Evidence of meeting #23 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was treaties.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Jaime Battiste Liberal Cape Breton—Canso—Antigonish, NS
Chief Bennett, on that point, do you think enough people in your region, your province, understand the obligations of treaties, and do you think that a modern-day treaty commissioner would help that?
February 26th, 2026 / 8:45 a.m.
Chief Councillor, Kitselas First Nation
I often say that I need to do a better job, and that would be in demonstrating, not only to my community but to our neighbouring first nations and to the province and to our local municipalities.... The City of Terrace and the Regional District of Kitimat–Stikine supported our treaty process. I think that's because we did a really great job in trying to not only educate our people but also educate those who live in and around us. With this position, I think they can look at supporting first nations all across Canada that are either treaty first nations or those first nations that have made the decision to enter into treaty negotiations.
I feel that this position will bring great benefits, not only to indigenous people but to Canadians.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Terry Sheehan
Thank you very much, Chief.
Welcome, Mr. Lemire. You have the floor for six minutes.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's a pleasure to be back here at committee.
Chief Nattawappio, thank you for being here.
First, I would like to extend cordial greetings from my colleague, Marilène Gill, who is the Bloc Québécois' new critic for indigenous relations, as well as your member of Parliament. As you know, she wants to go see you in your home, in Kawawachikamach, as soon as possible, and she has pledged to do so. For those who follow our work and are a little more used to settler names, that's near Schefferville. I do envy my colleague's opportunity to visit you.
I'd like to start by learning more about your story. In the 1970s, in Quebec, there was a lot of activity around hydroelectricity development. There's a reason why the Cree and Naskapi were the first—the only—indigenous groups in Quebec to be involved in modern treaties.
Do you feel that governments were eager to implement modern treaties initially, but neither Quebec nor Canada felt the same sense of urgency once hydroelectricity infrastructure was in place? Why was there such a rush to sign modern treaties in the 1970s and now, more than 50 years later, you're still waiting?
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
The results of the modern treaty about...
You're still waiting for all the promises that were made to you to be implemented, particularly those having to do with self-government.
Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach
Is that in regard to the agreements?
Christina Caron Lawyer, Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach
The Naskapi situation is unique. The agreement has been and is being implemented. However, the tragedy for the Naskapi is that so-called modern treaties are becoming less and less modern despite the label. When the Naskapi signed the treaty in 1978, government policy was very different from the one under which treaties are being signed today. The Naskapi had to give up their land and all their rights to it in exchange for a 20‑chapter agreement. So one of the major issues for the Naskapi is the evolution of the treaty, which we can ensure by regularly reviewing the implementation and producing reports.
At the time of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, land claim treaties didn't include chapters on evolution. The approach was a bit more prescriptive. Our treaty is from 1978, and it sometimes seems as though governments feel it's a done deal and there's no need for it to evolve.
So, yes, it was implemented properly, but we might have to review that implementation now and revisit the spirit of the treaty, as well as the context in which it was signed, since you asked me a question about the context. It was rushed, after all, and the Naskapi signed their treaty within the context of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, which was signed three years earlier and extinguished all the rights of all the nations on the territory.
When the Naskapi negotiated their own treaty, they had no leverage, and I think it is important to emphasize the notion of leverage this morning. The first nations that signed the treaties, including the Naskapi, have no leverage to reopen chapters of their treaties and modernize them. The report might seem like one report among many, but, for the Naskapi, it is more than just a report. It's the only leverage they have to demand an application of the treaty that is modern and aligned with current policies.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Could the commissioner be given the mandate to make recommendations on the evolution of modern treaties?
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Do you have any other amendments to propose that you would like to see made to the bill?
Lawyer, Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach
I don't have any amendments to propose. The commissioner will have fairly broad powers to make recommendations, which may contain elements on the evolution of the treaty.
Bloc
Sébastien Lemire Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Chief Nattawappio, do you feel that you could have used an ally like this commissioner in the past, and that it could have made a difference in terms of your nation's growth and development?
Liberal
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON
Thank you to our witnesses for being here for this very important study.
To reiterate what I've said before in previous appearances, we agree with the diagnosis. We have some issues with the prescription in terms of how this bill is worded and how it's going forward.
We agree that the government, over hundreds of years, has failed indigenous people. We agree that with treaties—modern, numbered, traditional or otherwise—there have been too many examples where the government has failed to live up to its word. Despite signing on the dotted line and despite all the pomp and ceremony that goes with it, the government then fails indigenous people.
Having said that, we want to help make this legislation as strong as possible so that there are consequences and, if there's a change in government, a change in deputy ministers or a change in whoever, the departments will be held to a standard of continuing to uphold the word.
I'll start with Chief Rempel, because she did mention that.
On that note, if we're talking about holding government or treaty partners to account, other than a report or naming and shaming—which this bill basically does—what other mechanisms are there to ensure that there is some accountability on the government side?
Chief Councillor, K'ómoks First Nation
I'm sorry. Are you asking about mechanisms within the bill?
Chief Councillor, K'ómoks First Nation
I think there are ample teeth for improving accountability and efficiency and overall improvement in the implementation of modern treaties.
The commissioner will have access to powers that resemble those of the Auditor General and can require information. Parliament will use those reports to hold departments accountable, and the commissioner can follow up at the same level as the Auditor General with audits to ensure that recommendations are implemented. Going beyond the powers contained in Bill C-10 would disrupt the carefully calibrated balance in the bill.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes, ON
Okay.
The Auditor General, an agent of Parliament, now has the ability to table reports, and at that point, Parliament tries to hold the government to account. We do that in question period, and we do that in committee. There are a whole bunch of different levers at our disposal.
That said, there is only so much that can happen if the government—the executive, the cabinet—decides not to react to those reports. There have been many Auditor General reports that have shown where failures are happening with indigenous communities. We've seen those reports also highlight that substantial increases in funding have not resulted in equally substantial improvements in housing and infrastructure, etc.
How do we then hold government to account?
Chief Councillor, K'ómoks First Nation
I think the answer is in the question: It is by not assigning it to the Auditor General.
I think different agents have different purposes. The CMTI was modelled on the Office of the Auditor General and would have similar roles, with a focus on internal Government of Canada accountability.
Conservative