they had for day care facilities.
Conservative
Kevin Waugh Conservative Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK
I think that's a fair statement.
We'll move on, because I'm out of time. Thank you.
Liberal
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I welcome our guests this morning.
Chief Whiteduck, I want to start with you. There was a lot in what you said to us this morning. You're not happy with the current structure of land claims; everything is decided by the public servants, and the name of the game belongs to public servants. As well, there is total disagreement with extinguishment and certainty. These are all my notes from what you've said. Also, you should be party to economic development over your traditional territory. As well, you've said that this comprehensive land claims policy should be thrown into the garbage.
These are all things you said, but yet at the end you said that the policy must be changed. Are you suggesting that we should continue with the policy?
Chief, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nation
No, I'm not. I don't think the policy in its present form works for us, at least not for our nation. I think you have to redo the policy completely. We want our rightful place. We have a governing body; you have the province and you have the federal government. We need to have our place.
I hear the committee is negotiating having a cookie-cutter system, where everybody gets the same thing. I really don't think it should be a question of programs and services. There are revenues that flow from resources. Those revenues should flow to us.
We have dams in our territories. We have forestry operations, mining operations. We get nothing from that. It belongs to us also. We should be part of economic development. We should benefit from that today, tomorrow, and in the future. It shouldn't be one deal, one time, here's your cheque and get lost.
NDP
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Are you suggesting that your grievances should be guided by federal government policy? That's my question.
Chief, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nation
Well, if there is a policy, it should be in consultation with the first nations, I think, the Algonquins. We think there is a better route. We think there is a possibility to work out an agreement with all parties where we have our place. We think that is possible.
NDP
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Again, I think that's perfectly in keeping with article 27 of the UN declaration, where there is a question of establishing a process “in conjunction with indigenous peoples...a fair, independent, impartial, open and transparent process”. Is that what you're suggesting to this committee?
Chief, Kitigan Zibi Anishinabeg First Nation
For sure. That's the basis.
NDP
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Thank you.
I'll now turn to you, Chief Swappie and Mr. Prévost.
[Member speaks in Cree]
I was going to ask about some of the challenges with the Northeastern Quebec Agreement. You suggested in your testimony that your NEQA should be revisited—that was the term you used—and that the enforceability should be seriously looked at. Would the present policies that we have in place be helpful in achieving what you're talking about?
Chief, Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach
I'm not too familiar with the present policies, but I think Quebec has an obligation with these agreements. I think Quebec has to step up. This is why we are here now, because Canada has its role to make sure that these policies are implemented by the Quebec government.
Robert can maybe add to that.
Advisor, Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach
One thing is that with all those public services provided through the NEQA, for each of our services, we are in contact with a different department—education department, health department, you name it. The Naskapis Nation is a small nation. Its population is around 1,300. We don't have the capacity that we're talking about with the Inuit or the Cree or other big groups. When we go to those departments, we need to negotiate with them and demonstrate that the funding is not enough. You have a negotiation dynamic. It takes a lot of time and creates a lot of frustration, on the Naskapis side, to get the budget that is committed to NEQA. We're not saying that we want the same thing as they get, but we want to show, look, as a benchmark, those communities get the funding they need to implement it.
The JBNQA and the NEQA are similar. Why don't we get the same funding when we request it and show that we need it? Why? The only reason is that maybe we are too small and do not have enough political leverage to push the different departments to provide funding. It should not be like that. In terms of the NEQA, it has commitments that should be implemented for each community that has signed these modern treaties.
NDP
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
I was going to ask about that. Is that the only reason to explain the disparity between the Cree and the Naskapi, and the Inuit and the Naskapi? You threw out a couple of figures, and the difference is pretty major. Is that the only reason, according to you, to explain the disparity and discrepancy between your people and the other two groups that have signed a similar agreement?
Advisor, Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach
It's one of the big reasons we can think of. But we're not in the heads of the different deputy ministers and people in the departments who are making those decisions. Maybe over time we have not been aggressive enough.
NDP
Romeo Saganash NDP Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC
Is there a difference in the wording of the two agreements? Are provisions in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement different from those in the Northeastern Quebec Agreement?
