Todd Russell

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 13th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, Lisa Marie Young, Shannon Alexander, Maisy Odjick, Lisa Sheepskin, and Claudette Osborne, these are 5 of the over 500 missing or murdered aboriginal women or girls. There are issues of race, class and sexual prejudice. There are questions the families want answered and that all Canadians need answered.

I ask again, will the government launch a full, public and independent investigation?

[Committees of the House, May 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, the issue of ice compensation and providing some income relief for sealers affected by ice conditions, low markets and low seal pelt prices was committed to in the House by a couple of ministers, but we have yet to see anything delivered in terms of assistance or aid for our sealers.

I am sure there are many colleagues who can attest to the fact that there are many families that make between $15,000 and $25,000 in net family income. Providing the seal fishermen with $3,000 or $4,000 might not sound like a lot of money to many Canadians but that is 15%, sometimes 20%, of a sealer's income. It is essential that they have that income. It is not there this spring and we are asking the government to help the sealers.

If the government is going to talk about supporting the sealers and doing all these things, it should put it into action. It is no good to talk about it if it is not put into action. I say to the government to put it into action and do not just talk about it.

[Committees of the House, May 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sentiments and words of my colleague. Indeed, yes, sometimes we all take a lot of comfort in speaking with and listening to each other, and hopefully carrying a message of hope and optimism back to our communities, provinces and the families who are most affected.

The questions I asked were: What was the strategy? How was it laid out? Were there pro-sealing ads? How much money was expended? The government has a responsibility to lay out exactly what it undertook in this particular regard.

One of the greater responsibilities now is how do we respond? How do we respond in a way that overturns this ban? Do we undertake a marketing campaign? I asked the minister, do we undertake a WTO challenge? I did not get a direct answer on that particular question. What do we do now to help the families that are hurting? They need immediate action on the part of the government.

[Committees of the House, May 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the words and the actions of my colleague, the member for St. John's South—Mount Pearl and thank her as well for sharing her time on this very important issue.

I come from a little island community called Williams Harbour. It is a sealing community like so many along the coast of Labrador and around the coast of the island of Newfoundland, and on the north shore of Quebec.

I come from a sealing family who has participated in the hunt for generations like so many other families within our province. The hunt is a part of our livelihood, yes, and just as important, a part of our tradition. There is something about the seal hunt, like so many other practices or traditions in our country, that makes us what we are. It is a part of our identity and without it we do not feel the same. We do not feel as complete.

I can speak in that way as a Labradorian, as a person from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I can speak in that respect as a northerner who lives in the northern part of our country. I can speak in that respect as an aboriginal person whose traditions go back hundreds and indeed thousands of years.

When it comes to the seal hunt itself, and we look at this particular ban, we can say categorically that the members of the European Union were duped, that they have bought into a lie, and that they have bought into a campaign of misinformation. That is a dangerous precedent if a sham can somehow become law, that affects our livelihoods and affects our way of life.

When we look at some of the particulars in the ban itself, like the exemption for Inuit, that is a farce. It was just a face-saving measure on the part of the European parliamentarians. They talk about it in the global context that somehow this comes out of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is a fallacy. That particular exemption has been condemned by Inuit leaders and aboriginal leaders throughout the country. It means absolutely nothing. This ban is still an attack on a way of life, on our traditions, our practices and our culture.

The ban also talks about allowing certain countries to carry out a cull on the basis of ecological integrity or trying to maintain some balance in the ecosystem.

I do not know of another country that has a seal population of approximately seven million animals. I will repeat what was said before by a former premier of the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. He said, “They're in the water. They're not eating turnips. They are eating fish. They're eating caplin. They're eating cod. They're eating salmon. All of these species, the salmon, the caplin and the cod face challenges in terms of sustainability”.

So, it is ironic and hypocritical that we have the European Union countries saying we can cull the animals for ecological integrity in certain countries, but we cannot have a sustainable, humane hunt that also carries, as a part of its integrity, the ecology, the balance that we require in our own ecological systems. They are hypocritical in terms of what they have put in this particular ban and they are also playing into a false argument and using an exemption that means nothing when it comes to the Inuit.

I will use myself as an example. I am a quarter blood Inuk, but I would not necessarily be able to participate in the hunt under this particular ban even though I have participated in the seal hunt the last two to three years and I hold a commercial sealing licence. We also harvest seals for food and for crafts or household use. We have that balance within our own culture already.

I appreciate the fact that all parties in this chamber are on the same page, that we are all trying to work through this issue. I appreciate the fact that there is some unanimity among all colleagues in the House, but we have to ask some questions.

We have to ask questions about the government's strategy, or if it even has a strategy to protect the seal hunt. We have to ask what type of tactics were used in terms of the Conservative government's approach. We have to ask what type of action was taken, or was there a lack of action. I ask these questions in all seriousness.

Was the Conservative government's approach co-ordinated? Did it involve the provinces and the territories in a meaningful way? Did the government involve aboriginal groups? Did it involve organizations like the Canadian Sealers Association or the Fur Institute of Canada? How co-ordinated was the response? What elements made up the so-called campaign? Was there publicity?

I have not seen any pro-sealing ads from our government to be quite honest. Maybe the parliamentary secretary could produce one for me. I have not seen an information campaign from the government educating the public within the European Union as well as parliamentarians over there because a lot of what is happening is a result of public pressure on those parliamentarians.

How aggressive were the diplomatic efforts? I am not questioning the personal integrity of Ambassador Sullivan, but how effective was he? How much support did he have in terms of doing his particular work? If there was a co-ordinated, technically driven campaign, how much money was actually expended?

These are legitimate questions to lay on the floor of this chamber. We deserve some answers, sealers deserve some answers, and those in our communities deserve some answers to these particular questions.

It is also incumbent upon the government to review its strategy, if it had a strategy, to see where it failed. Where were the weaknesses? Where were some of the potential strengths? These are all crucial questions.

Our sealers are in need. Our sealers are hurting and their families are hurting. Our communities need help.

The Minister of International Trade said that sealing was crucial to the livelihood of sealers and their families. What are we going to do now since the seals have taken to the water? Are we going to provide income support? Are we going to extend EI benefits? Are we going to launch a campaign? Are we going to have a WTO challenge? What are we going to do now?

We are talking in the House, but people want answers. They want to know what went wrong. They want to know what is going to happen to help them now. I ask these questions with a sense of sincerity and with a sense of integrity because I am thinking about the people back home. I am thinking about the many families who are hurting.

I get calls every single day, as do other members from my province, from people asking what we are going to do for them now. They want to know how we are going to help them out now. They need help. There has been a promise of some help, and rightly so, for lobster fishermen because they are going through a difficult time. Our sealers are no less important, our fishermen are no less important, in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, in Quebec, or in the north.

Where is the help for our sealers and for our fishermen when they need it most?

[Committees of the House, May 11th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I would just say that the horse is out of the barn, although it is not a good analogy for seals. In Labrador we would probably say that the seals have taken to the water. When they take to the water, they are much more difficult to hunt and harvest.

The ban is there. What does the hon. member suggest we do now? What action should the government take now in terms of fighting this ban and helping our sealers?

[Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, May 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, I am always hesitant to say how it is going to benefit someone. It is up to the people themselves how they prioritize and utilize those funds, basically how they spend the money. It is what most people would consider to be a substantial sum. It is hard to put a value on land, a value on tradition. We can think of that Cree saying that when the trees have been cut, the fish have been taken and the rivers have been poisoned, money cannot be eaten. However, I would leave it to the Cree themselves in that they are the best judges of what is important to them, of what their community priorities are, where they have to put the dollars.

It will be significantly important and it will benefit them personally. How that happens is going to be up to the Cree people themselves. That really is a part of self-government. If it is going to be real self-government, we do not tell people what to do, we let them exercise it.

[Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, May 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from British Columbia represents the people in Newton—North Delta so well.

Yes, we have often had difficulty with getting government legislation through the House. I think that is about different visions of our country and where we want to go.

On this particular piece of legislation, the fact that it was developed with the aboriginal people themselves, in this case the Cree of Eeyou Istchee, makes it so much more palatable, so much easier to support. I believe we should also recognize that it is the fulfillment of a commitment that the Government of Canada has already made and this helps build trust and understanding among aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. Only with that trust and understanding can we really build new relationships and move to a self-government that is recognized by other people in Canada and indeed throughout the world.

[Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, May 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, every part of Canada and different aboriginal peoples have a different sense of history and a different sense of tradition. In Labrador we have the Inuit, the Métis and the Innu. In Labrador we already have a comprehensive land claim and self-government agreement. It is called the Nunatsiavut agreement and it was ratified in June 2005. They already have moved to an area where the Cree of Eeyou Istchee want to be. It may not reflect the same type of parameters or powers, but this is where Bill C-28 helps the Cree move.

The Innu have their own vision of self-government and where they want to go. They are negotiating with the province of Newfoundland and Labrador and the Government of Canada. There has been some signing of an initial agreement called New Dawn with the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I understand the negotiations continue with the Government of Canada.

To resolve land claims in Labrador and aboriginal rights and title, I have encouraged the minister and the government to seriously look at the comprehensive land claims as were submitted by the Métis Nation of Labrador so that all people in all of our communities are included, that they feel there is some settlement and resolution, that their aims and aspirations are taken as seriously as the other aboriginal peoples in Labrador and elsewhere in the country.

[Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, May 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding from the new relationship agreement between Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee that there will be no movement toward the more fundamental piece of a self-government agreement with the Cree, a Cree constitution and fuller Cree governance, without the passage of Bill C-28. Bill C-28 is an essential step in moving toward these more fundamental agreements.

I have not fully read the new relationship agreement, but I understand that the types of parameters that will guide the negotiations over the next five years toward self-government for the Cree of Eeyou Istchee are outlined in it. I will leave it to the negotiators in terms of what is finally put in the agreement.

Grand Chief Mukash, the commissioners of the Cree-Naskapi, and the negotiator, Bill Namagoose, see Bill C-28 as essential, but they also look forward to the promise of more comprehensive negotiations on this self-government agreement.

I understand there will be some recognition of the traditional governance of the Cree people. It is important to recognize what was there before settlers arrived, before there were other forms of government. It is essential because it lifts people up and it makes them feel valued.

I look forward to the day when we have new Cree governance structures and a new Cree constitution. I hope I am around to celebrate with the Government of Canada, the Government of Quebec and the Cree people themselves.

[Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, May 7th, 2009]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act of 1984. I want to thank the minister and the government for bringing this legislation forward in a rather expedited manner.

Essentially, this particular piece of legislation stems from land claims and the implementation of what we call modern-day treaties. The first such modern-day treaty was the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement of 1975, which I am going to speak about a little more as we move forward.

Negotiation and implementation has been difficult. It has been tough, time-consuming and burdensome, but these treaties have also been signs of hope, opportunity and promise. In 1975, the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement signalled a new time in the history of Canada and a new relationship with aboriginal peoples. However, even though it has been a new relationship and new processes have taken place, they have not been without their trials and tribulations.

Since 1975, there have been a number of comprehensive land claims signed in the country, in places such as the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, British Columbia, Nunavut, Quebec and Labrador, with a broad range of aboriginal peoples and nations: the Teslin Tlingit, the Gwich'in, the Nisga'a and the Inuit, but unfortunately, to date, no comprehensive land claim specifically with the Métis people.

If we want to look at the implementation of these particular treaties, the aboriginal peoples across the country signed these treaties with a profound sense of importance. I want to sum up that profound sense of importance in a Cree prophesy:

Only after the last tree has been cut down

Only after the last river has been poisoned

Only after the last fish has been caught

Then will you find that money cannot be eaten.

In that particular prophesy, and because of the nature of land claims where aboriginal people had to give up lands or give up certain rights for money, the negotiations are profound, because they come with a certain sense of permanence as well. The sense among elders in the community that in fact we sometimes have no right to give up land, that we are caretakers and stewards of it, makes these particular negotiations ever more heartfelt.

I say that because when we get to the implementation there are often difficulties in terms of interpretation and consistency. We will often hear this phrase amongst aboriginal people: We have signed this agreement, the government has certain responsibilities, both the federal crown and the provincial crown, but the honour of the Crown, what the Crown has promised, is not being kept to; there is not a sincerity.

I can say that it is happening with the Nisga'a, with whom I have met. They say, “Listen, we signed an agreement, and it has taken now seven or eight years to negotiate other aspect of the agreement, such as the financial framework agreements.”

I talked to the Teslin Tlingit, and they talk about the fact that it has been now over a decade and some of the aspects of their comprehensive land claim, such as the devolution of justice and enforcement, has not happened.

I even talk about the Nunatsiavut government in Labrador. “Nunatsiavut” means “our beautiful land”. I know these people. I know them well. Many are relatives. They say that even since 2005 there have been problems with implementation.

It is in this broad context that I talk about Bill C-28. I want to refer to Labrador specifically because I know it well. We have three land claims at various stages. I mentioned the Nunatsiavut government comprehensive land claim that was signed in 2005, which I was happy to be part of and was in this House when it was ratified.

There is also the Innu, which have signed a New Dawn agreement. They want to move forward to full ratification of their particular agreement because it creates some certainty for development, economic prosperity and social progression.

Of course, there is the Labrador Metis Nation, which I was president of for 11 years. It has had a claim with the government since 1990. It submitted additional information in 1996 and is still waiting for the Government of Canada to come to the table and negotiate outstanding issues.

Against this entire backdrop and in this context, we have Bill C-28. As I mentioned, in 1975, there was the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement. It did not contain implementation plans, and this gave rise to a whole series of disputes about interpretation and litigation.

There was also the northeastern Quebec agreement with the Naskapi in 1978, and then in 1984, the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act was established, which arose out of the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement. The Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act has been termed Canada's first aboriginal self-government type of legislation. It provided for local governance for Cree bands on their own lands.

Within this debate are the precursors of what is happening in society today: the first modern land claim in 1975, and the first self-government type of agreement in 1984. Even though these agreements were signed, there were problems with implementation, and a series of court actions arose. To attempt to get some of these issues settled, there was an agreement with the Inuit and the Naskapi in 1990, but no agreement with the Cree of Eeyou Istchee.

In 1992, Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee signed the Canada—Oujé-Bougoumou agreement. In 2002, the Cree signed an agreement with the Province of Quebec, the Paix des Braves agreement, covering a period of 50 years and dealing with resource development, policing and compensation to allow certain resource developments to go forward. It also has within it a process, as I understand, to resolve outstanding issues.

Then, in 2008, there was a new relationship agreement, called the Chrétien-Namagoose agreement, between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee. This agreement was ratified by the Cree, as were the agreements referring to the Cree that I have already mentioned.

The people themselves were at the table. They looked at it, it was brought to their communities, and they ratified it. Many have termed it an out-of-court settlement; and in essence, it was. This new relationship agreement had a 20-year term, and there were a series of payments. The payments would amount to $1.4 billion in three separate stages.

I want to sum up with the words of the Cree-Naskapi Commission to describe to how this has unfolded over the last three decades. This comes from the chairman of the Cree-Naskapi Commission, which came out of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act of 1984:

The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement...(which did not include an implementation plan), was signed in 1975. During the thirty-three years since the signing there have been numerous disputes and frequent litigation concerning the obligations under, and the implementation of the agreement. This in turn has led to a difficult relationship between the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee and Canada and Quebec. Through the efforts of the Crees, Canada and Quebec, that has changed. The Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between le Gouvernement du Québec and the Crees of Quebec...addressed outstanding issues between the Crees and Quebec [for a term of 50 years]. The Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Crees of Eeyou Istchee of 2008 addressed in parallel fashion outstanding issues between the Crees and Canada. These agreements have been ratified by the Cree people as well as by Quebec and Canada. They represent a major achievement in resolving problems through negotiation.

[T]here is some evidence that the federal and Quebec governments have learned from the James Bay experience. Over most of the past thirty-plus years governments, through both their actions and their words appear to have regarded the Crees from what was essentially an adversarial perspective.... [T]he traditional structures and decision-making processes of government were ill-suited to negotiating much less implementing treaties and land claims settlements with First Nations.... [The] 1982 amendments to the constitution changed that.... Aboriginal and treaty rights (including land claims agreements) were moved beyond the scope of governments' ability to ignore or change them unilaterally. Now, as the Supreme Court said in Badger, “Treaties...create enforceable obligations...”.

On the signing of this new relationship agreement, the current Cree Grand Chief Mukash said, “It also sets in motion what is probably the most important initiative since 1975, the development of a new Cree government”.

The new relationship agreement set out a way of moving forward and called for a two-phased approach: commitments by Canada to amend the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act of 1984, which we are talking about today, and the negotiation of Cree self-government agreements with a Cree constitution and their own powers.

Bill C-28 deals with the first of these undertakings and can be summarized under two headings: amendments to the Cree Regional Authority and the Oujé-Bougoumou amendments. I just want to run down what those would entail.

The proposed amendments regarding the Cree Regional Authority would allow the Cree Regional Authority, which is basically the administrative body of the Grand Council of the Crees: to act as a regional government on category IA lands, which are basically the lands that they own under the 1984 Cree-Naskapi act; to regulate essential sanitation services, housing and buildings used for the purposes of regional governance; to use, manage and administer moneys and other assets; to promote the general welfare of the members of the Cree bands; and to promote and preserve the cultural values and traditions of the members of the Cree bands.

In terms of the Oujé-Bougoumou amendments, the Crees of the Oujé-Bougoumou were not recognized in the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement as a distinct Cree band. The individual members of this community were listed on the band list of the Mistissini Cree Nation and have been beneficiaries under the agreement since its inception. Since 1975, the Crees of Oujé-Bougoumou have sought to be recognized as a distinct band under the James Bay and northern Quebec agreement and the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. The Government of Canada has committed to amend the agreement and the act to meet this objective.

The amendments in this bill deal with such issues as incorporation, transitional matters in relation to councils, boards of directors and bylaws, residence and occupation rights, right of access to land, exploration activities, tax exemptions and exemptions from seizure.

That outlines in broad strokes what Bill C-28 would do.

We have spoken with the government representatives about consultation. We have been assured by the government that it has carried out adequate and efficient consultation. We have also spoken with the Cree who were intimately involved in the drafting of Bill C-28 and who were a signatory, as well, to the new relationship agreement. We have talked with the Naskapis and they have assured us that they are comfortable with these particular amendments. We have talked as well with the Inuit.

We have also been given assurances that due to Bill C-28, there would be no infringement on the rights and interests of other aboriginal peoples.

As such, I am delighted on behalf of the Liberal Party to support Bill C-28. I want to commend the efforts of all those involved. At the end of the day, this is about helping people and supporting people in communities. I do not like to use the word “allowing” people to have self-government because it seems to be an oxymoron. People have self-government and had self-government.

The Crees of Eeyou Istchee had their own self-government. What we do now is recognize that in further processes under the new relationship agreement. As I understand it they are hoping to have an agreement within five years.As I understand it, they are hoping to have an agreement within five years. That is an admirable timeframe given that some land claims and self-government negotiations have gone on for three decades, and many would say for a century. The Nisga'a often say they started their land claim back in the late 19th century.

This legislation is a move in the right direction, and I am happy to support it. It is good to see the full involvement of aboriginal people in the drafting of this piece of legislation. It sets an example that when aboriginal people are involved in the drafting of legislation that impacts them, things go much more smoothly.