Version française | ||
Credits |
---|
|
|
Acknowledgement |
---|
The Commissioners acknowledge, with thanks, the Cree, Naskapi and Government of Canada representatives who made presentations at the Special Implementation Hearings which were held in preparation of this Report. Without their work and interest, this Report would not have been possible. The Commissioners acknowledge with appreciation the work of Robert Epstein, long-time advisor on domestic and international issues to the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee), his tireless effort for the Cree Nation. His commitment, his profession-alism and his friendship are a gift to us all. The Commissioners also acknowledge the outstanding work of staff members involved in the production of the 2002 Report. Brian Shawana, Gloria Dedam and Charlotte Kitchen each made important contributions and deserve a special "thank you". |
|
Ottawa, Canada
June, 2002 |
||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
The Honourable Robert Nault, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development House of Commons Ottawa, Ontario K1A OH4 Dear Minister: We are pleased to submit herewith the eighth biennial Report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission pursuant to section 171(1) of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. This report is based upon hearings and consultations at which Cree and Naskapi as well as Government of Canada representatives made known their views, concerns and suggestions relating to the implementation of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act and related matters. We have also reviewed written input from your department and other sources. We trust that our findings and recommendations will form the basis of constructive dialogue and appropriate action. With this in mind, we look forward to meeting with you and your officials as well as with the Cree and Naskapi, the standing committees and other interested parties. Respectfully
CREE-NASKAPI COMMISSIONRichard Saunders Robert Kanatewat Philip AwashishChairman Commissioner Commissioner |
||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||
|
Ottawa, Canada
June, 2002 | |
---|---|
Richard Saunders, Chairman | |
Richard Saunders holds degrees in Political Science and Public Administration from Carleton University. He has worked for the Assembly of First Nations, the Indian Association of Alberta, and the Ontario, Alberta and federal governments. For the past three years he has served as Director of Negotiations with the Government of Nova Scotia which recently signed an Umbrella Agreement with the Mi’kmaq Chiefs and the federal government. Richard was a member of the Cree-Naskapi Commission for three terms from 1986 to 1992. He has been Chairman since 1997. | |
Philip Awashish, Commissioner | |
Philip Awashish was one of the principal Cree negotiators for the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee in the negotiations leading to the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. For twenty years, he has served the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee, in various capacities, such as Executive Chief and Vice-Chairman of the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec) and the Cree Regional Authority and Chief and Councillor of the Cree Nation of Mistissini. | |
Robert Kanatewat, Commissioner | |
Robert Kanatewat, Eeyou from Chisasibi, was instrumental in promoting the awareness of Eeyou rights as an executive member of the Indians of Quebec Association in the late 1960s and early 1970s. He was the principal plaintiff in the Kanatewat v. James Bay Development Corporation when the Cree Nation decided to oppose the initial hydroelectric development in Eeyou Istchee. He was a chief executive involved in the negotiations leading to the execution of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. For many years, he was served Eeyou of Istchee as the Executive Chief of the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), Chief of the Cree Nation of Chisasibi and in various business enterprises. With the exception of one term, Robert Kanatewat has been a member of the Cree-Naskapi Commission since 1986. |
|
|
Message From the Chairman: |
---|
Canada is a test case for a grand notion the notion that dissimilar peoples
can share lands, resources, power and dreams while respecting and sustaining
their differences. (RCAP)1
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP), almost uniquely, possessed both an uplifting vision and an earthy pragmatism as it canvassed the issues facing the Aboriginal Nations and their place in the Canadian Confederation. The idealism and vision of the grand notion are, after all, implicit in the subtle but pervasive sense that all Canadians have of who we are and where we are going together. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement (NEQA) are specific examples of RCAP’s grand notion in practice. What has taken place in the quarter century since the Agreements were signed is, in no small degree, a real measure of the extent to which the grand notion can work in reality. There are many successes to celebrate and there is much about which to be hopeful. Clearly the dream remains. Arguably it is in the early stages of being realized at the community level. The JBNQA and the NEQA provide for a certain sharing of the "lands". The Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act facilitates, in specific but limited ways, some sharing of the "power". The recent Quebec-Cree Agreement is a significant step towards the sharing of "resources" (albeit that the Naskapi do not yet have any similar arrangement). So some large parts of RCAP’s "grand notion" are now in place. The true measure of whether or not RCAP’s vision can be fully realized will depend upon whether or not all of the partners are commited to pursuing it comprehensively and unrelentingly until it is finally realized. There will be many temptations along the road to real fulfillment. Success in some of the major steps may lead some to assume that the job is done. Many may be tempted to turn their energies to other priorities. Some may lose their enthusiasm as conflicting demands for attention, political capital and resources press in upon them. But if the possibilities for failure seem formidable, the consequences of success are nothing less than the triumph of our best instincts as a society - the instinct that tells us that differences can be settled through respectful negotiation - that agreements among us can and must be honoured and that the values which motivate us as individuals can drive our public policy as well. If this process is a concrete example of the "test case" that RCAP speaks of, it must also become another example of the Canadian "can do it" approach that has made so many "test cases" throughout our history the successes that they have been. One of the most essential elements in making the "grand notion" a reality is the development of functional working relationships between governments and First Nations. The unhappy state of those relationships throughout most of Canada’s history has been widely known and well documented. The present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Honourable Robert Nault, has identified the problem in very clear terms. In a speech to the Assembly of First Nations Confederacy of Chiefs on December 9, 1999, he said: Aboriginal people have had to go to court again and again to get even the most basic recognition of their rights, and governments have fought them every step of the way.2 The difficulties have been obvious to everyone and parties on all sides of the issues want a new relationship in which trust and respect will empower the parties to address the concerns productively and on a timely basis. The Supreme Court of Canada has, in a number of recent rulings, advocated negotiation as the appropriate alternative to litigation. A current example of the ability and willingness of the Crees to resolve major litigated disputes through negotiation is provided by the Quebec-Cree Agreement signed on February 7 of this year. The Government of Canada would be well advised to approach negotiations with the same level of serious commitment that Quebec has shown. In Gathering Strength as well as in other statements, the federal government has acknowledged that its past approaches have not worked and has signalled a willingness to work in partnership with First Nations. This changed attitude at the ministerial level needs to be reflected in the actual day-to-day relationships in which departmental officials work with Aboriginal organizations, elected Chiefs and Councils and First Nations communities. What does all of this mean as the Cree-Naskapi Commission reports on the implementation of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act? It means, I believe, four basic things. First, the attitudes evident in Gathering Strength, the approach based upon respect and the replacement of paternalism with partnership must be made the operating principles of officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Secondly, it means that real self-government, arising out of the inherent right of Aboriginal peoples, guaranteed by the Agreements and contemplated in the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, can only be fully implemented and fairly evaluated when it has the autonomous fiscal capacity to exercise its powers and carry out its duties in keeping with the letter, spirit and intent of the Act. The economic dimensions of self-government are discussed more fully in Chapter 7 of this report. Thirdly, it means that the current outstanding issues which make the relationship problematic must be addressed and resolved in the near term. The lessons learned in the recent negotiations between the Crees and Quebec are useful here. Finally it also means that the special needs and priorities of the Naskapi Nation must be the subject of a focussed effort to ensure that meaningful self-government becomes a reality for them in the very near future.
END NOTES
|
|
CHAPTER 1 |
---|
Section 9 (Local Government over Category IA Lands) of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement provides that "there shall be recommended to Parliament special legislation concerning local government for the James Bay Crees on Category IA lands allocated to them."1 Section 7 (Local Government over Category IA-N Lands) of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement provides for similar undertakings respecting local government for the Naskapis of Quebec on Category IA-N lands allocated to them. Consequently, pursuant to section 9 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and section 7 of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, the Cree and Naskapi First Nations and the Government of Canada discussed the terms and provisions of the special legislation concerning local government for the James Bay Crees and the Naskapis of Quebec. This special legislation - the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act - was enacted by Parliament and assented to on June 14, 1984. Thus, the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act provides "for an orderly and efficient system of Cree and Naskapi local government, for the administration, management and control of Category IA and Category IA-N land by the Cree and Naskapi bands respectively, and for the protection of certain individual and collective rights under the said Agreements."2 The Cree-Naskapi Commission established by section 158 of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act has a duty to "prepare biennial reports on the implementation of this Act"3 to the Minister who "shall cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament."4 However, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the Northeastern Quebec Agreement and the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act are inseparable, to a large extent, and must be considered as a whole in order to capture the intent and spirit of the exercise and practice of Cree and Naskapi local government. In fact, paragraph 21(j) of the Act stipulates that the objects of a band are "to exercise the powers and carry out the duties conferred or imposed on the band or its predecessor Indian Act band by any Act of Parliament or regulations made thereunder, and by the Agreements."5 For this reason, the Cree-Naskapi Commission must also consider the implementation of the Agreements in so far as these Agreements contemplate the powers and duties of the Cree and Naskapi First Nations. In addition, on February 7, 2002, the Cree Nation(s) of Eeyou Istchee and the Government of Quebec executed the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Quebec and the Crees of Quebec. This new Agreement paves the way for a new era of a nation-to-nation relationship based on cooperation, partnership and mutual respect between the Crees and Quebec. Pursuant to this Agreement, the Crees assume a greater responsibility for their economic and community development within the context of an increased autonomy. Clearly, the local government(s) of the Cree with the Crees Nation and regional authorities will be exercising their duties and powers and assuming a greater responsibility for their economic and community development. In this regard, the pertinent sections of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement have been amended by Complementary Agreements No. 13 and No. 14. The Government of Canada has persistently taken the position that the Cree-Naskapi Commission has no mandate to report on the implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement. Furthermore, pursuant to section 10 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Settlement Act, the legal requirement of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to submit an annual report to the House of Commons on the implementation of these Agreements had expired by the end of 1998. Consequently, the Cree and Naskapi Nations are faced with a complete absence of a reporting and monitoring system on the implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement.
Notwithstanding the position of Canada, the Cree-Naskapi Commission is the sole and only remaining body that reports on some aspects on the implementation of the Agreements. The Government of Canada agrees that the Cree-Naskapi Commission has a mandate to report on the implementation of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. In response to a request from the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has, by letter dated January 28, 2001, and addressed to the Chair of the said Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, responded to the 2000 Report of the Commission. This response of the Minister is dealt with in Chapter 9 of the present report. Nevertheless, Canada has taken and continues to take the position that it (Canada) has no legal obligation to respond to the reports of the Cree-Naskapi Commission. In fact, the representative of the Government of Canada has stated to the Commission at its Special Implementation Hearings on February 27, 2002: "Well, in the Cree-Naskapi Act, there is no formal requirement for the Government of Canada to respond to the reports."6 Therefore, with the exception of the above-mentioned response, Canada has never made a formal written response to the findings and recommendations of the reports of the Cree-Naskapi Commission even for matters that Canada agrees is within the man-date of the Commission. Furthermore, an appropriate response which will advance and enhance Eeyou local government requires more than mere words. The present position and actions of Canada derogate from the intent and spirit of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act as well as the Agreements. In addition, Canada’s position and action does not conform with the objectives of its own action plan - Gathering Strength - which was intended to renew partnerships and strengthen Aboriginal governance. There is promise of major positive changes in federal relations with the First Nations of Canada, but inertia continues in a manner that is detrimental to Eeyou local government. The absence of formal written responses and the refusal to make a formal response with appropriate and timely measures to the report(s) of the Commission by the Government of Canada is disturbing to the Commission as well as to the Eeyou authorities who had made representations with the understanding and belief that they would be heard by the decision-makers who have the responsibilities to maintain the honour of Canada by responding in a timely and positive manner to their needs, concerns and problems. Consequently, the Eeyou leadership does not consider the Cree-Naskapi Commission and its reports to be effective as the findings and recommendations of the Commission have had no positive influence on Canada’s policies and legislation respecting the advancement and strengthening of Eeyou governance. The Cree and Naskapi Nations have responded to the reports of the Commission through resolutions of their general assemblies, resolutions of Councils and letters to the Commission.
The Cree-Naskapi Commission has now been, legally, in existence since December 1, 1984, or for about eighteen (18) years. The present report constitutes the eighth biennial report to the Minister pursuant to section 165(1) and in accordance with section 171(1) of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. In the preparation of the present report, the Commission has conducted the following activities:
Consequently, the findings and recommendations as presented in the present report of the Commission are primarily based on the representations made to the Commission. The tone of the report is determined by what the Commissioners understand is being said by the representatives of the Cree and Naskapi First Nations as well as the representatives of the Government of Canada and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
END NOTES
|
|
CHAPTER 2 |
---|
Concerns and Issues of the Eeyou
|
1. LANDS TRANSFER BETWEEN MISTISSINI AND OUJE-BOUGOUMOUIn the 2000 Report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission, a brief history of the Ouje-Bougoumou Eenouch was outlined on their quest and pursuit for a rightful place in their historical and traditional territory. In the said report, the Commission stated that as of March 2000, the Cree Nation of Ouje-Bougoumou has not received official allocation of their Category I and II lands with a regime similar to those of the other Cree communities. The Ouje-Bougoumou/Canada Agreement of May 22, 1992, and the Ouje-Bougoumou Agreement with Quebec contemplate a land "transfer" from existing portions of Category I and II lands of Mistissini to constitute the land base for the Crees of Ouje-Bougoumou. Under the Ouje-Bougoumou/Canada Agreement, Canada and the Crees have under-taken to amend the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) by way of a Complementary Agreement which would incorporate the Crees of Ouje-Bougoumou for all intents and purposes as full signatories of the JBNQA. On February 7, 2002, the Crees of Quebec and the Government of Quebec executed the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Quebec and the Crees of Quebec (New Relationship Agreement). The Crees and Quebec agreed to allow the definitive settlement of the transfer of lands between Mistissini and Ouje-Bougoumou and of the "Abel Bosum" proceedings in regard to Quebec in conformity with the framework set out in Schedule G of the New Relationship Agreement. Under Schedule G, the parties have agreed to the following respecting the transfer of lands:
In addition, Quebec has made the following undertakings for the transfer of lands:
However, Mistissini and Ouje-Bougoumou agree that there will be access to the shore lands surrounding Category I lands for safety and security purposes. The parties agree to take the appropriate steps to make the necessary amendments to the JBNQA through a Complementary Agreement. The parties undertake to make their best efforts to see that the Final Agreement and the Complementary Agreement be signed simultaneously.
The parties undertake to make their best efforts to obtain the involvement of the Government of Canada as a signatory to the Complementary Agreement pursuant to this Agreement, in as timely a manner as possible. The process resulting in the cession of portions of Category IA lands by Mistissini and allocation of Category of IA lands to Ouje-Bougoumou as well as the creation of Ouje-Bougoumou as the ninth Cree Band and the conclusions of the Final Agreement and the Complementary Agreement are not possible without the active and direct participation and involvement of the Government of Canada. The Complementary Agreement to the JBNQA is intended to amend the pertinent sections of the JBNQA to ensure conformity with the terms and provisions of the Final Agreement. In particular, the Complementary Agreement shall incorporate the Ouje-bougoumou Eenouch into the JBNQA with their own Category I and II lands and as the ninth Cree Band. In its 2000 report, the Commission made the following recommendation:
The response of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development dated January 28, 2002, to this particular recommendation of the Commission states as follows: This recommendation is considered to be beyond the Commission’s mandate: it does not deal with local government among the Crees, but rather with efforts to incorporate, in the JBNQA, a group which Canada and Quebec have long accepted to be a distinct Cree community. In this regard, Canada is fully engaged in this process to formally incorporate the Ouje-Bougoumou Cree Nation into the JBNQA, and is fully exercising its fiduciary responsibilities to the Ouje-Bougoumou Eenouch. The required activities include transferring lands from Mistissini to Ouje-Bougoumou, concluding a complementary agreement to the JBNQA, and asking Parliament to amend the CNA to formally recognize Ouje-Bougoumou as a distinct band. The process is extremely complex and hinges on agreement and cooperation between Ouje-Bougoumou and the Mistissini Band, as well as Quebec. To date, the parties have not achieved the necessary level of agreement for the process to reach conclusion. Once this process is complete, Canada will have met all of its obligations under the 1992 Ouje-Bougoumou/Canada Agreement.
It is not clear to the Commission as to how "Canada is fully engaged in this process" as the Cree Nation of Ouje-Bougoumou has been calling for the full, direct and active participation of Canada in the process for a full and complete implementation of the Ouje-Bougoumou/Canada Agreement of May 22, 1992. However, it is clear that the Government of Quebec, Mistissini and Ouje-Bougoumou have achieved a level of agreement for Canada to fully, directly and actively participate in the process and fulfill its obligations to the Ouje-Bougoumou Eenouch under the Ouje-Bougoumou/Canada Agreement of 1992.
2.BLOCK DParagraph 10.1 of Chapter 10 - Other Provisions - of the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Quebec and the Crees of Quebec states as follows: "Quebec and the Crees confirm the settlement of their differences concerning the Chisasibi "Block D" lands. The terms of this settlement are set out in Schedule D hereof." The parties have agreed that Quebec shall transfer the administration, management and control of the lands designated as Block D, including the air strip, to the Government of Canada for the exclusive use and benefit of the Cree Nation of Chisasibi subject to certain terms and conditions of Schedule D of the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Quebec and the Crees of Quebec. The parties have also agreed and Quebec undertakes to ensure that the southern and western boundaries of the lands designated as Block D shall be contiguous to and about the present perimeter of Category IA lands. Furthermore, the parties will use their best efforts to ensure that the final transfer by Quebec is completed no later than September 30, 2002. In its 2000 Report, the Commission recommended that "the Government of Canada assist the Cree Nation of Chisasibi in the resolution of the status of Block D and in the allocation of appropriate funds for the proper operation and maintenance of the airstrip." The Commission affirms this recommendation as Quebec and the Crees have confirmed the settlement of their differences concerning the Chisasibi Block D lands.
3.Nemaska First NationThe Nemaska First Nation has raised the following concerns and issues:a. Past Presentations Chief George Wapachee of the Nemaska First Nation stated that the end results of their past presentations to the Commission enabled "the federal government to be in a position to say ‘we are dealing with it.’ This form of delaying tactic becomes all too familiar."1 b. Housing The Nemaska First Nation suffers from a continuing housing crisis with an increasing backlog of needs for the community. Last year, the community was allocated only two units from the housing "package" allocated to the Cree region. The regional allocation for the Crees has decreased steadily for the past several years.2 For the Nemaska First Nation, the trend of allocating a decreasing or small number of housing units will never meet the needs and the present backlog of housing. c. Accountability According to Chief George Wapachee, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has analyzed the results of the 1999-2000 funding agreement and the financial status of the Nemaska First Nation. After a clarification over the total amount of deficit which was initially higher, the Nemaska First Nation questions the method of analysis used by the Department. Furthermore, an amount of $1,787 for the disabled "will soon be recovered as we [the Department] cannot accept the deferral of these funds."3 The Department of Indian Affairs has found the Nemaska First Nation to be financially sound. However, according to the Nemaska First Nation, the tactics of the Department threaten such a status. Chief George Wapachee concludes that as far as the local government is concerned "we are accountable to our members and we take all the opportunity to inform them how we spend their funds, which they approve and that is the obligation we have."4
4.Cree Nation of MistissiniAccording to Chief John Longchap, the issues and concerns of the Cree Nation of Mistissini raised in its past presentations remain outstanding and are supported in the reports of the Cree-Naskapi Commission. It is still the hope of the Cree Nation of Mistissini that concrete measures will result from their past presentations.5
5.Crees of the Waskaganish First Nationa. Finance and Administration In February 2002, the Crees of the Waskaganish First Nation began to implement a financial recovery plan to respond to a financial crisis and reorganize their financial administration and management. In this regard, the financial institutions and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are satisfied with the progress of the Crees of Waskaganish. However, this progress has been achieved without new assistance from Canada and recent actions taken by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have seriously jeopardized the recovery plan of Waskaganish.6 b. Housing Ministerial Guarantees From 1998 to 2002, Waskaganish constructed houses with the cooperation of the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation (CMHC). The construction was to be funded through capital grants and mortgages secured from CMHC and guaranteed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In total, approximately $2 million of loans are due to Waskaganish and are essential to the success of the financial recovery plan.7 In early 2002, Waskaganish was informed that the ministerial guarantees would not be granted until Waskaganish paid amounts that are presently in dispute with the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the provision of electricity to the community. Waskaganish has responded by agreeing to negotiate a settlement to this dispute. This response has resulted in the release of the guarantees for past projects but the guarantees for the future and planned projects have been withheld. This action of the Department and its position respecting the payment of costs for the provision of electricity to the community has resulted in the cessation of all future housing construction in the community.8 According to the Crees of the Waskaganish First Nation, under the present circumstances, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is not negotiating in good faith. c. Electricity in Waskaganish Under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, Canada is committed to the provision of electricity to the community. In this regard, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has provided electricity locally by diesel generation. With the growth of the community, the current facilities are inadequate to meet the needs of the community. New capital projects are planned for construction and consequently will require the provision of electricity that the present facilities cannot generate. The Crees of the Waskaganish First Nation are promised connection to the provincial grid within five (5) years under the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Quebec and the Crees of Quebec. However, the Crees of Waskaganish cannot wait five (5) years for the provision of electricity that is adequate for the present needs of the community. The provision of electricity presently remains an obligation by Canada and Quebec under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.9 d. Housing As with other Cree communities, Waskaganish is facing a housing crisis but, in this case, the crisis is further aggravated by the refusal of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to grant ministerial guarantees by associating it with the demand for payment by Waskaganish for the provision of electricity. The current housing program is inadequate to meet the present and future needs of the community.10 e. Training All Cree communities are continually faced with new needs and demands in fiscal and administrative responsibilities for effective local government. Consequently, there is an increasing need for further training and capacity development. Canada must respond to these needs by expanding and creating training opportunities.11
6.Whapmagoostui First NationAs far as the Whapmagoostui First Nation is concerned, effective self-governance can be realized "only when the Government of Canada begins to act in full recognition and respect of the aspirations and needs of the Eeyouch" on the exercise of local government as envisaged in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) and the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.12 The Commission has expounded on the aspirations and needs of the Eeyouch on the exercise of local government as envisaged in the JBNQA and the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act in its past reports and particularly in its 2000 Report entitled Eeyou Tapaytahchesouwin (Cree and Naskapi Governance). It remains to be seen whether Canada will respond in a timely manner with positive measures to the aspirations and needs of Eeyouch. On March 5, 2002, at the Special Implementation Hearings of the Commission held in Waskaganish, Eeyou Istchee, the Whapmagoostui First Nation raised the following issues and concerns: a. Town Plan and Community Expansion With an increasing population and the structure of its land base, concerns and questions are raised as to how and where houses can be constructed for the people of Whapmagoostui. In consideration of the structure of its land base, the town plan will require changes in order to meet the needs of the community. Over the past few summers, the community has commenced the construction of a short gravel road giving access to the northeast area of the lands of the community. This short road has enabled some people to build cabins away from the community. In order to realize a northeastward expansion of its community, the Whapmagoostui First Nation requires adequate funding for an adequate road, installation of power lines and moveable housing units. b. Lack of Quorum at General Band Meetings Since the enactment of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, the present quorum requirements for general band meetings remain a major barrier for effective decision-making for local government. Amendments to the said Act are required to remove these serious impediments for effective decision-making by the people. c. Federal Obligations on Local Self-Government and Related Matters The recent Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Quebec and the Crees of Quebec will enhance and advance the exercise of local government particularly for matters relating to community and economic development. The Whapmagoostui First Nation urges the Government of Canada to enter into a new nation-to-nation relationship with the Cree Nation in a manner that properly fulfils and respects the commitments and obligations of Canada to the Cree under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and advance the exercise of Cree local government consistent with the spirit and intent of the Agreement and the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.
7.Cree Nation of Wemindjia. Implementation Mechanism for the Recommendations of the Commission The Cree Nation of Wemindji acknowledges that the recommendations of the Commission reflect the will and aspiration of the communities respecting the recognition and exercise of the inherent right of Eeyou self-government. Consequently, the Cree Nation of Wemindji has expressed concern about the lack of implementation for the recommendations of the Commission in a manner that recognizes, enhances and enables the present state, exercise and potential of Eeyou local government.13 b. Administration of Justice The circuit court comes to the communities four to five times a year. Sometimes, six months to a year will have elapsed before the alleged offence is dealt with by the court. The administration of justice should proceed in a timely manner if the rule of law is to have any impact in the communities. The Cree Nation of Wemindji recommends that the judicial advisory committee con-templated by paragraph 18.0.37 of section 18 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement address the need for a timely administration of the judiciary process for the Cree communities.
8.Washaw Sibi EeyouThe Washaw Sibi Eeyou are a group of about two hundred (200) Crees affiliated with the Eeyou of Waskaganish and the Eenou of Waswanipi but do not reside in the Cree communities contemplated by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. The mission of the Washaw Sibi Eeyou is to be recognized as members of the Cree Nation and to be fully integrated as beneficiaries of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and other related agreements.14 To this end, the Washaw Sibi Eeyou are determined to attain status as a community of Eeyou and receive benefits and exercise rights under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and related agreements. In its 2000 Report, the Cree-Naskapi Commission made the following recommendation:
The response of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to this recommendation can be summarized as follows:
END NOTES
|
|
CHAPTER 3 |
---|
Ouje-Bougoumou Eenouch
|
On March 13, 2002, Chief Sam Bosum and representatives of the Ouje-Bougoumou Eenouch made a presentation to the Cree-Naskapi Commission at its Special Implementation Hearings held in Ouje-Bougoumou, Eeyou Istchee. Rachel Bush, youngest member of the Council of the Ouje-Bougoumou Eenouch, made the presentation to the Commission. In its presentation, the Ouje-Bougoumou Eenouch are concerned with the following issues: 1. Implementation of the Ouje-Bougoumou/Canada Agreement of May 22, 19921 The Ouje-Bougoumou Eenouch remain very concerned about the lack of a full imple-mentation of the Ouje-Bougoumou/Canada Agreement of May 22, 1992. Amongst other obligations and commitments of Canada, the said Agreement provides for Operations and Maintenance funding on an ongoing basis and an approach for continued availability of funding for capital projects. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND) maintains its position that it is not required to reimburse the Cree Regional Authority for the funding, in the amount of $1.7 million dollars, allotted to the Ouje-Bougoumou Eenouch for capital projects after 1994-95. The present position of the DIAND, according to the Ouje-Bougoumou Eenouch, contradicts clear obligations of Canada under the Ouje-Bougoumou/Canada Agreement which clearly stipulates that the funding available to the other Cree communities will not decrease as a result of funding which would be made available to Ouje-Bougoumou. In its 2000 Report, the Commission had made the following recommendation: "8. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (DIAND), Grand Council of the Crees ( Eeyou Istchee ) and the Ouje-Bougoumou Cree Nation review the funding arrangements for capital projects of Ouje-Bougoumou to ensure compliance with the Ouje-Bougoumou/Canada Agreement. This review should include an understanding and resolution on the outstanding claim of $1.7 million received by the Ouje-Bougoumou Cree Nation for capital projects after the 1994-95 fiscal year and apparently owed to the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee by the DIAND." In a letter from Mr. Robert Nault, Minister of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, dated January 28, 2002, and addressed to Mr. Raymond Bonin, Chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, the Department has responded to this recommendation as follows:
In regards to Operations and Maintenance (O&M) funding, the Ouje-Bougoumou Eenouch continue to have serious concerns about the adjustments to the funding levels and the basis on which they are made. The current approach for adjusting annual transfers is inadequate in addressing the needs of the communities. The Cree-Naskapi Commission recommends a review of the O&M funding formula by the federal and Cree parties with a view to incorporating a financial capacity to address new needs not contemplated in 1984. In addition, the Ouje-Bougoumou Eenouch reminded "the Commission that there is a payment amount outstanding in relation to the funds transferred to Ouje-Bougoumou under the Ouje-Bougoumou/Canada Agreement which reflects the late payment of agreed-upon amounts and the loss of earnings associated with that amount. This remains an outstanding claim for an amount of $2,952,000."2
2. Complementary Agreement to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement 3For the Ouje-Bougoumou Eenouch, the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Quebec and the Crees of Quebec (New Relationship Agreement) has begun to set a useful standard for the implementation of the major sections of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement which for so long has not been properly implemented. (The New Relationship Agreement does not contemplate and does not affect the obligations of Canada towards the Crees stipulated, among others, in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.) Schedule G - Settlement Framework Related to the Transfer of Lands Between Mistissini and Ouje-Bougoumou - of the New Relationship Agreement constitutes an agreement-in- principle for the resolution of outstanding issues for Mistissini and Ouje-Bougoumou arising from the transfer of lands and the proposed new land base for the Ouje-Bougoumou Eenouch. This agreement-in-principle is essential for the Ouje-Bougoumou Eenouch. More particularly, this agreement-in-principle contemplates negotiations which hopefully will lead to a Complementary Agreement to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) as a major part of the process of formally incorporating the Ouje-Bougoumou Cree Nation into the JBNQA. Such a Complementary Agreement cannot be achieved without the full and active involvement and participation of the Government of Canada. According to the Ouje-Bougoumou Eenouch, Canada has maintained that the only role of the federal government is to "facilitate" the conclusion of a Complementary Agreement. Canada’s full involvement and active participation in the negotiation of a Complementary Agreement is essential and necessary due to the following:
Consequently, Canada’s role must be much more substantive than playing a facilitative role in the negotiation and finalization of a Complementary Agreement to the JBNQA. The Ouje-Bougoumou Eenouch urge Canada to take Quebec’s lead in fulfilling its obligations to the Cree Nation in a way which addresses the spirit and intent of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and which sets a reasonable standard for the structuring of the nation-to-nation relationship between the Cree people and Canada.
End Notes
|
|
CHAPTER 4 |
---|
Naskapi Eeyouch (Nation)
|
On February 26, 2002, Chief Philip Einish and representatives of the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach presented a brief to the Commission at its Special Implementation Hearings held in Ottawa, Ontario. In its brief, the Eeyouch of Kawawachikamach raised the following principal matters and concerns:
1. Success StoriesThe Naskapi Nation has completed construction and commenced the operation of the Naskapi Recreation Facility with funding from Quebec and Canada. In addition, the Naskapi Nation has renovated and extended its administration office which is presently operational. The costs of the renovation and extension were funded by Quebec and Canada. Furthermore, RAMtelecom, a telecommunications company, installed a broadband Satellite Internet System that provides the Naskapi Nation with Internet access at a high speed. The capital cost to purchase and install the system was shared by the Naskapi Nation, the Naskapi Local Management Board and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
2. Amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) ActThe Naskapi Nation expressed a preference to reach an agreement with the James Bay Crees on amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act and thereafter make a joint proposal to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The Naskapi Nation desires amendments to the Act on the following matters: permitting enforcement officers to issue tickets rather than summonses under the Criminal Code to offenders of Naskapi Nation by-laws and enabling of Council to conduct business with-out calling a meeting in certain circumstances. In February 2000, without consulting the Naskapi Nation and the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee, the Government of Canada tabled Bill C-23 (The Modernization of Benefits and
Obligations Act) to amend certain federal statutes, including the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, in order to extend benefits and obligations to same sex couples. The Naskapi Nation as well as the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee strongly objected to the proposed amendment to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act without the consent of the Naskapi and Cree Nations. The Naskapi Nation considers the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act as an integral part of treaty rights flowing from section 7 of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement. Consequently, Canada cannot unilaterally derogate from treaty rights that are constitutionally recognized and protected. Notwithstanding the strong objections of the Naskapi and Cree Nations, Bill C-23 was adopted by both Houses of Parliament. Furthermore, Bill C-23 has received Royal Assent. However, the amendment to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act has come into force due to the lack of an agreement so far between the Government of Canada and the Naskapi Nation and the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee on the regulations defining "consorts." The Naskapi Nation maintains that the amendment, if proclaimed to be in force, would be in conflict with the Northeastern Quebec Agreement. The Commission in its 2000 Report made the following recommendation:
In a letter, dated January 28, 2002, from Mr. Robert D. Nault, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, addressed to Mr. Raymond Bonin, Chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, the Department made the following response to this particular recommendation of the Commission:
3. Nunavik CommissionOn November 5, 1999, the Nunavik Commission was established with the mandate to study and make recommendations on the creation of a Nunavik Government. The efforts of the Naskapi Nation to seek representation on the Nunavik Commission were unsuccessful. Nevertheless, the Naskapi Nation met the Nunavik Commission to state their position respecting Naskapi historical and traditional territory and the inherent right of Naskapi governance. The report of the Nunavik Commission entitled Amiqqaaluta. Let Us Share. Mapping the Road Toward a Government for Nunavik was released at the end of March 2001. The Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach has appealed, by letters to Minister Nault, for the protection of Naskapi rights and interests in the negotiations and possible establishment of a Nunavik Government. In the opinion of the Naskapi Nation, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has been derelict in its duty to protect Naskapi rights and interests. Therefore, the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach has requested the Cree-Naskapi Commission to intervene and ensure the protection of Naskapi rights and interests.
4. PolicingIn the past year, the Naskapi Nation has succeeded in making arrangements with Canada and Quebec for an infrastructure grant to cover the cost of constructing a new police station in Kawawachikamach. However, for the fiscal year of 2000-2001, the Naskapi Nation had a shortfall of thirty-two thousand dollars ($32,000) for their police operations budget due to a cost-sharing dispute between Canada and Quebec. The cost-sharing dispute continued into the 2001-2002 fiscal year. In January 2002, Quebec undertook to pay the short-fall while maintaining its position that Canada pay its share in compliance with paragraph 13.2.1 of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement. The position of the Naskapi Nation is that under paragraph 13.2.1 of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, Canada and Quebec had contracted a treaty obligation to fund the Naskapi Police, and that their inability to reach an agreement on cost-sharing should in no way affect their treaty obligations to the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach.
5. Electricity SupplyThe electricity used at Kawawachikamach comes from the Menihek Generating Station and associated transmission and distribution infrastructure. The Naskapi Nation owns the transmission line from Dolly Ridge to Kawawachikamach and the associated distri-bution system. It purchases its electricity in bulk from the Schefferville Power Company, a subsidiary of the Iron Ore Company (of Canada). The Iron Ore Company (of Canada) which had built the power facilities decided to sell these assets in 1992. The Naskapi Nation jointly with the Nation Innu Matimekusk/ Lac-John submitted a bid to purchase these power facilities. This bid was accepted. The Iron Ore Company (of Canada) then became aware that its water rights for the Menihek Generating Station had lapsed. Consequently, despite negotiations and other initiatives, the future of the power facilities assets remains unresolved. Furthermore, despite its threat to cease operating the power facilities assets on November 1, 2001, the Iron Ore Company (of Canada) is still operating them under contract with the Naskapi Nation’s subsidiary Kawawachikamach Energy Services Inc. From the outset, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has played a vital role in ensuring the supply of electricity to Kawawachikamach. However, it presently denies that it has any responsibility whatsoever for supplying electricity to Kawawachikamach. The Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach has requested the intervention of the Cree-Naskapi Commission in ensuring that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and his officials exercise their responsibilities for supplying electricity to Kawawachikamach.
6. HousingHousing is the single largest asset owned by the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach. The Naskapi Nation has the following challenges to meet their housing needs:
The Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach has requested the intervention of the Cree-Naskapi Commission to ensure that the responsible federal authorities provide adequate funding to meet the current and future housing needs of the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach.
7. Northern Ecosystem InitiativeThe Northern Ecosystem Initiative was initiated by Environment Canada in 1989 as a Canada-wide initiative to support research on certain environmental priorities of the North. The on-going five-year programme of the Northern Ecosystem Initiative will terminate at the end of March 2003. Environment Canada has not yet announced whether the Northern Ecosystem Initiative will be extended. The budget under the first phase of the Northern Ecosystem Initiative was insufficient to respond to all the needs for essential research in Northern Quebec ecosystems. The Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach has requested that the Cree-Naskapi Commission write to Environment Canada to urge that the Northern Ecosystem Initiative be extended for a further five years and that its budget be at least doubled.
8. Mid-Canada Line - Clean-upThe Mid-Canada Line, an intermediate early warning system for defence, was one of three radar networks scattered across Canada’s northern frontier. It became operational in January 1958, and was shut down permanently in April 1965. In April 1998, the Kativik Regional Government signed an agreement with Quebec and Canada to clean up the forty-two (42) sites located in Northern Quebec. The Naskapis participated in the clean-up of the seventeen (17) sites that are located in the Naskapi territory. Subject to the approval of Environment Quebec of the clean-up work done in 2001, the clean-up of the sites in the Naskapi territory is complete. For each site that is cleaned to a satisfactory standard, the Government of Quebec issues a release in favour of the Government of Canada to the effect that the clean-up was done in accordance with agreed criteria and standards and that the current state of the sites is acceptable. The Naskapi Nation is concerned that these releases might be invoked by Canada in the future to refuse to undertake further work. The Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach has asked that the Cree-Naskapi Commission review the text of the releases with a view to determining whether they are prejudicial to the long-term interests of the Naskapi Nation.
|
|
CHAPTER 5 |
---|
New Relationship Agreement
|
Since its conclusion and signature in 1975, the proper implementation of the meaning, intent and spirit of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) has remained a contentious and outstanding issue between the Crees and the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec as well as with Hydro-Quebec. As a matter of fact, the Crees have initiated or participated in about thirty (30) court proceedings expending millions of dollars for the enforcement of Cree rights. Most of these court proceedings pertain to the alleged failure or refusal of the governments to respect and honour their commitments and obligations to the Crees under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Some of these commitments and obligations of the governments to the Crees under the JBNQA relate to health, education, economic development, community development, resource development, and environmental protection. Resource development includes hydroelectric and commercial forestry devel-opment in Eeyou Istchee. In the past, negotiations to settle matters such as commercial forestry have failed. However, agreements have been achieved on some implementation issues relating to education, health, Cree policing services and local government. Such agreements often need to be reviewed and renewed by the Crees and the government concerned. Some of these issues remain outstanding and consequently need to be resolved and settled by the parties concerned. On October 23, 2001, Quebec and Eeyou of Eeyou Istchee executed an Agreement In Principle (AIP) which promises to strengthen political, economic and social relations between Quebec and Eeyou of Eeyou Istchee. Under the AIP, the parties agreed "to set an exchange table made up of representatives of both parties and responsible for clarify-ing the principles established, agreeing on the modalities of application and drawing up for signature a draft final agreement, including its schedules, by the end of 2001." On February 7, 2002, in Waskaganish, Eeyou Istchee, the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)/Cree Regional Authority and the Government of Quebec executed the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Quebec and the Crees of Quebec. The said Agreement refers to separate agreements between the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) and Hydro-Quebec. These separate agreements are referred to as the Nadoshtin Agreement, Boumhounan Agreement and the Cree Employment Agreement (Eeyou Apatisiiwin Niskomon). In addition, the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)/Cree Regional Authority, Hydro-Quebec and the James Bay Energy Corporation have concluded the Mercury Agreement (2001) which supersedes and replaces the former Mercury Agreement (1986). The Agreement of February 7, 2002, also contemplates Complementary Agreements No. 13 and No. 14 amending pertinent sections of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement in order to ensure compliance and conformity with the terms and provisions of the new Agreement with Quebec. The Agreement has the following purposes:
The Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Quebec and the Crees of Quebec came into force on the date of its signature by the Parties and shall end March 31, 2052. Quebec and Eeyou of Eeyou Istchee enter into a nation-to-nation agreement which promises to strengthen the political, economic and social relations between Quebec and the Crees. The Agreement marks an important stage in a new nation-to-nation relationship based on openness, mutual respect and a greater responsibility of the Cree Nation for its own development within the context of a greater autonomy. The Agreement recognizes an important right of Eeyou to benefit from resource development within Eeyou Istchee. For the first time in Quebec, the right of Aboriginal People to benefit from resource development within their own lands is recognized. For the period of 50 years commencing on April 1, 2002, the Crees assume the obligations of Quebec concerning economic and community development under certain provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement in accordance with the terms and provisions of Chapter 6 of the Agreement Concerning the New Relationship Between the Government of Quebec and the Crees of Quebec. Furthermore, for a period of 50 years commencing on April 1, 2002, Quebec shall pay to the Crees an annual amount so that the Crees may assume the obligations of Quebec under certain provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement respecting economic and community development. The annual payments from Quebec shall be indexed in accordance with a formula that reflects the evolution of the value of hydro-electric production, mining exploitation production and forestry harvest production in Eeyou Istchee. The assumption of these obligations by Eeyou for Cree community and economic development with the annual payments from Quebec will definitely advance Eeyou Governance and will particularly contribute to effective local government in the Cree communities. The new Cree-Quebec Agreement does not affect the obligations of Canada towards the Crees including those stipulated in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. The new Agreement between Quebec and the Crees of Eeyou Istchee sets out a bold new way of implementing certain provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement of 1975 and which for so long have not been properly implemented by the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec. This new Agreement is an example of how the treaty implementation process ought to work for Aboriginal Peoples across Canada. As far as the Cree Nation of Quebec is concerned, "it is this type of initiative that the Government of Canada will have to undertake with the Grand Council if it is to meet its obligations [to the Crees] under the 1975 Agreement."1 It remains to be seen if the Government of Canada intends to follow the lead of Quebec in fulfilling its obligations to Eeyou of Eeyou Istchee in a manner which addresses the spirit and intent of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and which sets an acceptable standard of the nation-to-nation relationship between Eeyou and Canada.2
END NOTES
|
|
CHAPTER 6 |
---|
The Mandate of the Cree-Naskapi
|
In the 1998 Report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission, Chapter 12 dealt at length with the issue of the Commission’s mandate. The question was addressed only briefly in the 2000 Report, however recent events make it appropriate to consider the matter once again and to offer a recommendation. The mandate of the Cree-Naskapi Commission is outlined in the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, sections 151 to 172. Two specific aspects of the mandate can be found in section 165(1) which states:
(a) prepare biennial reports on the implementation of this Act, in accordance with subsections 171(1); and (b) except as provided by subsections (2) and (3), investigate any representation submitted to it relating to the implementation of this Act, including representations relating to the exercise or non-exercise of a power under this Act and the performance or non-performance of a duty under this Act."1 From the time of the first report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission in 1986 to the present there has been an on-going and occasionally sharp difference of opinion between the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Commission concerning the mandate of the Commission. Specifically the Department has asserted that the Commission has no mandate to consider issues arising out of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement or the Northeastern Quebec Agreement. More generally the Department has objected to the Commission commenting on any self-government or Aboriginal issues, except as they are explicitly enumerated in the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. The most recent expression of this view is contained in a submission by the department to the Standing Committee dated January 28, 2002 which says: "...we point out that much of the content of the Commission’s 2000 Biennial Report, and a substantial proportion of the Report’s recommendations, venture well beyond the legislated mandate of the Commission"2
The position of the Commission is that this is an unrealistically narrow interpretation of their mandate as well as a misunderstanding of the Act itself. We base this position upon four considerations:
In view of the significance and duration of the differences of opinion between the Department and the Commission, it is worthwhile to elaborate on these four considerations.
1. The ActFirst of all the Act itself acknowledges that it flows from the Agreements. The preamble reads as follows: "Whereas the Government of Canada is obligated, pursuant to section 9 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and section 7 of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, to recommend to Parliament special leg-islation to provide for an orderly and efficient system of Cree and Naskapi local government, for the administration, management and control of Category IA and IA-N lands by the Cree and Naskapi bands respectively and for the protection of certain individual and collective rights under the said Agreements;" (emphasis added)3 Clearly (in our view) Parliament expressly intended that the Act would, among other things, provide for the protection of rights under the Agreements. Surely a Commission responsible for reporting on the implementation of the Act should not turn a deaf ear to those who appear at its hearings, and assert their rights under the Agreements have not been protected by the operation of the Act which was explicitly intended to protect those rights. While the preamble helps define the overall purpose of the Act, specific sections focus its meaning even more precisely. Section 21 outlines the objects of bands and describes their powers and duties. "21 the objects of a band are (j) to exercise the powers and carry out the duties conferred or imposed on the band or on its predecessor Indian Act band by any Act of Parliament or regulations made thereunder, and by the Agreements." (emphasis added)4 Once again it is the view of the Commission that the Act is clear. If someone (including a band itself) alleges that a band does not or cannot exercise its power or carry out its duties under the Agreements, this constitutes an issue under section 21(j) which the Commission has a duty both to consider and to report upon. Similarly if a band failed or was unable to exercise its powers and carry out its duties under any other Act of Parliament, the Commission ought to consider the matter when asked to do so. It can of course be argued that this is an overly broad interpretation of the powers and duties of the Commission. The Supreme Court of Canada has in recent years outlined how both treaties (including the Agreements) as well as legislation are to be interpreted. This process began in earnest with the Nowegijick decision in 1983 in which the court said: "...treaties and statutes relating to Indians should be liberally construed and doubtful expressions resolved in favour of the Indians." (emphasis added)5 Since that time the Supreme Court has elaborated the basic rule. It is not helpful to assert that narrow, legalistic interpretations of "statutes relating to Indians" are to be preferred to the approach spelled out by the Supreme Court of Canada.
2. The "Cowie Report"The Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act provides in section 172(1) as follows: "172(1) Within six months after the fifth anniversary of the coming into force of this Part, the Governor in Council shall appoint a person or persons to inquire into the powers, duties and operation of the Commission."6 In 1990 the government appointed a three member Commission of Inquiry into the Cree-Naskapi Commission. This inquiry resulted in a comprehensive report ("the Cowie Report") which was submitted on April 4, 1991. Among its specific recommendations was one that the Cree-Naskapi Commission should report on issues arising out of the Agreements. The government of the day simply ignored this recommendation (as well as the others) made by an independent, legislatively mandated commission which it had itself appointed.
3. Community ViewsCommunity views as expressed by individuals as well as by elected leaders consistently reflect the notion that the Commission has a duty to consider whether, and the extent to which, the implementation of the Act has lived up to its purpose of implementing many aspects of the Agreements. Included among those appearing before the Commission and expressing this point of view are many of those who were personally involved in negotiating the provisions of the Act. Their understanding is relevant and important. Justice McLachlin, writing in the Marshall decision in 1999 said: "The words of a treaty must be given the sense which they would naturally have held for the parties at the time...".7 Arguably the negotiation of legislation explicitly required by a treaty also sheds light on what was intended. The Cree party to those negotiations has made its understanding clear. Speaking about the implementation of section 28 of the JBNQA, Dr. Ted Moses, Grand Chief of the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee), stated to the Commission at a hearing on March 22, 2002:
4. Lack of AlternativesThe implementation of the JBNQA and the NEQA are important public functions. That this importance was recognized is reflected by the fact that under the provisions of section 10 of the James Bay Northern Quebec Native Claims Settlement Act the Minister of Indian Affairs was required to report to the House of Commons annually until 1998 on the implementation of the Agreements. (Similar measures applied to the Northeastern Quebec Agreement.) Since 1998 there has been no mechanism for reporting. Because the communities continue to have issues about implementation, but no formal process to air them, they have increasingly demanded that the Commission address them. The Director of the James Bay Implementation Office acknowledged that the Commission was not in a position to ignore these demands during his testimony at the Commission’s Special Implementation Hearings in February 2000. (This unfortunately was an exception to the Department’s usual position.) The difference of opinion between the Department and the Commission about the latter’s mandate is significant and has persisted for the past 16 years. The Commissioners believe that a good working relationship is important and that, whenever possible, honest differences should be resolved. With that in mind, the Commission recommends that a three-member working group be established to negotiate joint recommendations regarding the mandate of the Cree-Naskapi Commission. This group should include one member appointed by each of the Cree and Naskapi, the Department and the Commission. The working group should be given up to six months to complete its task.
END NOTES
|
|
CHAPTER 7 |
---|
Self-Government: The Economic
|
This statement in the government’s 1997 document, Gathering Strength, signaled the intention to change direction in which successive governments had been moving for some time. In fact, after the enactment of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, the government regularly referred to it as "the first modern-day self-government legislation in Canada." Indeed the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act provides an important set of legislative and jurisdictional tools for the exercise of self-government by the Cree and Naskapi Nations. Elsewhere in this report the Commission argues that the Act is only a part of the overall package of jurisdictional authorities within the "inherent right" concept. At this point however it is important to consider the extent to which the effective exercise of the self-government powers under the Act is dependent upon factors outside of the provisions of the Act itself. Clearly the economic viability of the Cree and Naskapi communities and the consequent fiscal capacity of the Cree and Naskapi governments will determine the practical ability of Cree and Naskapi Nations to exercise their powers and carry out their duties under the Act. Additionally, true self-government will depend upon the degree to which fiscal resources are adequate and within the control of the Crees and the Naskapis. The Statement of Understanding signed on August 9, 1984, by the then Minister, Hon. Douglas Frith, the then Grand Chief, Billy Diamond and the then Naskapi Chief, Joe Guanish, was intended to provide a stable funding base for local Cree and Naskapi governments. The document said in its "objectives" section:
Subsequent to the public signing of this document, the Department of Indian Affairs on October 23, 1986, unilaterally repudiated a substantial portion of it. Officials had apparently recommended that Minister Frith not sign it in the first place. He had knowingly decided to reject their advice and sign it anyway. It would appear that the officials simply waited for a new Minister and convinced him to disavow his predecessor’s signature. This episode makes it clear that what the Department calls "stable autonomous local governments" are not possible if they are financially dependent upon agreements with government - agreements which governments feel free to repudiate in whole or in part whenever it suits them. Self-government, if it is to be effective and sustainable, needs "own-source revenues" as a major source of its fiscal requirements. Self-government of any people requires that the fiscal mechanisms and capacity to fund the central functions of governance be under the control of that people. Other jurisdictions may have financial obligations based upon treaty provisions, constitutional responsibilities or contractual undertakings. The simple fact however is that true freedom to exercise any measure of independent jurisdiction requires "own-source revenues" adequate to cover at least the core costs of governance. A government whose central revenues can be withheld, reduced or made conditional at the discretion of others is no government at all. It is, at best, a semi-autonomous administrative agency. The Cree Nation and the Naskapi Nation are not and cannot be mere administrative agencies of Canada or of Quebec. It is a good thing that the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act provides a long list of powers and duties for the Cree and Naskapi governments. It is a hollow jurisdiction however if the exercise of each and every power is entirely dependent upon whether or not and under what conditions another level of government is prepared to provide the funding.
|
|
CHAPTER 8 |
---|
Follow-Up to the 2000 Report
|
The Duty to ReportOne of the most important duties which the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act imposes on the Cree-Naskapi Commission is the duty to report every second year on the implementation of the Act. These implementation reports must be submitted to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who is in turn required to table them in the House of Commons and the Senate. The duty to report, especially when prescribed in legislation, is more than a formality. It is a substantive responsibility. It requires that the Commission, to the greatest extent practical within its resources, canvass the issues relating to implementation, analyse these and prepare recommendations for both the Minister, to whom the reports are initially submitted, and the House of Commons and Senate with whom they are subsequently tabled. With this in mind, the Commission conducts Special Implementation Hearings at which members of the Cree and Naskapi communities, government officials and others bring forward issues and concerns relating either directly or indirectly to the implemen-tation of the Act. Especially, in the case of presentations from the communities, the Commission strives to include input which the communities consider relevant and important. These hearings are after all the only regular opportunity to raise issues with the knowledge that, if reasonable, they will usually be passed on to the Minister and brought to the attention of MPs and Senators. This is why most witnesses prepare their presentations with great care, and consider that what they say is taken seriously and will be formally dealt with. The Commission believes that these are reasonable expectations. It is for these reasons that the Commission feels that it has a duty to ensure that, at the very least, the contents of the reports receive the attention of appropriate officials in government. The duty to report, we are convinced, involves more than a duty to fill files and add to archives. It obliges us to make every reasonable effort to ensure that issues raised by the people whose lives are intimately affected by the Act are brought to the attention of those with a mandate to effect positive change. It also requires us to assertively seek remedial action where needed or, failing that, an explanation as to why officials consider that action should not be taken. To simply submit reports and then forget about them, in our judgement, would be an abdication of our responsibilities under the legislation and an act of disrespect to those in the communities who have raised their concerns at the hearings. It is with these concerns in mind that the Commission has developed the practice of attempting to discuss the reports with the Cree and Naskapi authorities, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the relevant parliamentary committees and other affected groups. The Cree and Naskapi authorities, while they have disagreed with certain of our recommendations, have always been prepared to discuss the contents of the reports and consider how to address their implications. The parliamentary committees have devoted considerable time to reviewing the contents of the reports and other affected organizations have also been interested in discussing the issues whenever appropriate. Regrettably, while Ministers of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have promised response and dialogue, their departmental officials have generally avoided any follow-up or discussion, preferring instead to observe that some recommendations may be technically beyond our mandate or to claim that any suggestion for improvements in the department’s policies and administration is merely "fed bashing." That various ministers, on the other hand, have favoured a collaborative approach to dealing with the reports of the Commission is clear. In a letter of June 11, 1999, for example, Hon. Jane Stewart, the then Minister said: "The Commission is one of several parties with a role to play in the imple-mentation of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. This role entails not only the provision of recommendation, but also suggestions as to possible mechanisms and/or solutions to implement these recommendations through a balanced approach." (emphasis added)1 The Commission believes that the approach advocated by the former Minister is a good one and that it ought to be applied in practice. The Commission therefore makes the following recommendation. It is recommended that within three months of the tabling in the House of Commons and Senate of the biennial reports of the Cree-Naskapi Commission, a working group consisting of Representatives from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee), the Naskapi Band and the Cree-Naskapi Commission be established to work collaboratively on addressing the findings and recommendations in the Report.
Follow-Up With the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentSince the Commission’s first biennial report in 1986, various ministers have met with the Commissioners for the formal submission of the biennial reports and then tabled the reports in the House of Commons and in the Senate. (In the case of the 2000 Report, a general election intervened and the meeting did not take place. Minister Nault, during a visit to Chisasibi, said that he intended to have such a meeting later; however, none has taken place.) When tabling the 1998 Report in the House of Commons, Minister Stewart said "I want to thank the Cree-Naskapi Commission for its important work. I look forward to reviewing the recommendations of the Commission."2 The meetings with the Commissioners have generally included a discussion of the three or four main issues and recommendations as well as a commitment by the Minister that departmental officials would prepare a more detailed response. Unfortunately the Minister’s views that response and follow-up should take place appear not to have been shared by her officials. The various letters from former Minister together with the subsequent inaction by her officials illustrate the difficulty. On November 27, 1998, Minister Stewart wrote to the Commission saying:
On June 11, 1999, almost seven months after this apparent undertaking to have officials follow-up, Minister Stewart again wrote to the Commission saying:
The officials did not attempt to set up meetings or hold any discussions. In fact it was not until February 2, 2000 (some 16 months after the initial meeting with Minister Stewart), that any response whatsoever was made to the 1998 Report. On that date, the Director of the James Bay Implementation Office appeared at a Commission hearing, and in the context of the federal input into the 2000 Report, made a few brief comments on the 1998 Report’s recommendations. The details of his responses are outlined in Chapter 10 of the 2000 Report.
Follow-Up With the House Of Commons Standing CommitteeThe House of Commons has mechanisms in place which guarantee that when legislation requires that reports be tabled in the House, there is follow-up action to ensure that those reports are in fact dealt with. Standing Order 32(5) provides the overall rule:
In the case of the reports of the Cree-Naskapi Commission, these are permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources. In the context of the 2000 Report, the Standing Committee invited the Commissioners to make a presentation of their findings. Given the volume of work of the Committee and the short time available for oral presentations, Committee staff prepared an overview which, along with copies of the Report, was provided to members of the Committee prior to the hearing. On April 24, 2001, the Commissioners were asked to appear and provide brief oral presentations of the highlights of the Report followed by questions and answers. Commissioners Saunders, Kanatewat and Awashish spoke briefly about the following: the need for improved policy accountability mechanisms in government, the idea that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should address the specific recommendations of the Commission, the specific issues raised by Wemindji too late for inclusion in the Report, the need for specific mechanisms to monitor imple-mentation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, and the need for amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. The MPs present focused a significant proportion of their questions on the issue of how the Department had responded (or not responded) to the recommendations contained in the 2000 Report. In order to determine the reasons for the lack of written response from the Department, the Committee decided to call DIAND officials to a second hearing to provide answers. This hearing was held on May 10, 2001, and the Department was represented by Mr. Terry Henderson, Director General of the Implementation Branch. In response to questioning about why there had been no written responses, Mr. Henderson began by saying that such responses were not required by the legislation. When asked whether Minister Stewart’s letters did not in fact call for a response, Mr. Henderson said:
By the time that this explanation was given to the Committee, more than a year and a half had passed since the Minister had told the Commission that her department would review the Report and respond to its recommendations. It is difficult to take seriously that by May of 2001 the officials had not "had an opportunity to conclude [their] total review and analysis." It requires considerable imagination to conceive of the Minister facing "the same kind of uncertainty and struggle." The simple fact appears to be either that the officials didn’t pay any attention to Minister Stewart’s direction or simply decided to ignore it. The Vice- (and Acting) Chairman of the Committee, Mr. John Godfrey, MP, gave notice that he intended to introduce a motion which, in effect, would have made the recommendations, in the 1998 and 2000 reports of the Cree-Naskapi Commission, Committee documents and would have required that the Department respond to them in a timely fashion. Within days, the Vice-Chairman told the Committee that he and the Minister had spoken, that his (Godfrey’s) motion was "a bit too aggressive" and that the Minister would respond favourably to a simple letter from the Committee requesting responses to the recommendations in the 2000 Report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission. This letter was agreed to by the Committee, signed by the Chair and sent to the Minister in May of 2001. Finally more than eight months after the Committee’s request and more than two years after the original commitment of the Minister, the department responded in a somewhat superficial fashion addressing some recommendations while saying that many of the Commission’s recommendations were outside of the explicit legislated mandate. All of this can be looked at from a variety of perspectives. In the final analysis it demonstrates disrespect on the part of the Indian Affairs bureaucracy - disrespect for a legislatively mandated process - disrespect for their Minister’s commitments - disrespect for the requests of a Committee of the House of Commons with a clear mandate to make such requests. Most unfortunate of all, it demonstrates disrespect for the Cree and Naskapi people at the community level who prepared and made the presentations that form the basis of the Commission’s reports in the first place, and who clearly expect that their concerns will be responded to by those with a mandate to do so. It would appear that the Department, in having Mr. Godfrey asked to withdraw his formal motion, wanted to avoid being in the position of having any legally enforceable duty to carry out their stated intention of responding. This might be reasonable if a full and complete response had been made to all or most of the recommendations. When com-bined with superficial and incomplete responses, it is not reasonable.
END NOTES
|
|
CHAPTER 9 |
---|
DIAND Response to the 2000
|
After the submission of the 2000 Report to the Minister and its subsequent tabling in Parliament, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development did not respond to the Commission on any of the Report’s recommendations. As noted in Chapter 8 of the present Report, the Commission raised the problem with the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources during its appearance on April 24, 2001. The Committee then wrote to Minister Nault on May 15, 2001, requesting a response. On January 28, 2002, more than eight (8) months after receiving the letter and sixteen (16) months after receiving the Report, the Minister replied to the Committee and responded to the 2000 Report of the Commission. (The full text of the Minister’s response is attached as Appendix 1.) The response contained four major sections: Background (on implementation of the Agreements and the Act), Recent Implementations Achievements, Mandate of the Cree-Naskapi Commission and Analysis of Recommendations. In terms of background on implementation, the Minister, among other things, noted:
This sounds reasonable until one considers the comments of Dr. Ted Moses, Grand Chief of the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee). In his presentation at a Special Implementation Hearing held in Montreal on March 22, 2002, he said:
The apparent difficulty of personal assurances by the Minister not in fact being acted on by departmental officials is reminiscent of the problems discussed in Chapter 8 of Minister Stewart’s repeated oral and written assurances not being acted upon by her officials. Ministerial credibility is an essential element of responsible government. The public cannot be expected to have confidence in and respect for our public institutions when assurances by ministers are ignored or repudiated by officials whose job it is to give effect to such assurances. The simple facts are that the Round Table is touted as the main instrument to resolve implementation issues and that the Round Table met once four years ago and has never met again despite Minister Nault’s assurances to Grand Chief Ted Moses. On the subject of "Recent Implementation Achievements" the Minister outlined what he feels the department has accomplished in a two and a half page section of his response. The entire section is reproduced verbatim in Chapter 11 of the present Report. The section dealing with the mandate of the Commission is addressed in Chapter 6 of the present Report. The final and largest section of the Minister’s letter entitled "Analysis of Recommendations" provides the department’s reaction to each of the thirty-four (34) recommendations con-tained in the 2000 Report. In the view of the Department sixteen (16) of the recommendations were in relation "to the JBNQA" and considered to be beyond the explicit legislated mandate of the Commission. This sort of response avoids dealing with issues considered important by those who raised them and invites a more vigorous proactive approach. The Department responded to eight (8) of the recommendations in a substantive manner. In the case of five (5) recommendations, the Department indicated that they were in the process of being addressed or had already been addressed. In the case of one (1) recommendation the department simply agreed with the Commission, and in the case of four (4) the response was that the communities needed to make a "formal expression of interest."
CommentsThe Commission appreciates the fact that the Department has, for the first time, provided a written response to recommendations contained in a biennial Report. This represents, we believe, a step in the direction of working to resolve the issues and concerns being raised by the communities during the course of the Special Implementation Hearings and contained in the reports. We invite the Department to respond to the current recom-mendations by writing directly to the Commission without waiting to be directed to do so by a parliamentary committee. We look forward to constructive discussion about the issues raised. |
|
CHAPTER 10 |
---|
Responses of the Cree and
|
1. Cree Nation of Eeyou IstcheeMany of the Cree communities have raised questions about the lack, or absence of a comprehensive response from Canada to their needs and concerns as described in the past reports of the Cree-Naskapi Commission. They stress that the ineffectiveness of the Commission is due to the failure of Canada to respond to the findings and recommendations of the Commission in a manner that advances and enhances the exercise and practice of local government and local administration. On August 23, 2001, at the Annual General Assembly of the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)/Cree Regional Authority, the members adopted a resolution which states the following:
The resolution of the members of the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)/Cree Regional Authority also calls upon the Government of Canada to fulfill its responsibilities and respond, in a comprehensive manner, to the findings and recommendations of the Commission as described in the reports of the Cree-Naskapi Commission and the local and regional Eeyou authorities and governments to review, consider and respond to the findings and recommendations of the Commission for the advancement of Eeyou rights and Eeyou Governance and for the fair and just settlement of community issues and concerns. (The full text of the resolution is reproduced as Appendix II.)
2. Naskapi Nation of KawawachikamachIn a letter addressed to the Cree-Naskapi Commission and dated July 24, 2001, Chief Philip Einish responded to the 2000 Report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission in the following principal manner:
On the latter issue, the Commission has recommended that "the Government of Canada exercise its fiduciary responsibility and protect the interests and rights of the Naskapi Eeyouch in the negotiations respecting regional self-government with the Inuit of Nunavik."1 In its response of January 28, 2002, the Department of Indian Affairs stated as follows:
On page 48 of the Nunavik Commission’s Report, the Naskapis are described as expressing frustration over the failure of the Government of Canada to assist them in the protection of their rights in this area, although it is not specified in what respect the government has failed. It is clear from the Nunavik Commission’s mandate and its recent report that the parties, including Canada, are committed to protecting those rights and are convinced that these rights are being fully respected.2
END NOTES
|
|
CHAPTER 11 |
---|
Federal Issues |
A. Federal Accomplishments in ImplementationThe Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has expressed concern that the Commission, in previous reports, has accentuated criticism of government’s efforts in implementing the Act and the Agreements. The Department has acknowledged that the Commission will hear mostly complaints but has felt that many of its positive accomplish-ments have gone unnoticed.
With a view to providing an opportunity for the Department to speak for itself about the "good stuff" which has happened, the Commission is reproducing verbatim a section of a letter dated January 28, 2002, from Minister Nault to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. Section II of that letter includes the following:
In addition to these, Canada is currently in the process of negotiating agreements with the Crees regarding:
Please note that many of the JBNQA Initiatives noted above (including those relating to fire protection, essential sanitation, policing and access road), will also contribute significantly to effective local government in Cree communities. With respect to the Naskapi, the following has been accomplished:
And in addition, since tabling of the CNC’s 2000 Report:
As previously noted, the efforts and financial contributions listed above are highly significant, and reflective of Canada’s desire to respond deliberately and credibly in meeting its responsibilities under the CNA and the Agreements.2
The large ongoing allocations for Community Capital and O&M since 1995 represent a stable funding base for the Crees, most of which (the O&M portion) is escalated annually for population and price increases, and which provides full flexibility and discretion to the Cree Regional Authority and Cree Bands for reallocation of funding to respond to local priorities and changes in the operating environment.
In direct response to provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement affecting the Crees, the Government of Canada has:
At the time that the CNC’s 2000 Report was tabled, Canada was pursuing the following initiatives:
The foregoing quotation outlines what the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development considers to have been its past and recent achievements both in delivering "normal" programs in response to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, as well as in the implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement. The Commission believes that any objective assessment of the successes and failures in the implementation of the Act and the Agreements requires that all parties have an opportunity to express their views. We also believe that readers of our Report are entitled to understand the views of those who make presentations to the Commission particularly if the presenters do not feel that the Commission fully appreciates their input.
B. Federal Concerns About AccountabilityIn its submission to the Commission at the Special Implementation Hearings held on February 27, 2002, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development expressed concern about accountability, more specifically about the timeliness of the submission of audited financial statements. The Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act makes provision for deadlines for the submission of audited financial statements. Section 94 subsection 1 and 2 read as follows:
During his presentation at the February 27, 2002 hearing, Mr. Jim McCarthy, Director of the James Bay Implementation Office, said:
On March 25, 2002, the Chairman of the Commission wrote to Minister Nault asking whether the auditors had supplied the Minister with reasons for the delay as they are required to do by section 94 subsection 2 of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. On June 7, 2002, Minister Nault replied that the auditors had not provided any reasons. He said:
He added that departmental officials had reminded the bands of the need for timely compliance with the reporting requirements of the Act. Because the Minister is responsible for the proper administration of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act and because the Act requires that auditors notify the Minister of reasons for delays, it is reasonable to expect that departmental officials would have reminded the auditors of their obligations under the Act. The issue requires some further analysis and review. The Commission intends to look into the reasons for this problem in greater depth than is possible for the purposes of this report. For that reason the Commission will discuss the matter with all concerned parties with a view to preparing a special report on how this problem can be avoided in the future.
C. Federal Concerns About IndebtednessThe departmental submission to the Commission also stressed its concern about indebtedness. The Director of the James Bay Implementation Office said on February 27, 2002:
|
|
CHAPTER 12 |
---|
Conclusions and
|
EEYOU SELF-GOVERNMENT AND THE CREE-NASKAPI (OF QUEBEC) ACTIn its response of January 28, 2002, to the 2000 Report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development states that "the Government of Canada would welcome a formal expression of interest from the Crees and/or Naskapis Nations to engage in - discussions and negotiations leading to a redefinition of Cree and/or Naskapi self-government."1 Furthermore, the Department expresses the view that any amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act "should only be considered in the context of a broader-based review of self-government for the Cree and/or Naskapi peoples."2 According to the Department, amendments to the Act "would require a renewed process of discussion among Canada, the Crees and the Naskapis. In order to launch such a process, the Crees and the Naskapis should formally indicate their interest to Canada."3 The Cree and Naskapi Nations have, through their representations to the Commission in its special implementation hearings for the preparation of its biennial reports, formally expressed the need for appropriate review of and amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act to reflect the realities of Eeyou self-government. The Commission has repeatedly recommended the establishment of a process to enable dialogue and negotia-tions for the implementation of and amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. In consideration of its mandate and origin as a Commission created by special federal legislation arising from a Treaty obligation, the Commission considers its biennial reports as a formal means of reporting on the implementation of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act and related matters. These biennial reports are submitted in four languages to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who causes each such report to be laid before each House of Parliament. Therefore, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should consider these reports with the findings and recommen-dations in a manner that reflects the intent and spirit of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act as well as the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement.
Ouje-Bougoumou Eenouch (Cree Nation)The Ouje-Bougoumou Eenouch remain very concerned about the lack of a full implementation of the Ouje-Bougoumou/Canada Agreement of May 22, 1992.
Naskapi Eeyouch (Nation)of KawawachikamachThe Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach remain very concerned about the protection of their rights and interests in the current negotiations respecting the possible establishment of a Nunavik Government. In its response of January 28, 2002, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development states that the mandate of the Nunavik Government and the report of the Nunavik Commission respect the recognized rights of the Naskapi. However, the Naskapi Nation of Kawawchikamach needs assurances beyond mere words that their rights including their right of self-government are protected.
Naskapi local government provides policing services which are funded by Quebec and Canada as a treaty obligation under paragraph 13.2.1 of Section 13 of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement. However, the Naskapi have experienced a shortfall in their funding for policing services in recent fiscal years due to a cost-sharing dispute between Canada and Quebec.
According to the Naskapis, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development denies that it has any responsibility whatsoever for supplying electricity to Kawawachikamach.
The housing situation of the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach has been aggravated by declining funding and a backlog caused by overcrowding of houses.
Concerns and Issues of the Eeyou (Cree)NationOperation and Maintenance Funding
Housing
Provision of Electricity in WaskaganishAccording to the Crees of the Waskaganish First Nation, under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, Canada is committed to the provision of electricity to the community. With the growth of the community, the current facilities (diesel generation) are inadequate to meet the needs of the community.
Lands Transfer Between Mistissini and Ouje-BougoumouThe Government of Quebec and Cree Nations of Mistissini and Ouje-Bougoumou have achieved, by virtue of Schedule G of the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Quebec and the Crees of Quebec, a level of agreement for Canada to fully participate in the process and fulfill its obligations to the Ouje-Bougoumou Eenouch under the Ouje-Bougoumou/Canada Agreement of 1992 and exercise its responsibilities for the Cree Nations of Mistissini and Ouje-Bougoumou. The Commission is concerned about the protection of rights, as a land base and band status are essential for the exercise of local government under the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.
New Relationship Between Canada and the Cree Nation of Eeyou IstcheeOn February 7, 2002, Quebec and the Crees entered into a nation-to-nation agreement which promises to strengthen the political, economic and social relations between Quebec and the Crees. Amongst other provisions, the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Quebec and the Crees of Quebec provides that Quebec shall pay to the Crees, for a determined period, an annual amount so that the Crees may assume the obligations of Quebec concerning economic and community development under certain provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. These undertakings and obligations will definitely advance Eeyou Governance and will particu-larly contribute to effective local government over matters respecting economic and community development in the Cree communities.
Cree-Naskapi CommissionThe Cree communities remain concerned about the lack and absence of a comprehen-sive response from Canada on the findings and recommendations of the Cree-Naskapi Commission. Furthermore, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has continuously questioned the role and mandate of the Cree-Naskapi Commission.
The working group, with the direct participation of the Commission, should make recommendations on these matters to their respective parties within a six-month period with the objective of advancing and enhancing the exercise of local government and local administration by improving the effectiveness of the Commission.
Block DQuebec and the Crees have confirmed the settlement of their differences concerning the Chisasibi "Block D" lands. The terms of this settlement are set out in Schedule D of the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Quebec and the Crees of Quebec. The Commission is concerned as it is envisaged that Block D will form part of the land base of Chisasibi for the exercise of local government by the Cree Nation of Chisasibi.
TrainingThe Cree communities are continually faced with new needs and demands in fiscal and administrative responsibilities for effective local government. Consequently, there is an increasing need for further training and capacity development.
Community Expansion of WhapmagoostuiThe structure of its land base presents barriers and constraints in the expansion of Whapmagoostui for a growing population. However, a northeastward expansion is possible with adequate resources.
Administration of JusticeThe administration of justice should proceed in a timely manner if the rule of law is to have impact in the Cree communities.
Washaw Sibi EeyouThe Washaw Sibi Eeyou are a group of about two hundred (200) people of Cree ancestry who live in the various municipalities and Algonquin villages within the Territory con-templated by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. According to the Washaw Sibi Eeyou Association, the Washaw Sibi Eeyou are beneficiaries or are entitled to be beneficiaries of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreements and other related Agreements.
Federal Response to the 2000 Report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission The Cree-Canada Round Table was established to oversee the implementation process of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. It met in June of 1998 and has never met again despite assurances by Minister Nault to the Grand Chief of the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) that he would organize further meetings.
On February 28, 2002, Mr. Jim McCarthy, a federal representative, made a representa-tion to the Commission at its Special Implementation Hearings. Amongst other issues, Mr. McCarthy spoke on problems with the Crees in the areas of "accountability" and "indebtedness." The Commission recognizes these matters as serious issues.
End Notes
|
|
Appendix I |
---|
Jan/janv 28 2002
Dear Mr. Bonin: This provides my department’s response to the 2000 Biennial Report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission, as your predecessor had requested in her letter of May 15, 2001. I apologize for the length of time it has taken to prepare this response. The issues raised in the Commission’s Report are complex and have required careful analysis. As well, since these issues affect not just my own department, but deal with the overall relation-ship between Canada and the Crees and Naskapis of Quebec, it was essential to consult other federal departments involved. My department takes these issues extremely seriously, and we welcome this opportunity to update members of your Committee on Canada’s recent progress in implementing the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act. I would be pleased to appear before your Committee, or to have my officials appear before you, to further elaborate on the information contained in this response.
Yours sincerely,
Robert D. Nault, P.C., M.P. Encl. |
|
Response to the 2000 Biennial
|
---|
I.BACKGROUNDThe James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement (NEQA) are comprehensive land claim settlements with the Crees and Inuit, and the Naskapis of Quebec. These were signed in 1975 and 1978 respectively and represent the first modern-day treaties in Canada, of which we now have 14. Section 9 of the JBNQA and section 7 of the NEQA required the Government of Canada to enact legislation to provide for local government by the Crees and Naskapis on their lands. This legislation, the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act (CNA)- 1984 - (the CNA) replaced the Indian Act and provided considerable scope for local self-government. The CNA also included provision for the establishment of the CNC, one of whose principal responsibilities is to "prepare biennial reports on the implementation of this Act, in accordance with subsection 171(1 )" (this subsection specifies the timing of the reports, the languages to be used, and provisions for tabling in Parliament). The CNA itself, and the provision for a body to review and report on its implementation on behalf of Parliament, were both pioneering developments in Canada’s relationship with Aboriginal peoples. Since 1984, then, the Government of Canada’s relations with the Crees and Naskapis have been largely defined by the CNA and the JBNQA/NEQA.
Implementation ApproachA major step in implementing the CNA has been to establish with both the Crees and the Naskapis a stable and predictable fiscal relationship, based on block funding and grants, which is consistent with the intended relationship and the available resourcing, and which provides the flexibility appropriate to self-governing entities. These funding relationships appear to be working effectively and as intended. Regarding the JBNQA and NEQA, the challenge for the Government of Canada has been to implement, in concert with the other parties, the many provisions of these complex Agreements. In the late 1980s, following a comprehensive review and the realization that all parties had experienced difficulties in the implementation of these Agreements, the Government of Canada undertook to negotiate "lmplementation Agreements" with each of the Cree, Inuit, and Naskapi beneficiary groups, to assist in clarifying and planning for implementation. In 1990, this resulted in Implementation Agreements being signed with the Inuit and the Naskapis. As a result of these Agreements, and the implementation provisions and processes established therein, our relationships with the Inuit and Naskapis are now stable and mutually satisfactory. The James Bay Crees chose not to negotiate such a comprehensive implementation agreement, but pre-ferred instead to seek implementation based purely on the original and often excessively vague provisions of the JBNQA. With the Crees, then, we are negotiating the implementation of the individual provisions of the JBNQA on an incremental basis. This has not always been a smooth process; at the moment, Canada is the object of several litigation actions launched by the Crees, each alleging failure to implement certain provisions of the JBNQA. Nevertheless, there has been considerable progress in our relations with the James Bay Crees. We have in recent years made every effort to establish a new relationship with them, and to address outstanding issues regarding the implementation of the JBNQA. Since 1997, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has designated a Chief Federal Negotiator to lead this process. Our current negotiator is Me. Jean-Martin Gagné, whose Cree counterpart is Mr. Bill Namagoose. The implementation process with the Crees is overseen and guided by the Cree-Canada Round Table made up of Cree leaders and federal Ministers, who held their inaugural meeting in June of 1998. It is a process consisting of planned negotiations, sometimes tripartite involving the Province of Quebec, and at times overshadowed by the litigation context. Both the Government of Canada and the Crees have put a good deal of thought and effort into the process, and though we have not always agreed on the details, we have accomplished a lot, both with respect to implementing the CNA and specific provisions of the JBNQA.
II.RECENT IMPLEMENTATION ACHIEVEMENTSThe Commission’s 2000 Biennial Report is highly critical of the Government of Canada’s efforts in implementing the CNA, as well as the JBNQA and the NEQA. But this is far from the whole picture. The Report fails to acknowledge numerous accomplishments in implementing the CNA, and in meeting provisions of the JBNQA and the NEQA. These accomplishments represent a substantial allocation of funds to the Crees and the Naskapis, on both a one-time and an ongoing basis. In response to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, to provide for normal programming to the Crees in a self-government context, recent achievements are as follows:
The large ongoing allocations for Community Capital and O&M since 1995 represent a stable funding base for the Crees, most of which (the O&M portion) is escalated annually for population and price increases, and which provides full flexibility and discretion to the Cree Regional Authority and Cree Bands for reallocation of funding to respond to local priorities and changes in the operating environment. In direct response to provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement affecting the Crees, the Government of Canada has:
At the time that the CNC’s 2000 Report was tabled, Canada was pursuing the following initiatives:
In addition to these, Canada is currently in the process of negotiating agreements with the Crees regarding:
Please note that many of the JBNQA initiatives noted above including those relating to fire protection, essential sanitation, policing, and access road), will also contribute signif-icantly to effective local government in Cree communities. With respect to the Naskapi, the following has been accomplished:
And in addition, since tabling of the CNC’s 2000 Report:
As previously noted, the efforts and financial contributions listed above are highly significant, and reflective of Canada’s desire to respond deliberately and credibly in meeting its responsibilities under the CNA and the Agreements.
III.MANDATE OF THE CREE-NASKAPI COMMISSIONUnder the CNA, the responsibilities of the Commission are to: "(a) prepare biennial reports on the implementation of this Act, ...; and (b) ... investigate any representation submitted to it relating to the implementation of this Act,..." These responsibilities clearly limit the scope of the Commission’s mandate to the implementation of the various provisions of the CNA, not to the implementation of the JBNQA and the NEQA. The CNA is a rather wide-ranging statute which provides for many aspects of local governance in Cree and Naskapi communities, including:
The extent of this governance role is perhaps best illustrated by the list of objects and powers of bands; which can be summarized as (CNA para. 21):
It seems clear that Parliament’s intent in establishing the Commission was to ensure the provision of constructive reporting to Parliament on the evolution of Cree and Naskapi local government and the role played therein by the parties, including the communities and the Government of Canada. The responsibilities and powers listed above make clear the challenge involved in establishing such local governance. The scope of the CNA thus provides the Commission with an important role and a wide and potentially rich range of topics upon which to report. In the response that follows we point out that much of the content of the Commission’s, 2000 Biennial Report, and a substantial proportion of the Report’s recommendations, venture well beyond the legislated mandate of the Commission.
IV.ANALYSIS OF RECOMMENDATIONSWith respect to the 34 recommendations in the Cree-Naskapi Commission’s 2000 Biennial Report, the following are Canada’s responses, supplemented by further analysis where applicable. Recommendations The Cree-Naskapi Commission submits the following recommendations with the objective that the federal, Cree and Naskapi authorities will take the appropriate and necessary measures to ensure the enhancement and advancement of local Eeyou government and Eeyou rights: General Recommendations
Response References in this recommendation to the JBNQA and the NEQA are considered to be beyond the explicit legislated mandate of the Commission. Nevertheless, the Province of Quebec, Canada, Hydro Quebec, the Inuit of Quebec and the Crees sponsored and organized a major symposium in Montreal on October 25-26, 2001, whose purpose, and that of a corresponding publication to be produced, was to provide an opportunity for the parties to share their experiences and expectations relative to the JBNQA, more than 25 years after its signing.
Response References in this recommendation to the JBNQA and the NEQA are considered to be beyond the explicit legislated mandate of the Commission. Nevertheless:
Response References in this recommendation to the JBNQA and the NEQA are considered to be beyond the explicit legislated mandate of the Commission. Nevertheless, the JBNQA and the NEQA, Canada’s first modem-day treaties, resulted from extensive negotiations among several parties and were brought into force by community ratification, and provincial and federal legislation. Similarly, the CNA is a federal statute, drafted in discussion with representatives of the Crees and Naskapis, and setting out elements of a local government regime for the Cree and Naskapi peoples. Each of these is binding on the parties in its own right, and the Canadian justice system is accessible by any of the parties, as and when needed, to help enforce implementation of provi-sions under dispute. It is unclear what further "legislative and judicial measures" would facilitate implementation efforts. This said, the conclusion of Implementation Agreements between the Government of Canada and the Inuit and Naskapi beneficiary groups, in 1990, has served to clarify many of those parties’ obligations under the JBNQA and the NEQA and establish appropriate "administrative and fiscal measures," including implementation regimes and alternative dispute resolution processes. And it is fair to say that positive working relationships with the Inuit and Naskapis have ensued. Regrettably, the Cree beneficiary group has chosen not to conclude such a comprehensive implementation arrangement, but to seek imple-mentation based purely on the original and often excessively vague provisions of the JBNQA. While relationships have thus far been strained, and the Cree have resorted to litigation on various occasions, an implementation process overseen by the Cree-Canada Round Table and characterized by incremental negotiations continues to unfold.
Response Implementation of the JBNQA and the NEQA, Canada’s first modern-day "treaties," extends beyond the explicit legislated mandate of the Commission. That said, and similar to the response to recommendation No. 3, it is unclear how such a "Treaty Implementation Act" would serve the parties and facilitate the effective and timely implementation of Canada’s modern-day treaties. There are currently 14 such treaties in Canada concluded with 15 Aboriginal beneficiary groups. Most of these treaties (the Cree component of the JBNQA being the exception) are accompanied by implementation plans/agreements and supported by rigorous, collaborative implementation regimes, including multi-party implementation committees and joint monitoring/reporting processes. These seem to be serving the various parties quite well in ensuring the implementation of these complex and durable land claims agreements.
Response In requiring the Commission to submit Biennial Reports, Parliament clearly indicated its interest in being regularly advised on the progress of implementing local self-government for the Crees and Naskapis of Quebec. The Government of Canada accepts such reporting as potentially valuable input to these implementation efforts. Nevertheless, with respect to this as well as earlier Biennial Reports, we are of the view that the many references to the JBNQA and the NEQA are beyond the explicit legislated mandate of the Commission. This has made it much more difficult for Canada to respond in a meaningful way to those recommendations, or portions thereof, that fall within the Commission’s mandate.
Response This recommendation addresses "machinery of government" issues, and is beyond the Commission’s mandate. It is unclear how such a proposed "Act" and regime would improve upon the existing Government of Canada machinery.
Oujé-Bougoumou Eenouch (Cree Nation)
Response This recommendation is considered to be beyond the Commission’s mandate: it does not deal with local government among the Crees, but rather with efforts to incorporate, into the JBNQA, a group which Canada and Quebec have long accepted to be a distinct Cree community. In this regard, Canada is fully engaged in the process to formally incorporate the Oujé-Bougoumou Cree Nation into the JBNQA, and is fully exercising its fiduciary responsi-bilities to the Oujé-Bougoumou Eenouch. The required activities include transferring lands from Mistissini to Oujé-Bougoumou, concluding a complementary agreement to the JBNQA, and asking Parliament to amend the CNA to formally recognize Oujé-Bougoumou as a distinct band. The process is extremely complex and hinges on agreement and co-operation between Oujé-Bougoumou and the Mistissini Band, as well as Quebec. To date, the parties have not achieved the necessary level of agreement for the process to reach conclusion. Once this process is complete, Canada will have met all of its obli-gations under the 1992 Oujé-Bougoumou/Canada Agreement.
Response As with recommendation No. 7, this recommendation is considered to be beyond the Commission’s mandate. The Government of Canada is awaiting the receipt of a capital needs assessment from Oujé-Bougoumou upon which to base capital negotiations, as required by the 1992 Oujé-Bougoumou/Canada Agreement. The fact that the Cree Regional Authority may have expended $1.7 million on Oujé-Bougoumou capital projects does not create a funding obligation for Canada. Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach
Response Provisions regarding Naskapi local justice are contained in section 12 of the NEQA and are thus considered to be beyond the explicit legislated mandate of the Commission. References to Administration of Justice in the CNA serve chiefly to include offences, under band by-laws and certain Criminal Code provisions, within the jurisdiction of Justices of the Peace appointed by the Deputy Minister of Justice of the Province of Quebec, in accordance with section 12.4.1 of the NEQA. This recommendation does not directly impact on the Government of Canada, since justice is largely within provincial jurisdiction.
Response Consistent with the response to recommendation No. 9, this recommendation is considered to be beyond the explicit legislated mandate of the Commission. Moreover, since justice is largely within provincial jurisdiction, it would be more appropriate for any such discussions/ negotiations to take place between Quebec and the Naskapis.
Response Canada signed bipartite Interim Policing Agreements with the Naskapis for 2000-2001 and 2001-2002. This occurred after the tabling of the CNC’s 2000 Report. The resolution of all policing issues necessarily involves the agreement of all three parties involved in policing: Quebec, Canada, and the Naskapi Nation. Canada has to date played a strongly facilitative role in resolving these issues, and provided its share of funding for the police station in March 2001.
Response The recommendation deals with issues far beyond those of local self-government for the Naskapis and thus is not within the explicit legislated mandate of the CNC. The mandate of the Nunavik Commission clearly states that "the mandate of the Nunavik Government shall not prejudice the rights of Crees or Naskapis as set out in the JBNQA and the NEQA." In its recent report, the Nunavik Commission, which includes representatives of Canada, "is convinced that the rights north of the 55th parallel of the ... Naskapi ... that have been fully recognized by the ... NEQA, are fully respected in the present report." On page 48 of the Commission’s Report, the Naskapis are described as expressing frustration over the failure of the Government of Canada to assist them in the protection of their rights in this area, although it is not specified in what respect the government has failed. It is clear from the Nunavik Commission’s mandate and its recent report that the parties, including Canada, are committed to protecting those rights and are convinced that these rights are being fully respected. Eeyou Self-Government
Response In 1995, the Government of Canada announced its new Approach to Implementation of the Inherent Right and the Negotiation of Aboriginal Self-Government, and has since been working with several Aboriginal groups in Canada to negotiate practical arrangements to give expression to this recognized Inherent Right of self-government. The Government of Canada would welcome a formal expression of interest from the Cree and/or Naskapi Nations to engage in similar discussions and negotiations leading to a redefinition of Cree and/or Naskapi self-government.
Response This recommendation appears to be directed to the Cree and Naskapi Nations, not to the Government of Canada, but its focus on the "treaties" and their enabling legislation would seem to be beyond the explicit legislated mandate of the Commission.
Response Note response to recommendation No. 13.
Response Note response to recommendation No. 13. James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and Northeastern Quebec Agreement
Response Note responses to recommendations Nos. 1 and 2.
Response This recommendation is considered to be beyond the explicit legislated mandate of the Commission. Nevertheless, as noted in response to recommendations Nos. 1 and 2, rigorous implemen-tation efforts are under way, and a symposium was convened by the parties in October 2001 to reflect on the first 25 years of the JBNQA.
Response This recommendation is considered to be beyond the explicit legislated mandate of the Commission. Nevertheless, the Government of Canada reports to Parliament annually on the imple-mentation of the JBNQA and the NEQA. We are also willing to explore the preparation of multi-party annual reports as is currently the trend for other, more recent, comprehen-sive land claims agreements. Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Funding
Response INAC and the Grand Council of the Crees are currently engaged in discussions and negotiations towards renewal of the O&M Agreement. Current federal O&M funding to the Crees amounts to over $44 million annually.
Response It is not clear why the Commission considers the current fiscal arrangements with the Crees and Naskapis to be deficient. The Government of Canada has gone out of its way to establish a stable and predictable funding relationship with the Crees and Naskapis based on block funding and grants. The resulting fiscal flexibility afforded to the Crees and Naskapis is considered to be fully consistent with the letter and intent of the CNA, and most appropriate to support "effective, orderly and meaningful self-government." Housing
Response In compliance with the JBNQA (section 2.12) and the NEQA (section 2.10), housing and associated funding are allocated to the Crees and Naskapis "on the same basis" as to other Indians of Canada, subject to the criteria established from time to time for the application of this program. In addition to the separate allocations received from the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the INAC subsidy for housing has been incorporated in the block-funded Community Capital Agreements with the Cree Regional Authority (CRA) (worth $9.9 million annually), and the Naskapi equivalent ($1,260,600). Block funding is con-sidered the most appropriate approach to funding self-governing First Nations, because it affords to the self-governing group the responsibility and flexibility to make the necessary decisions with the funds available. This flexibility was further enhanced under the New Housing Policy of 1997, under which the Crees received an infusion of $6.5 million.
Response In recognition of the health and safety risks evident with the housing stock of the Cree Nation of Chisasibi, $2.1 million in "Emergency Housing" funding was allocated to Chisasibi in March 2001. The Government of Canada continues to monitor the housing situation at Chisasibi, and other First Nations at risk. Economic Development and Employment
Response This recommendation pertaining to the JBNQA is considered to be beyond the explicit legislated mandate of the Commission. Nevertheless, much of the current implementation effort with the James Bay Cree, led by the Gagné-Namagoose process, is focussed on the provisions of JBNQA section 28. Indeed, in November 2001, Canada (HRDC and INAC) signed a major, five-year employ-ment and training agreement with the Cree, including $12 million for "special programs" related directly to section 28.9. Existing agreements and funding for essential sanitation services, fire protection, and Cree associations are similarly positive responses to section 28 provisions. Other similar agreements remain under negotiation. Capital Projects
Response Under the Community Capital Agreement with the CRA, the Crees receive block funding of $9.9 million annually. Block funding is considered the most appropriate approach to funding self-governing First Nations, because it affords the self-governing group the responsibility and flexibility to make the necessary decisions with the funds available. It is Canada’s view that this annual amount, especially considering the additional $80 million provided since 1993 for various capital initiatives, constitutes a sufficient base of resources to enable the Crees to meet their requirements. Discussions are under way towards renewing the longer-term Cree-Canada Community Capital Agreement, and towards addressing the provision of Community Centres under JBNQA 28.11.1a. Firearms Control Legislation
Response The CRA has included a proposal to this effect in the discussions towards a renewed O&M Agreement. There have also been useful discussions on this subject between the Canadian Firearms Centre (Justice Canada), the CRA, and the Cree Trappers’ Association (CTA). The subject remains under negotiation. Specific Community Concerns
Response This recommendation is considered to be beyond the explicit legislated mandate of the Commission, since it relates to the relocation of these communities during the construc-tion of the James Bay Hydro developments in the 1970s and has no bearing on the implementation of the CNA. Nemaska has requested an inquiry into the treatment of its people during the relocation and INAC has initiated research on the subject. No such request has been recorded from Waswanipi.
Response All Cree communities receive capital funding from the Government of Canada via a single, annual, block grant. It is then up to the Grand Council of the Cree and the CRA to allocate these resources against the identified needs and priorities of the individual Cree communities. This is fully consistent with the approach to local government and fiscal responsibility as contemplated by the CNA.
Response Washaw Sibi Eeyou is a group of JBNQA Cree beneficiaries who reside outside the boundaries of existing Cree communities, on territory covered by the JBNQA. The CNA was intended to provide for local government in the eight specified Cree commu-nities and does not imply any obligations to provide services to individuals who have chosen to live outside those communities. The situation of the Washaw Sibi Eeyou is therefore considered to be beyond the explicit legislated mandate of the Commission. Washaw Sibi Eeyou individuals receive some JBNQA benefits, including the Hunting, Fishing and Trapping Rights described in section 24 of the JBNQA, and Income Security Program benefits described in section 30 of the JBNQA. For example, they could benefit from activities of the CTA and would be eligible for programs such as HRDC special training programs under section 28.9.1 and 2. However, local government rights and provisions under section 9 and the CNA apply only to Category 1A lands, where the specified Cree communities are located. While INAC has in the past provided some funding to Washaw Sibi Eeyou for research purposes, there is no obligation under either the JBNQA or the CNA to provide further financial support.
Response Block ‘D’ is at the centre of a dispute between the Chisasibi Band and the Province of Quebec over title to the property on which the airstrip is located, and is therefore beyond the Commission’s mandate. The fact that the Block ‘D’ issue is purely within Quebec’s jurisdiction to resolve is confirmed by the inclusion in the Quebec-Cree Agreement-in-Principle of October 23, 2001, of a commitment by Quebec to transfer the land to Chisasibi. The current funding allocated for the operation and maintenance of the Chisasibi airstrip is based on Transport Canada’s recommendations, and is considered reasonable for the needs of such a facility. Implementation of and Amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act
Response This recommendation is directed to the Cree and Naskapi Nations, not the Government of Canada. Nevertheless, it is Canada’s view that amendments to the CNA should only be considered in the context of a broader-based review of self-government for the Cree and/or Naskapi peoples. As indicated in the response to recommendation No. 13, the Government of Canada would welcome a formal expression of interest from the Cree and/or Naskapi Nations to engage in discussions and negotiations of self-government in the context of the existing Inherent Right policy.
Response As provided under section 9.0.2 of the JBNQA, and section 7.2 of the NEQA, the CNA was drafted through discussions between Canada, the Crees, and the Naskapis. Implementation of the proposals in the Commission’s "discussion paper" would require amendments to the CNA, which in turn would require a renewed process of discussion among Canada, the Crees and the Naskapis. In order to launch such a process, the Crees and Naskapis should formally indicate their interest to Canada. As noted in the response to recommendation No. 32., the Government of Canada’s view is that any amendments to the CNA should be made in the context of a broader-based review of self-government for the Cree and/or Naskapi peoples, in the context of the government’s existing approach to Implementation of the Inherent Right and the Negotiation of Aboriginal Self-Government.
Response As provided under section 9.0.2 of the JBNQA, and section 7.2 of the NEQA, the CNA was drafted through discussions between Canada, the Crees, and the Naskapi. The Government of Canada agrees that any amendments to the CNA should follow the same approach. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada NN - 2001 |
|
Appendix II |
---|
|