:
[
Witness speaks in Cree]
First, I'd like to thank the members for this opportunity to speak in favour of Bill C-28. We are delighted that Bill C-28 received all-party support in the House of Commons on May 7 and was referred to the standing committee.
The amendments contained in this proposed legislation comply with those that it was agreed would be recommended in the 2008 Canada-Cree New Relationship Agreement. The amendments will put the Cree community of Oujé-Bougoumou on the same footing as the other Cree communities with respect to local governance, as was agreed to with both Canada and Quebec, and the amendments will bring about an evolution of Cree governance structures from those originally recognized and agreed to in the 1975 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.
The Cree community of Oujé-Bougoumou is composed of the families of Crees who once were known as the Doré Lake Crees and who, at the time of the negotiation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, had been forced by mining development to relocate to other Cree communities and to camps around the region of the town of Chibougamau.
At that time in the early 1970s, the parties to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement—the Crees, Canada, and Quebec—agreed to provide a just settlement for this community through subsequent discussions. These discussions culminated in the agreement in 1989 between Oujé-Bougoumou and Quebec and the Oujé-Bougoumou/Canada Agreement of 1992. Both these agreements dealt primarily with the long overdue construction of the community of Oujé-Bougoumou, but also provided for the integration of the Crees of Oujé-Bougoumou into the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.
However, several issues and controversies remained outstanding. In 1993, the Crees of Oujé-Bougoumou instituted distinct legal actions against Canada and Quebec respecting their aboriginal rights, their status, breach of trust by Canada and Quebec, and claims for damages, including those from the forced relocations.
Resolution of these claims with respect to Quebec was provided for in the Paix des braves agreement signed with the Government of Quebec in 2002. An out-of-court settlement was reached with Canada in 2008, pursuant to the Canada-Cree New Relationship Agreement. The Oujé-Bougoumou/Canada Agreement of 1992 contemplates specific amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act respecting Oujé-Bougoumou, and Bill C-28 satisfies this important undertaking of Canada.
The Cree governance structures set out in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement provided for the setting-up of a Cree Regional Authority under provincial legislation to oversee certain Cree responsibilities in respect to Cree involvement in regional governance and in regard to matters delegated to it by the Cree communities. Provisions in section 9 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement also provided for the incorporation of the Cree communities in federal legislation distinct from the Indian Act. The resulting Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act was the first local self-government legislation for aboriginal peoples in Canada, and it broke from the colonial tradition of the Indian Act.
The Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act was passed by Parliament in 1984 after several years of discussion between the parties and consultations with the Cree communities and the Naskapi Band. With great difficulty, a new funding regime was eventually put in place by Canada that was compatible with the assumption by the Cree communities of new responsibilities in respect to the planning priorities for their development and administration.
After adoption of the act, and to the present day, the Grand Council of the Crees of Quebec/Cree Regional Authority has acted as a forum for the concerted implementation of the act. It also continues to be the guarantor and protector of Cree rights. While the act opened the door for the assumption by the Cree communities of certain responsibilities concerning their development, there were still many aspects of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement that had not been properly implemented by Quebec and Canada.
It was the announcement by Quebec of its intention to build further hydroelectric development projects in the territory—and particularly the Great Whale hydroelectric project—that sparked the Crees in 1989 to take out a comprehensive court action that sought to stop the proposed developments and also sought the implementation of those numerous aspects of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement that had not been implemented by Canada and Quebec.
Without going into the details of the 1990s struggle of the Cree Nation, suffice it to say that in 2002 the Quebec-Cree new relationship agreement, also known as the Paix des braves, settled certain legal disputes between the Crees and Quebec. It also resolved immediate issues concerning certain hydroelectric developments and set a clear example for Canada with regard to the implementation of some of its obligations to the Crees under the same 1975 James Bay and Northern Quebec Treaty.
Under the Paix des braves, the Crees assumed responsibilities for certain of Quebec’s obligations under the 1975 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, and Quebec provided for the funding related to this for a period of 50 years. This largely resolved the lack of congruity between Quebec's priorities and programs and those of the Crees, which had largely been the cause of the legal disputes.
When Canada and the Crees entered into out-of-court discussions from 2005 to 2008, this model of devolving to the Crees the planning and setting of priorities for the certain of the obligations that were in dispute was found to be adaptable to the issues between the parties. However, Canada went further in accepting the Cree view that it was time once again for another step in the evolution of Cree government structures and responsibilities.
The last two whereas clauses of the Canada-Cree Agreement of 2008 state:
WHEREAS the Cree Nation and Canada seek to improve implementation of the James Bay and Northern Québec Agreement, to provide for the assumption by the Cree Nation of greater responsibility for Cree economic and community development, to provide for the achievement of increased autonomy, and to better respond to the traditions and needs of the Crees by ensuring that decisions respecting the Cree Nation will be made at a regional level;
WHEREAS the Cree Nation and Canada have been working and will continue to work cooperatively towards an agreement and conforming federal legislation relating to a Cree Nation Government with powers and authorities, to be negotiated, beyond the scope of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act;
Chapter 3 of the agreement also states a two-part program for the evolution of Cree governance. It states:
The purpose of this Chapter is twofold:
a. As a first step, Part 1, in order to better enable the CRA to receive and carry out the Assumed Federal JBNQA Responsibilities (as listed in Section 4.3 of this Agreement), to equip the CRA with by-law-making powers similar to those of the Cree bands under the CNQA, through proposed amendments to that Act;
b. As a second step, in Part 2, to set out a process for negotiations leading to a Governance Agreement, Governance Legislation and possible amendments to the JBNQA and to the CNQA concerning a Cree Nation Government with powers and authorities beyond the scope of the CNQA and its amendments in Part 1 of this Chapter. Such negotiations, if successful, would expand Cree Nation governance beyond the CNQA powers by establishing the structures and powers of a Cree Nation Government and the relationship of such Government with Cree bands and federal and provincial governments.
The amendments before you today in Bill accomplish part 1 of this program and are set out in chapter 3 of the new agreement. The discussions on part 2 are beginning, with the involvement of Canada, Quebec and the Crees. The intention is to present a new Cree Nation governance law for your consideration within three to five years.
In brief, the phase one amendments call for a recognition in the law of the following powers of the Cree Regional Authority: one, to pass bylaws that have force in the Cree communities and to provide for their public availability, and to provide for the passage of standards that exceed federal and provincial standards; two, these bylaws would include central sanitation services, housing, building use for regional governance, fire departments, protection of the environment, including natural resources; three, to manage funding and assets; four, to promote the welfare of the Crees and the Cree Bands; five, to preserve Cree culture, values and traditions; six, to assume certain federal responsibilities as may be agreed to; and finally, to empower the Eeyou-Eenou police force on category 1 lands.
Moreover, the agreement calls for Canada to consult the Crees on the amendments contained in Bill . Canada has done this, and we are satisfied that the requirements of the agreement will be met by the proposed amendments, once passed by Parliament.
In fact, we commend the representatives at the Department of Justice for the courteous and insightful manner in which they have carried out their work in consultation with us. Moreover, both Canada and the Crees have consulted the Inuit through their representative organization, the Makivik Corporation, and also both parties have consulted the Naskapi Band. From both the Inuit and the Naskapi Band, we have received assurances that they accept and do not object to the amendments and that their rights are rendered safe and untouched by them.
We are pleased to answer any questions you may have.
First of all, Mr. Chair, I bring greetings from Grand Chief Matthew Mukash and Deputy Grand Chief Ashley Iserhoff. They were unable to make it today because they are practising their traditional way of life on the land, goose hunting. It's that time of year in our nation. Chief Louise Wapachee is out on the land also practising a traditional way of life. Some of us get to preserve our culture, and so I'm here on their behalf.
Also, as you know, Oujé-Bougoumou is part of the Cree Nation. James O'Reilly may have some comments with respect to this presentation.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
It has been a long time since I've been before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. I've been working as a lawyer in regard to various Indian rights and claims for 43 years now. I was involved with the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Prior to that I had quite a huge battle with the Quebec government, the federal government, and Hydro-Québec.
This is a culmination of a very long quest for the Crees of Oujé-Bougoumou. As Mr. Namagoose has just told you, Chief Wapachee and Mr. Abel Bosum, who was chief for quite a while during the long trek, are out practising their traditional way of life. Unfortunately, you just have me as the witness for Oujé-Bougoumou. But I have been intimately involved in virtually every step of the way since the early 1980s.
It's not often that I can commend the justice department, because I've been locked in vicious battles with Canada throughout the land, in litigation in particular. In this instance, certainly in the last number of years, there has been exemplary cooperation. I point this out to your committee because sometimes, if the initiative were to come from Canada rather than having to come all the time from the aboriginal peoples, you might be amazed at the results.
Often Canada has a defensive position because it's attacked in court. Usually people go to court because they just can't come to agreements or compromises, because the parties are too far apart in principle. I suggest to your committee, in its work, that you consider asking the Department of Justice whether it shouldn't be taking a real advocacy role far more often. By advocacy role, I mean initiating the process. Don't wait for the aboriginal peoples, and for people to say, “Well, we're too far apart.” That's a personal recommendation that I've been wanting to make for a long time.
This is an example. The Oujé-Bougoumou were scattered throughout northern Quebec.
[Translation]
I believe that the Bloc Québécois members are the ones most concerned here because this involves their territory. They know that none of these battles were easy.
No one recognized them — except for the Cree Nation. Since the 1980s, they have made tremendous efforts to integrate themselves, to fit under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, along with their brothers and sisters from the other communities.
[English]
In terminating, I want to thank, this very rare time, the lawyers from the Department of Justice and the external lawyer, Ms. Deborah Corber, whom the Department of Justice hired. These were tough technical positions to have to try to refine in legalese, or legal language, but they accomplished it, and in a cooperative spirit. Maybe this is a new dawn, as I'm about to trod off to other areas, but certainly I think that one of the keys to better solutions for relationships between Canada and the aboriginal peoples of Canada is a cooperative spirit, which is exemplified here, in regard to the Department of Justice and the Government of Canada as a whole.
With that, and reiterating what Mr. Namagoose has said in his presentation, I will say that Oujé-Bougoumou is strongly in favour of . Have no doubt about it, they've been wanting to have this day come--and the day when Bill C-28 will be, hopefully, proclaimed into law--for a long time. The complementary agreement is virtually finished. You see the parallel in the complementary agreement and Bill C-28. Parliament will have the chance, when it is filed in Parliament, for approval through a negative resolution to review the complementary agreement if there are any concerns whatsoever with it.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is indeed a pleasure to come back.
If I may respond, Mr. Chairman, I have thought about this for a long time. I worked on a committee in 1989 for the Canadian Bar Association. As I've said often, there isn't equal justice for Indian people in Canada.
You point to a very fundamental problem in regard to land claims--what they call land claims or land rights. I think the tribunal will help, although I think there are some real problems about getting it started. But what happens is that in the United States there had been this idea that a department of the government should in effect advocate the interests and rights of aboriginal peoples even within the department. You know that the courts have said, okay, the crown wears many hats. Fine, but why can't one of those hats be a specific group whose job, whose vocation, is to take the side of the Indian people with the rest of the crown, with the rest of the government?
The crown is the defendant in litigation. I've had a lot of experience in this. Fine, it will keep all of its rights, its recourses, its remedies. The battle will be there. But when it comes time for negotiation, there seems to be a great difficulty to have anybody acknowledge that compromises must be found, that there must be reconciliation.
How does this great reconciliation principle get applied in practice? That is one of your most fundamental problems, and I think it will happen by asking somebody in the department--not necessarily even an ombudsman, just somebody in government who's charged with initiating this reconciliation or trying to reconcile this. That would be my suggestion to the committee.
:
Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I would provide the following explanation.
Under the agreements between the Oujé-Bougamou and Quebec in 1989 and 1992, it was established that in order to make room for Oujé-Bougoumou, those who were considered to be Mistissini at the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement would henceforth be considered as belonging to the Oujé-Bougoumou, and that on that basis certain lands would be taken from the Mistissini, with their accord, in order to be annexed to Oujé-Bougoumou.
Over time, it became known that the Mistissini had other problems. There was not complete agreement as to when all of this was to take place. The government of Quebec therefore accepted that these lands not be withdrawn from the Mistissini and that that community take the time it needed to resolve these problems. It was agreed that if an agreement were eventually reached, the parties would meet once again.
As we speak — and this is the basis for this Bill —, these lands have not been withdrawn from the Mistissini, this community has maintained all of its rights and remedies, and Quebec has accepted to give the government of Canada the 100 km2 of category 1A lands. Therefore, if the Mistissini problems are resolved, there will be no transfer. Oujé-Bougoumou will officially have the use of category 1A lands, and the issue will have been resolved once and for all.
Thus, the Oujé-Bougoumou situation will have been resolved, but without causing the slightest injury to the Mistissini. At one time, there was some compatibility between the parties. The Mistissini even participated in the discussions. However, they wanted to resolve certain problems which, I recognize, were very important. It remains that it was their choice. The Oujé-Bougoumou and the Grand Council declared that they had been waiting since the 1980s and that they could not wait another 5, 10 or 15 years. I think that it was very fair for everyone.
:
Essentially, what we had originally was local police forces in each of the communities. This is pursuant to the original provisions of section 19 of the James Bay Treaty. Eventually over the years, we realized that some of the issues and services dealt with by the police were better dealt with at the regional level and that more coordination was required between the communities to deliver some of the services, including investigative work, dispatching, things like that.
Basically, what Mr. Namagoose is saying is that, in 2002 with the Paix des braves and 2008 with the new relationship agreement with the federal government, there was a commitment to amalgamate the local police forces into a regional police force. This commitment has now been enshrined in a complementary agreement to the James Bay agreement, under essentially a revision of section 19 provisions, to provide for this establishment of the regional police at the regional level.
This complementary agreement has been signed. It needs to be put into legislation at the Quebec level, the provincial level. The Quebec Police Act was amended by Bill 54 last year. The bill has passed; it needs to come into force now at the date of the amalgamation of these local police forces.
The counterpart to the provincial legislation is essentially a section of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, section 194, which now will recognize the regional character of the Cree police force, which will have jurisdiction in all the communities on category 1A lands and around those communities. This amendment, in section 28 of the amending legislation, was essentially to recognize that regional—
:
(Amendment agreed to [See
Minutes of Proceedings])
(Clause 9 as amended agreed to)
(Clauses 10 to 33 inclusive agreed to)
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill as amended carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the chair report the bill as amended to the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: That's it.
Members, we appreciate your understanding and cooperation this morning. I would just add a reminder to subcommittee members before we adjourn that we are going to have a brief meeting to discuss committee business.
We'll adjourn this meeting.
Have a good morning. Bonne fin de semaine.