AAND Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, October 27, 1998

• llll

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—James Bay—Nunavik, Lib.)): Good morning. I'd like to welcome the representatives of the Cree-Naskapi Commission. Pursuant to Standing Order 32(5), we will today be studying the 1998 Report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission.

The Cree-Naskapi Commission is represented by Mr. Richard Saunders, Acting President; Mr. Robert Kanatewat, Commissioner; Mr. Philip Awashish, Commissioner; and Mr. Brian Shawana, Director General.

Mr. Saunders, I invite you to make your statement now, and then I will ask Mr. Kanatewat and Mr. Awashish to speak.

[English]

Mr. Richard Saunders (Chairman, Cree-Naskapi Commission): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

We will be quite brief in our opening statement so that we can deal with questions from the members.

First, I would like to give a very brief background on what this commission is all about and why we are here.

As members may know, on November 11, 1975, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was signed between the Government of Canada and the Cree of northern Quebec. Subsequently, on June 31, 1978, the Northeastern Quebec Agreement was signed with the Naskapi nation, near Schefferville, in northeastern Quebec.

Under both of those agreements, the government undertook to bring in self-government legislation to replace the Indian Act in relation to the Cree and Naskapi nations.

On June 8, 1984, the Cree-Naskapi Act was proclaimed, which provided, among other things, for self-government powers for the Cree and Naskapi, and for virtually all purposes replaced the Indian Act.

One of the provisions of the Cree-Naskapi Act was the establishment of a commission, the Cree-Naskapi Commission, which was to be nominated by the Cree and Naskapi nations of northern Quebec and appointed by Order in Council.

The first commissioners—and this included Robert Kanatewat, me, and Judge Réjean Paul—were appointed in February of 1986. Judge Paul has left us, and I have subsequently been appointed chairman. Last November, Philip Awashish was appointed to the commission.

The principal duties of the commission are to prepare a report for tabling in Parliament every two years on the implementation of the self-government legislation—namely, the Cree-Naskapi Act. So each second year we table this report in Parliament. This is the present one.

The picture, which somebody was asking me about, is Chisasibi, Robert's community, under the northern lights and the Hale-bopp comet. That's not a minister going down in flames or anything; that's the comet.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Can you tell us whether a Cree took that photograph, and what his name is?

[English]

Mr. Richard Saunders: It was one of the members of the community, actually, named Jimmy Sam.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): That's a beautiful picture.

Mr. Richard Saunders: We prepare a report on implementation of the act every second year. This is our sixth biannual report.

We also have a duty to hear representations and complaints from individuals and organizations, first nations themselves, and so on, about the exercise of powers under the act and the carrying out of duties under the act.

• 1115

This is the first time we've appeared before this committee. Generally, we have tabled our report in Parliament. The minister receives it and she tables it in Parliament. The act provides for no further action.

One of the problems we've identified, and the communities have identified, is that there isn't much action on our previous reports, and that's been a problem.

Earlier this year we met with the chairman and requested a meeting here. We've also requested a meeting with the Senate committee. Senator Charlie Watt has agreed to that also.

We hope to highlight some of the main points in our report, and we hope this committee will see fit to review our findings and our recommendations and to hopefully ensure that some action on them follows.

I'll wrap up quickly and pass this over to my colleagues.

The report basically contains information about the successes as well as the concerns arising out of the implementation of the Cree-Naskapi Act. We deal with the issue of our own jurisdiction, which we haven't addressed before. Many people have spoken to us about the problem that they have no redress if they have a concern about the implementation of the agreements, the James Bay agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, so they frequently turn to us. We have examined the act in some detail to see if we have any jurisdiction in that area. We believe we have some very limited jurisdiction, and it's our responsibility to fulfil that.

It also deals with some overall structural and legislative change that we think might be appropriate. I expect members will be interested in that area in particular. The act has not been amended, of course, since it was passed, and there's a need for some updating.

Finally, we look at some of the very specific problems that have arisen in relation to implementation. Those are detailed in the report. My colleagues will highlight a couple of them.

Our process has been somewhat constrained by financial limits. Travelling in the north of Canada, as members of this committee well know, is expensive. We have not had an increase in our budget since 1992.

The government, in compliance with the act, after we had been around for five years—in other words, 1990—appointed the Cowie inquiry, chaired by Ian Cowie. It was to look into the work of the commission. The act required it to look into the work of the commission and report.

For the information of members, we have copies of this available. They did suggest many things, including that our budget be enlarged substantially. In fact, they alleged that its limitations were an intentional thing on the part of the Indian Affairs bureaucracy, to contain the commission and prevent it from functioning very effectively.

In this particular year, we have not been able to have as many hearings with as many people as we thought appropriate. That has been because of financial reasons. We raised the problem with the minister twice.

I must go on the record and say that in terms of the current fiscal year's difficulties, her staff informs us that she has agreed to an additional $150,000 in the current fiscal year so that we can discharge our duties properly for the remaining six months. We were at the situation where we wouldn't have been able to respond to representations as we are required to under the act. She has, to her credit, dealt with that problem in the current fiscal year.

Our financial problems continue in coming years, and negotiations are currently under way between our staff and departmental officials to deal with it. We have raised that issue with the minister too, and we hope she deals with it the way she dealt with this year's problem—that is, to solve it.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Forgive me, Mr. Saunders.

[English]

Can you tell me what your budget is right now?

Mr. Richard Saunders: Yes. We had asked for $1.37 million per year, and the department has offered $645,000.

• 1120

The minister said, okay, we're in a very tight financial situation, so what is your absolute bottom line? Never mind what you'd like to do, but just to carry out your bare legislative responsibilities, what do you need?

We told her $850,000, and we're hopeful that she'll deal with that.

Mr. Chairman, I think I've taken enough time. I'd like to at this point call on my colleague, Mr. Philip Awashish, to continue the presentation.

Thank you.

Mr. Philip Awashish (Commissioner, Cree-Naskapi Commission): Meegwetch.

[Witness speaks in his native language]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the standing committee. I extend my best regards to you all and hope that things go well with you people, also in your duties and responsibilities within Parliament.

I think it's important that I explain the situation prior to the modern-day treaties—that is, prior to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement.

Prior to these agreements, the Cree and Naskapi exercised their own form of self-government, an inherent right of self-government. This was exercised in accordance with traditional Cree and Naskapi laws.

The Indian Act came along, which was of course an act enacted by the Parliament of Canada, and established some type of formal regime for local governments in which chief and councils were elected in accordance with the terms of the Indian Act. The Minister of Indian Affairs, of course, exercised tremendous authority under the Indian Act.

As far as the Cree were concerned and the Naskapi, as they've been saying, the Indian Act prior to the agreements restricted the exercise of self-government. It restricted the exercise of self-government simply because the Minister of Indian Affairs had too much authority over Indians, and Indian lands.

When the Cree signed the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, they were a population of 6,000 Cree. In 1998 the population is about double that, and now there are about 12,000 Cree spread over nine Cree communities. There is one Naskapi community. The Cree-Naskapi Act, then, applies to ten aboriginal communities—nine Cree communities and one Naskapi community.

As the chairman of the Cree-Naskapi Commission stated, the Cree-Naskapi Act is the legislation provided for by section 9 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and section 7 of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement. It is a special federal act that provides for the governance and administration of category IA lands and category IA-N lands.

• 1125

These modern-day treaties, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, provide for the categorization of lands into category I, II, and III lands. These agreements cover a wide territory in northern Quebec.

All the Cree-Naskapi communities are located in what is called category I lands, particularly category IA lands. Category IA lands are under federal jurisdiction. This is where the Cree-Naskapi Act applies. It provides for the administration and governance of these lands. It provides for the governing authority and jurisdiction of local governments. It is special legislation, which, in the view of the Cree-Naskapi peoples, first nation peoples, recognizes their inherent right of self-government.

The Cree-Naskapi Act provides for a commission, the Cree-Naskapi Commission. When the Cree and Naskapi parties negotiated their respective sections providing for the Cree-Naskapi Act, the Cree and Naskapi parties, of course, negotiated with the Government of Canada the terms and provisions of the Cree-Naskapi Act. They insisted on a process whereby the exercise of self-government, local self-government, can be monitored, reviewed, and evaluated by the parties. So the Cree-Naskapi Commission was created to oversee the implementation of the Cree-Naskapi Act.

As our chairman mentioned, the commission reports on the implementation of the act. It is an advisory body created by special legislation. The commission prepares a biannual report every two years, in four languages, which we submit to the Minister of Indian Affairs, who tables the report in the House of Commons.

The act itself provides for a special review of the commission, and of the act itself, in some ways. This inquiry, as our chairman mentioned, was conducted by Ian Cowie, another commissioner. In 1989, a report from the inquiry was tabled. As far as we know, the recommendations of the inquiry report have not been acted upon in any meaningful or positive way.

We are aware that the Department of Indian Affairs has conducted a review of the Indian Act, which, of course, doesn't apply to the Cree-Naskapi any more, in a general way. The Cree-Naskapi Act replaces the Indian Act. However, the Department of Indian Affairs did conduct a review of the Indian Act, called the “land, revenues and trust review”. In 1986 the Auditor General reported on this review.

• 1130

The review of the Indian Act cost the Government of Canada approximately $21 million, and yet there hasn't been a formal review of the Cree-Naskapi Act itself to see how the act could be amended in such a way that reflects the present situation and reality of Cree and Naskapi local governments. There clearly is a need for the Cree-Naskapi Act to evolve with the exercise and present conduct of local governments within the Cree and Naskapi communities.

The Cree-Naskapi Commission has conducted a public consultation process. Our report, which I believe each member of this standing committee has, is the result of our public consultation process with all the communities.

We conduct public hearings in each community when we can. The people speak out. It's not simply a consultation process with local governments; it's also a consultation process with local people. We have to report on what representatives of both local governments and local members of the community are saying. And as I've said before, there are ten communities involved, nine Cree communities and one Naskapi community.

Because the Cree-Naskapi people speak on many issues, the major complaint we hear, as commissioners, from the Cree-Naskapi people is the failure of the governments to respect the terms and provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement.

They speak on a need for a full and proper implementation of these agreements.

They speak on the need for federal legislation, such as the Cree-Naskapi Act, as I've said before, to evolve with the present situation and realities in the conduct and exercise of self-government, of local government, within the Cree-Naskapi communities.

They speak on the need to review the role of this commission, the Cree-Naskapi Commission, that it must have an effective voice, and an effective role, so that the Cree-Naskapi people may exercise their inherent right to self-government in a manner that fits their own needs, their own situation, and their own reality.

The Cree-Naskapi Commission must have a continuing role, of course, in overseeing the exercise and conduct of self-government as envisaged in the Cree-Naskapi Act and, of course, in the modern-day treaties, the Northeastern Quebec Agreement and the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

• 1135

They say they have their own particular community problems they wish to stress to the governments. The government provides for certain funding to the local governments and administrations for the exercise of administration and governance over category IA lands. Funding arrangements are done through what is called the “operations and maintenance” funding agreements. These funding agreements need to be reviewed so that they meet the present needs, requirements, and realities of these Cree and Naskapi governments.

The report deals with the need for improvement in the Cree-federal relations to resolve jurisdictional problems that exist between Quebec, the Government of Canada and Cree governments. There are also outstanding territorial issues.

Economic development is one issue that has also been raised by the Cree-Naskapi communities. They have stated that the economic development sections of their modern-day treaties have not been implemented. They feel they are left out of economic development within their own lands, and that corporations and governments exercise the politics of denial—denial of rights to participate in the economic development; denial to benefit from economic development.

People are not saying that they oppose economic development as a principle but that they oppose economic development conducted in an irrational and irresponsible manner from an economic, environmental, social, moral, and legal perspective.

Oujé-Bougoumou Cree first nations want to be recognized as a band under the Cree-Naskapi Act, in accordance with their own needs and desires. The Naskapi people have their own specific concerns.

We have set forth, in our 1998 report, 41 recommendations. Clearly, as our chairman has said, we are calling upon the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development to see that these recommendations are properly considered and acted upon by the Government of Canada.

I have mentioned that this commission has a continuing responsibility to see to the proper implementation of the Cree-Naskapi Act. Some of the Cree-Naskapi people within their own respective communities also have spoken on the role and mandate of this commission.

At this point, then, I'll call upon my colleague, Robert Kanatewat, to finish the presentation.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Awashish.

• 1140

Would it be possible for the members to go and vote in the House of Commons and then come back for your statement, Mr. Kanatewat?

Mr. Robert Kanatewat (Commissioner, Cree-Naskapi Commission): Oh, definitely.

The Chairman: Thank you very much.

[Translation]

We will leave all of our documents here. We will be gone for about 15 or 20 minutes.

• 1141

• 1318

The Chairman: We will resume our hearing, interrupted because of an unforeseen vote. We do apologize for this interruption, Mr. Chairman, Commissioners. Some members have to be at other meetings but they will joining us as soon as they possibly can.

I will now once again give the floor to Mr. Robert Kanatewat, who was in his youth the Grand Chief of Fort George and is today a member of the Commission; he will be sharing the fruits of his experience with us.

[English]

Mr. Robert Kanatewat: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Witness speaks in his native language].

Good day, members of the committee. I wish you all good health. The things that I want to express to the committee are the concerns and local concerns of the various communities that we have established.

Part of that has to do with the accessibility and visibility in the communities. And for a lot of that, of course, in the various communities, the grand council, the CRA chiefs themselves, the grand chief, and even the Minister of Indian Affairs have already indicated that we are not visible enough in the communities, and we would like to be.

• 1320

Of course, one visit every two years is not enough, but actually the things we do gather over that course of time do fall on deaf ears most of the time. That's why a new commissioner was established in November, and for the first time in a long line, we had a full commission. It states in the act that you need three commissioners. Previously we had only two and ended up with one at the very end.

From here on in, we presume that it will continue to have three commissioners, which is what it states in the Cree-Naskapi Act. With this, we will more or less do our utmost to fulfil the concerns and aspirations of the Cree-Naskapi people.

With this in mind, we have a lot of difficulties with our role as a commission, basically due to the fact of how limited the role is. In the act it states only that we will report to the government every two years and that we should hear representations from the local communities and also from the government, if there are any.

A lot of that hasn't been fulfilled because of a lack of funding, and a lot of that needs to be clarified with a new revision of the act. To a great extent, it needs to be amended. There are presently no formal dispute processes to resolve these problems and the various problems that come from the communities. There's a big gap between the negotiations and the mediation process. Therefore, we need to amend these acts in order to be more precise about what the government likes to know about what Crees would like to have the commission do.

Many of the communities of course do express in general the fact that our mandate should be expanded, that we should not only report every two years, but also should act as mediators in the course of disputes between the government and the Cree and Naskapi. Obviously this whole trend was also reported in the Cowie inquiry report. Our role is so limited and we have a very limited amount of resources. If our mandate were to expand, we would probably be able to do more.

As my colleagues have already indicated to the committee, we do have a lot of problems, not only financial but also in regard to responsibilities. The mandate we have is so limited and could more or less be adjusted to expand in the sense of fulfilling the needs of the Cree people.

Of course, in regard to this lack of process that I was talking about previously, the Crees look at the commission as their last resort in solving their problems. Of course we've had various reports over the years, and in 1991 we also stressed the fact that they need elder and youth participation to address their problems in the community.

• 1325

Some communities did establish these formations of elders and youth and some of that process caused a little conflict between the band councils and so on because of lack of initiative and lack of process. And over the years, of course, to a certain extent, it has been amended a little to resolve this situation.

Also, I'd like to stress the fact of the offshore islands, that people are concerned because of this new territory that's going to be created in 1999, which will be called Nunavut. It used to be the Northwest Territories and it's going to be renamed as a new area that will be called Nunavut. And of course, as you know, there are a lot of islands in James Bay and in part of Hudson Bay that the Cree people are very much concerned with, for over the years they have been using them for their traditional activities in all four seasons, fall, winter, spring and summer. A lot of these islands were used for hunting purposes. A lot of them were used for shelters. And a lot of them were used for traditional pursuits. Sometimes nature had taken the life out of the islands, but it also gave a lot of life to those people using the islands.

We have learned to use those islands more extensively than in the past, and we have learned to cultivate in the sense of taking what's available for our resources in fishing, hunting, and trapping. As a matter of fact, down at the very bottom of James Bay, towards the Waskaganish territory or area, there is a big island called Charlton Island, and there is a trapline there that belongs to one of the community members of Waskaganish, which of course will be of deep concern to the people of Waskaganish, and in particular to that family that owns the trapline.

And for this purpose—the extensive use by the Cree of those islands—they would like to maintain that and have it recognized as part of the Cree territory. I, for one, don't think that the Inuit in general are very much concerned with it, especially down at the bottom of James Bay where those islands are. I don't think they are very much concerned about owning them. They have never been in that area and I don't think they'll ever be there in the future.

As for the other things, like the visibility I was talking about, in general we would like to be more responsive to the Cree people in their local communities, especially in regard to some things. Even though we cannot touch the internal problems of the local communities, we still attempt to see that they are directed properly to the proper authorities, and by any means. We would like to direct them—not necessarily correct them—to the proper channels. We can't touch any internal disputes, but that doesn't mean we cannot direct individuals to the proper channels they should be able to follow.

And obviously, with this visibility in the communities, we need financing. Like we were talking about a while ago, when our chairman mentioned the financial situation, it does require a lot of financing to be able to fulfil the necessities and the requirements in the community as a whole. We, in turn, can progress more by addressing ourselves to the communities more than we have in the past.

• 1330

Of course, it was also mentioned that this is our sixth annual report and the first time we have ever appeared in front of the committee. After our previous reports, nobody really did anything to correct the recommendations or the problems the people encounter. In turn, as a whole, the people at the local level are wondering why they created a commission if it's not going to follow any of their recommendations. Why would they want to establish something that was just going to be ignored?

We intend to do some part of the follow-up in our report in order for people to be much more able to address this and see the light about what the local people are concerned about. We cannot fully address a lot of the things that the local people are concerned with in this short period of time, but in general, overall, they—especially all those people who don't have the opportunity to come and express themselves in an open dialogue like we have—have a lot of commitments they would like us to proceed with.

Part of this has to do with the fact that they rely on their leaders—and we also look forward to meeting the chiefs of the various communities in the next day or so—to address the concerns of the local grievances.

Also, I hope that this committee will adhere to what we have established and reported here.

We look forward to you asking us questions so we can more or less directly pinpoint the concerns we have.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Kanatewat. We were impressed by what you had to say. We are here to try to find solutions.

I'll now give the floor to Mr. Bachand and we will begin the first round of questions.

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Interruptions like the one we had today are a bit difficult to deal with, but what can you do, it's just one of those things that crop up in political life on Parliament Hill. Before we were interrupted, I had written down a series of questions, but when we returned, Mr. Chairman, my slip of paper had disappeared. I had to prepare another series of questions. Fortunately, I had kept them in my own mental computer.

The Chairman: Congratulations, Mr. Bachand, you have a good memory.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Saunders, the documents I have in hand indicate that you are the Acting Chairman of the Commission. I know that it took some time before appointments to the Commission were made by the Governor in Council. I wonder if you are the chairman currently and whether as we speak all commissioners have been duly appointed by the Governor General.

Secondly, I'd like to talk about the matter of the islands. I believe Mr. Kanatewat had raised this question which is of concern to the Cree. I share that concern because Nunavut is asking for the islands that are quite close to the Quebec Coast. I feel that those islands should be part of Inuit territory or of the territory of the Quebec Cree. You seem to say that negotiations are ongoing and I would like a status report. Are the discussions ongoing and do short or medium-term agreements seem possible? In other words, I'd like to know what the situation is with regard to the Belcher Islands and the islands in Ungava Bay and James Bay that are being claimed.

Mr. Awashish, you also emphasized the importance of amending the law. I believe I understood that the time may have come to stop talking about funding issues once and for all. You mentioned the creation of a secretariat and recommended that the Commission play a more important role. Would you like to see amendments along those lines or would you like us to go even further than that? I would like you to describe the type of amendment you would like to see us incorporate into the Act. I understand your wanting to modernize the Act since it does go back a certain number of years.

• 1335

In June 1998 a Canada-Cree consultation committee was set up. What type of discussions were held? For instance, did you try to convince the Minister to increase funding or amend the Act? I would like you to give us a brief overview of the type of discussions that are held at the Cree-Canada table, if discussions take place. I have seen cases where consultation committees were set up, but no discussions were held. And finally, could you describe the current status of this group and the things that are said there?

[English]

Mr. Richard Saunders: What we'll do, Mr. Chairman, is feel free to respond to any questions. We'll also try to be brief, since we don't want to take up too much of your time.

To answer the first question from Mr. Bachand concerning our status as commissioners, Philip Awashish and Robert Kanatewat were appointed as commissioners to a four-year term last November, so their terms will expire in November 1999.

I was appointed interim chair to fill out the term of Judge Paul, whose term expired this past July 14. Prior to that, the minister wrote a letter to the Cree and Naskapi leadership responding to their nomination of myself as regular chair, indicating that she would ask for an Order in Council to make that official. We haven't seen it yet. I understand it's in process in the Privy Council Office. The minister has indicated that she intends to have it done. That was back in June, I believe. The wheels over there at PCO turn rather slowly, I understand.

Very quickly, both of my colleagues are walking encyclopedias on this issue of the offshore, but I just want to say one thing about where we come from as a group, as a commission, on the offshore islands. There are a number of issues relating to the offshore.

There is a Cree issue. It is traditional Cree territory. It was not covered by the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, but it remains traditional Cree territory. And our issue is to respond to what the Cree are telling us.

Now, we fully understand that there are issues between Quebec and the federal government about whether some or all of those islands should be within the province of Quebec or whether they should remain within the Northwest Territories, the area soon to become the territory of Nunavut. We understand that those are important issues. We don't deny that at all.

Our concern, however, is not really to become involved in that particular federal-provincial issue. Our concern is to pass along the fact that the Cree have a traditional interest there—for the lawyers in the crowd, they have usufructuary rights there—and they want those to be dealt with.

A few years ago, the minister at the time, Judd Buchanan, wrote a letter to the grand chief indicating that the government was quite prepared to discuss these issues. The discussions have not gone forward, so far as I know, but both Robert and Philip will have a lot more detail on that.

Insofar as amendments to the act are concerned, as one of my colleagues mentioned, there was a process to look at necessary amendments to the Indian Act. Many millions of dollars were spent on that process. Regrettably, there was not a consensus among all first nations in Canada about exactly what amendments were needed. And that's understandable: there are 600-odd first nations. Consensus was hard to achieve and that process is wherever it is.

In the case of the Cree-Naskapi Act, there are only ten bands involved and there is a very broad measure of consensus on a number of amendments that are needed, one to incorporate Oujé-Bougoumou, a Cree nation, and another to deal with the question of quorums that are required under the act to do things like long-term borrowing and so forth. There are a number of issues on which pretty well everybody agrees.

• 1340

There are probably a few other ideas that would come up in this session on which there might not be full consensus, but I think there's enough consensus that there ought to be some amendments considered by the government. We've talked about that in our report.

Robert, do you want to say something about the offshore and all these issues? And then Philip?

Mr. Robert Kanatewat: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

On the offshore islands issue, I, for one, would stress the fact—which I've already indicated—of at least saying that these islands were used by the Cree in general, particularly in the James Bay area and in part of Hudson Bay.

But, Mr. Bachand, you didn't mention the Belcher Islands. There is an Inuit community right on those islands. The Cree will not, more or less, go to the extent of saying we want that to be part of our territory. We're not concerned about mentioning the Belcher Islands being part of the Cree uses of land. We're mainly concerned especially with James Bay, where we have islands, and with part of Hudson Bay near the shore. One of them is called Long Island and the other one is, I believe, near Great Whale or Poste-de-la-Baleine, whatever you want to call it—it's Whapmagoostui in Cree—and those are mainly the islands that the Cree are concerned about. Because of the occupancy by the Inuit of the Belchers, we're not going to fight over something that we won't be able to get.

As for the other islands, which I believe the chairman did describe quite extensively in the other questions you have already mentioned, I just want to say that the people in general are very much concerned about losing them for the benefit of the usage of hunting and occupancy and so on, and for that, I will let my other colleague answer.

Mr. Philip Awashish: I'd like to address the question of amendments to the act. I did mention that the act needs to be amended so that it reflects the present situation and realities of the local governments, that is, the Cree-Naskapi governments.

We have mentioned that the act was enacted in 1984. In fact, the act has been enforced for 14 years and there haven't been any amendments to the act. The act is meant to evolve with self-government, with the conduct and exercise of self-government in the Cree and local communities.

In general, the objectives of amending the act are the following: first, to remove the barriers or impediments in the decision-making processes of the local administrations and local governments; second, to improve and simplify the process for amending the act.

After 14 years of the act, the fact that it has not been amended means, I think, that it is certainly a long and difficult process. I don't know how long it will take to amend the act, but it certainly.... One thing we know is that it requires appropriate action by the Government of Canada, which enacted this act.

• 1345

Also, the act needs to be amended to enable and improve law enforcement. Local police forces face certain problems of jurisdiction when they are enforcing law and restoring law and order within the Cree communities.

In regard to the land that's been categorized, like I've said, the territories categorized them, Categories I, II, III. There are some lands under federal jurisdiction and some under provincial jurisdiction. The Cree-Naskapi claim that it's their land, that it's under their jurisdiction also.

The act also needs to be amended in order to incorporate the Oujé-Bougoumou Cree Nation. There are nine Cree communities. Eight of them have been incorporated as bands under the Cree-Naskapi Act. The Oujé-Bougoumou Cree Nation is the only Cree Nation that's not a band yet under the Cree-Naskapi Act.

The act also needs to be amended in order to improve the effectiveness of the Cree-Naskapi Commission. My colleagues and I have spoken about the problems with respect to the role and mandate of the commission. The commission is an advisory body. That's the end result of the negotiations between the Cree-Naskapi parties and the Government of Canada; what ended up in the Cree-Naskapi Act is an advisory body called the Cree-Naskapi Commission, which oversees the implementation of the act.

As my colleague Robert Kanatewat said, we certainly must question—and the people have questioned—the role and mandate of this commission. If it is an advisory body, then its advice, its recommendations, must be acted upon appropriately by the government so that the conduct and exercise of the right to self-government, the exercise and conduct and practice of local government, can evolve. It is evolving at the local level, but its evolution is not conforming with the act. The act needs to be amended so that it conforms with the present exercise of local governments.

If you want particular details, we have chapter 11 in our report, which talks about the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. Quorum provisions are a problem. They're a barrier to the efficiency of decision making. The quorums are too high for people to meet. There are taxation provisions which cause a problem to the Cree-Naskapi beneficiaries of the agreements. There are policing problems, which I've mentioned. There are the authority of the Cree-Naskapi Commission—and I've also mentioned what the problem was there—and the incorporation of the Oujé-Bougoumou Cree Nation and the provisions for amending the act.

Surely there has to be a process which makes it easier to amend the act. As it is, it's very difficult, as history has proven. To this day, the act has not been amended, in spite of the recommendations of this commission, the sixth report of the commission, and after an inquiry which was called for by the act—the Cowie report or the Cowie inquiry on the commission—which also recommended amendments to the act.

So after six reports of this commission and a report by the inquiry which called for amendments to the act, the Government of Canada has so far not acted in a positive manner to amend the act accordingly so it evolves with the present situation and reality of local governments in the Cree-Naskapi communities.

• 1350

I also wanted to make a comment on the Cree-Canada round-table discussions. For the commission, this is a recent process that was agreed upon by the Cree chiefs and the Government of Canada. We understand that this Canada-Cree round table is meant to establish a new, beneficial and working relationship between the Cree and the Government of Canada. The round table is to establish a new relationship between the Cree first nations and the Government of Canada. It's a new process which has started, as far as we know.

There was an initial meeting of the round table of the Cree chiefs and the Government of Canada, which started with an orientation session to more or less get to know each other. As far as I know, this Cree-Canada round table has not reached the stage where they are discussing specific issues and dealing with them.

But there is also another process that has been established. It's the Cree-Government of Canada negotiation process, called the Vennat-Moses process. That process was set up to deal with certain implementation problems of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Awashish.

Merci, Monsieur Bachand.

Monsieur Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I noticed in recommendation 8 that you are calling on the government to review the operation and maintenance funding transfer program, with the view in mind of answering some concerns you have about the present situation, about changes in circumstances and the need for more funding in that context. On what basis are you making that recommendation and what is your evidence that there is a problem?

Mr. Richard Saunders: I'll ask Commissioner Awashish to deal with that initially.

Mr. Philip Awashish: Thank you. Over the past years these operation and maintenance funding transfer payment agreements have been negotiated by the Cree parties and the Government of Canada. These are generally five-year agreements that provide for review of the particular needs and situations of Cree administrations and Cree governments, even during the duration of the five-year term. Often, the Cree bands have called upon the government to review these transfer agreements within the five-year term, calling upon the changing circumstances of the band. Sometimes there are situations beyond the control of bands which—

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I want to bring the witness closer to my question because we're running out of time. I want to know what evidence the commission has that there is a problem with respect to the shortage of funds and the changed circumstances. How do you know this is a problem? What did you do to find out that this is a problem?

Mr. Philip Awashish: As we said earlier, we have conducted public meetings and hearings within the Cree communities. The Cree governments, the Cree administrations, tell us about what their particular problems are in the exercise of local government and local administration. They tell us they have these five-year agreements and what the problems are with respect to those five-year agreements.

Mr. John Bryden: Then if I may pursue it further, you don't actually look at what they're spending. Do you actually see a documentary record of how the various organizations spend these moneys? How do we know they're spending the money in an appropriate way? Do you actually look at the documentation?

• 1355

Mr. Philip Awashish: We do get representations from the local governments and administrations. We get the operation and maintenance funding transfer payment agreements themselves. The administrations do point out the specific areas in which there are problems respecting those agreements.

Mr. John Bryden: So if I can hone in on the essence of my question, is there sufficient transparency in the administration of these funds for you, the commission, to judge the need? In that context, I point out to you that in your report you present no documentary evidence. You present only anecdotal evidence. If we're going to talk about increasing funding, which I'm happy to do if it's necessary, where is the documentary evidence to support your recommendation?

Mr. Richard Saunders: I just would like to comment on that, Mr. Chairman. I think one of the things that we said at the very beginning of the report is that we had concern that this report was, in a certain number of ways, not up to a standard that we thought was appropriate for presentation to parliamentarians.

One of the ways in which it is not adequate and up to an appropriate standard for a commission such as ours is that we take evidence from presenters, which of course is anecdotal and, unlike some other boards, tribunals and commissions, we do not ordinarily examine people under oath. We do not call for documents. We cannot subpoena information. So what we need to do in those circumstances, since we do not have that kind of authority, is research very carefully what people tell us to verify whether it's accurate, whether it's the impression they have or a political statement or something, or whether it is a matter of fact.

That requires that we have some capacity to independently investigate the basis on which claims are being made. Because of lack of funding for this commission itself, we have not been at all able to do what we think is an adequate job of reviewing documentary evidence and doing independent verification of statements that are made to us. We're not saying that the witnesses are telling us things that are not true—by no means. We're saying that we have not been in a position to verify it. That is a matter of considerable concern, and it's frankly one of the weaknesses that we face as a commission right now: we don't have the research capacity to verify some of the claims that are being made.

Now, we can see when we're in communities, and they tell us that they are not able to deal, for example, with road problems or housing problems, and they give us information about the number of units of housing they need and the number they have. We have to take that as a piece of information that they've presented. We cannot do research into, for example, what their housing needs really are. We cannot do a lot of that background that we feel you're entitled to know. That's the problem.

Mr. John Bryden: Isn't that, then, one of the reasons, perhaps, why the commission's recommendations have never been acted upon? They're not founded in a substantial analysis; they're founded only on anecdotal information. I have town hall meetings as a politician and a lot of the information I receive under certain circumstances is hearsay, not something that I can necessarily make recommendations to government on. That's your dilemma. It really is the fact, I think, not so much of money, but that you are not empowered as a commission to actually get the kind of information that we need in order to form judgments as politicians.

Mr. Richard Saunders: Generally speaking, the information is forthcoming. Our problem is not having the staff or the resources to verify information. Because we do not have the power to subpoena and because we do not examine people under oath and so forth, I think, generally speaking, that we ought to be doing research to verify, particularly for specific issues. There are a lot of general things that are fine and you don't really need to verify them, but some of the specifics that you're looking for we need to go and look at.

Mr. John Bryden: I have one final question, Mr. Chairman, because I know that my friend Mr. Finlay might want to ask a question.

If the government were to review the operational and management fund, can I assume or can I hope you would be generally supportive that in the process of that review the government or this committee should expect to hear from Cree communities and see details of how they are spending the money and what their financial needs are?

• 1400

In other words, we would essentially have an audit of the spending of the various communities so that we can judge for ourselves where the need really lies. Would that be something reasonable in your view?

Mr. Richard Saunders: Yes, I think so. I think we need to have the capacity to verify statements that need to be verified, and so do you.

The Chairman: Thank you, Monsieur Bryden. Monsieur Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to try to be a little broader in my approach, but I note that the agreement was signed in 1975, the Northeastern Agreement in 1978 and the Cree-Naskapi Act in 1985, I guess, as you said. This commission, it seems, is a sort of watchdog and overseer as to how this agreement is functioning.

In my time on the environment committee, we visited northern Quebec and had witnesses from the Cree who told us that some of the things they expected to happen when they signed the agreement have never adequately happened, one of them being co-management of resources. When I asked how this co-management worked, it turned out that the boards were.... I don't remember the answer. One-third was aboriginal, one-third represented Quebec, and one-third represented the federal government.

The aboriginal members said, however, that often the federal government only sent one person—or perhaps no one attended at all—and yet they tended to vote with their bureaucratic counterparts in the province of Quebec, so co-management was not what was going on.

I read that in February 1998, the Quebec Superior Court held, in Cree School Board v. Canada, Attorney General, that the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is an agreement within the meaning of section 35(3) of the Constitution Act of 1982 and can be characterized as a treaty approved and implemented by Canada and Quebec, despite arguments made by Canada and Quebec that the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement is a contract, not a treaty.

I don't want a lot of background, but it seems to me that you might comment on the position taken by the governments. I'd like to know whether government positions have evolved at all since the signing of the agreement, or, in your opinion, are they just stagnant? Are they not going to move towards co-management, towards self-government on Category I lands, towards settling these disputes? Are they simply going to keep the mill grinding over and over? I am getting tired of hearing the same thing. There must be something we can do.

I have a couple of other questions. Maybe you want to deal with that first just to clear up the historical perspective. If I'm dead wrong, tell me. If I'm right, well....

Mr. Richard Saunders: We had a chapter dealing with the agreements and I'm going to ask my colleagues to deal with these issues in a second, because you're raising some pretty big issues.

I think the fundamental problem, and you hear it all across Canada—I'm sure you hear it all the time—is that government doesn't honour its treaties. Everybody says that. And there is reason to support that.

But I don't think it's because government is a bunch of bad guys who make agreements and then break them. I don't think that is the case. I think you have some structural and process problems. We talk about it a bit in chapter 2.

I think that if you are the minister or in the cabinet—you've been elected, you've won an election—you feel you have a mandate to make policy decisions, expenditure choices and those kinds of things. And you do. That's why we have elections in this country.

So you make decisions about Indian Affairs policy and economic policy and so forth. That's fine, and when somebody objects, you say, “Well, that's a political issue. If you don't like it, we'll hear what you have to say, but we've been elected to make decisions—and some tough ones. If it comes to it, you can vote against us. That's your right.” That's the way most government activities should operate. It's a political, democratic process.

• 1405

But when you sign an agreement that the court says is a treaty under the Constitution, that doesn't create a bunch of policy options. That creates some enforceable obligations.

The trouble is, the Department of Indian Affairs and all of the other departments operate on this discretionary, choice-making, policy-option-selection kind of model. They don't operate as if their job is to fulfil a contract or carry out an agreement or honour a treaty. That's not the space they're in. They're in the space of being a government that makes decisions, and they think that this year, for example, they can't afford to put more money into the Cree issues or to deal with Treaty No. 7's problems in Alberta because they're in budgetary constraint or whatever. And that's appropriate for most things.

It's not appropriate for what's in a treaty. And we think, therefore, that government should come up with a secretariat to administer its lawful obligations, a secretariat that is quite apart from the policy-making and expenditure-choice functions within the department. We think implementation of the James Bay agreement should be outside of the department. And the same goes for the treaties and the other agreements.

Mr. John Finlay: That leads, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, directly to the next question I was going to ask. It doesn't seem to me that the commission is able or is managing to do what I presume—and I've read the mission statement—is overseeing the Cree-Naskapi pact. Isn't that what the role of the commission is?

Mr. Richard Saunders: Monitor the implementation.

Mr. John Finlay: Okay. But it's not working, because you're overseeing it and making reports to the aboriginal affairs department, and maybe something happens and maybe it doesn't, which is why I take it, Mr. Chairman, that they'd bring it here. We're going to try, but....

So now this one commission doesn't work and we're going to create a secretariat. And then on the next page, we're going to create a “superior court of national jurisdiction” to handle cases.

Now, my problem is this: if we can't get the minister, the department or the government to deal with those things we decided in 1975 and 1979 and do something about it, how does creating another body that we have to pay for, that has to have staff...? I think that sometimes we create boards and commissions in order to avoid making a hard decision. I think it's sometimes a bureaucratic ploy. I'm not accusing you of that, and yet that's what you've come up with—a couple of others.

Mr. Richard Saunders: I think that's a good question, and I think our recommendation deserves to be explained. When we talk about a secretariat, we're not talking about yet more enlargement of the bureaucracy. I don't think that's the answer to anything. There is an implementation secretariat in Indian Affairs, but it's way down there somewhere, with a boss who is the director general. Under him there's a director who deals with James Bay. Well, on top of those guys, you have an assistant deputy minister who is part of the normal “we're choosing policy options, we're making expenditure choices” model. And on top of him, there's a deputy, and on top of the deputy there's a minister.

So way down there is this outfit with very few resources. Frankly, they don't have control over the spending of program dollars. They're nice people, but they don't have any authority, and they're part of the general system of making policy choices, selecting expenditure options and that kind of thing. They're not a bunch of people who sit around saying, “Well, we have an agreement, so let's see how we can implement it.”

I'm suggesting that those person-years, say, from Indian Affairs be taken out and given some independence and a clear mandate to get on with implementing agreements. And not just this one agreement: we're talking about the two agreements here, all of the numbered treaties, the treaties made before numbering, and the other land claim settlements and so on.

We talked about a court. When we were having our hearings, I asked the bureaucrats who appeared about the fact that there have been a lot of decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada about aboriginal and treaty rights since 1982. And I quoted a few of them—Sparrow and Sioui and Badger and so on—and asked, “How do these decisions affect your practical application and implementation of the agreements?” Well, they didn't know much about the court decisions.

• 1410

And when one looks at the amount of litigation—not only from the Cree and Naskapi but right across Canada—about treaties, about land claims agreements and so on, we find quite frequently that from the lower courts, where the matter enters because somebody has been charged with hunting out of season or whatever, those things slowly move up through the ladder and you get various decisions back and forth. With all due respect to the judges, you don't arrive at any consistency of the application of section 35 until you get to the Supreme Court of Canada.

So let's have a temporary court where you go so you don't go through four or five levels of appeal. You start at this court. The court would have some expertise and hopefully would have read the Supreme Court decisions. This court will make some decisions, and once a body of precedents is established, we'll do away with it and let the regular courts proceed with their business.

It's a matter of getting the cases settled quickly, without a lot of expense and a lot of bad will and going through courts and fighting and carrying on. We want quick decisions. It'd be one step or two steps down from the Supreme Court, specialized, and in 10 years we would review the thing and say that if we have a good body of precedents and have put some flesh on the bones of section 35, we can put this in the regular court system where it belongs.

Mr. John Finlay: It makes a lot of sense.

The very last question I had, and I'm sure the chair may have something to add, is about the fact that there are a lot of recommendations. For example, the islands recommendation is one, obviously, and it would be nice to get all the parties together and get that agreed to before April 1999. We've been through the Nunavut agreement and I was surprised to learn that, goodness, this hasn't been done and the offshore islands of the northern Quebec peninsula haven't been done, and there's some little business over in Labrador that hasn't been done. I can't see that there's a lot of bad will about this, certainly from what you've said, Philip and Robert, and there's obviously a solution. There has to be a solution for all these things. I think that's the Canadian way.

My last question, then, is this: would you suggest one or two or maybe three outstanding issues, worrisome issues, the issues that come up over and over again, so that we might say to the minister following our study of this that these three things need to be done? That's not to say how they should be done, although maybe this secretariat would work, or the court or something. We could say these three things need to be done and let us undertake that they shall be done before April 1, 1999. Now, that's a very short timeline, and maybe that doesn't give us nearly enough time, but—

Mr. Richard Saunders: I can give you one right away.

Mr. John Finlay: All right.

Mr. Richard Saunders: Fully implement the agreements you already have in place.

Mr. John Finlay: Oh, we'd never get that done by April 1, 1999.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Richard Saunders: Everything else.... Everybody would be smiling. Implement the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and implement the Northeastern Quebec Agreement—fully.

Mr. John Finlay: What's your opinion of the cost of that? The number of people? The number of meetings? The time? What will that take? You've dealt with bureaucracy and obviously you know something about it. You explained where that secretariat is and I can see exactly what the problem is: you're just not going to get up through funnel to a conclusion. We have to short-circuit that somehow.

Mr. Richard Saunders: I think that's the whole idea: short-circuit the system. That's why you need a secretariat whose job it is to implement the agreements, not to fiddle around with paving roads and immunizing kids. All those are important things, but the secretariat's job should be to get the agreements implemented. That should be its job, its only job.

It's a tough one. I don't pretend it's an easy one, sir. I think it's about as tough as it gets.

Mr. John Finlay: I would say so, but I think it should be a priority. It should be an objective. We going to have another 50 agreements in B.C. that—

Mr. Richard Saunders: Exactly.

Mr. Philip Awashish: I would think the second issue is to amend the Cree-Naskapi Act itself to meet the present situation, needs and reality of the Cree and Naskapi governments.

• 1415

Mr. John Finlay: With due respect, Mr. Awashish, how much time could it possibly take to make the Oujé-Bougoumou community the tenth Cree community? Would it be the tenth or am I wrong? When you say it's nine and one are you counting the nine?

Mr. Philip Awashish: It would be the ninth Cree community.

Mr. Richard Saunders: Yes.

Mr. John Finlay: The ninth Cree community. Okay. Now, what would it take to finalize the fact that they are an existing Cree community and add them to that act?

I could probably get a researcher in the Library of Parliament to write that up for me and have it by tomorrow noon, translated by Friday, so now, what—

Mr. Richard Saunders: You might have to discuss it with them for a couple of weeks and then get your researcher to write out the legislation. Consult them, make sure they're satisfied that their needs are being met, and do it.

The Chairman: Do it, Monsieur Finlay, do it.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. John Finlay: Well, something has to happen.

Mr. Richard Saunders: You're right. That's why we're here, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It's been a great afternoon, much interrupted, but I hope you appreciate my comments.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Finlay, please be assured that I will support you.

Before we conclude the hearing I would like to ask two brief questions. In reading your report I am concerned by the health problems of young people, respiratory problems, diabetes. In almost all of the villages in Cree communities including Oujé-Bougoumou, dust is causing health problems. This issue has never been solved. And yet, all of the streets and lanes in cities and villages in Canada have been paved to deal with this problem. In Cree communities elderly persons cannot go outside in the summer and must stay cooped-up in their homes. If we could pave streets in all of the communities and build playgrounds for our young people, the Crees would be happy with that development.

There are also housing problems. I visited all the communities and noted that there are often 12, 13, 14, 15 or 16 people living under the same roof. It's not too bad in the summer because people fish and trap on their territory, but it is quite difficult when winter comes. Students have to live in those houses with 13, 14 or 15 other people and are disturbed by this. Their situation is very different from that of the 2, 3 or 4-member families that live in our cities.

In your conclusion, you state that because of financial constraints and delays the Commission has not been able to hold hearings on the elderly, youth, trappers and other groups in Naskapi and Cree communities. Some officials from the Canadian Department of Indian Affairs seem to think that your problems are going to be solved by remote control or by satellite, it seems to me. Officials from Indian Affairs and the government should come back to earth and several claims should be settled quickly.

I'm happy that you have appeared before our committee today, for the first time. All the members of all the parties seem to want to follow up on the recommendations you have submitted to us.

How much money would you need? Earlier, you mentioned the sum of $850,000. Would that amount be sufficient in light of the analysis carried out by your accountants? Northern Quebec is a vast region. We're not talking simply about crossing the river to go and solve a problem in a given community. You have to cover large distances. The roads don't even go to certain communities, Waskaganish being one of them. How much money do you really need to discharge your mandate? May I remind everyone that we are willing to spend $250,000 to build a dinosaur in Western Canada for the millennium. How much money do you need if we are to provide adequate help? Give me a real figure.

[English]

Mr. Richard Saunders: I'll just deal with the money issue, Mr. Chairman, and let my two colleagues deal with the health, youth and housing issues.

• 1420

On the money matter, we had asked the minister for $1,037,000 per year in non-reporting years. Her officials responded by saying, “You've had $480,000 since 1990—it hasn't gone up—so we're prepared to look at $645,000 next year, with a little more in years when you have to prepare a report.”

We raised that problem with the minister and of course she's been advised by her officials over and over again that we don't need any money, “stay in Ottawa”.

The Cowie report, incidentally, said—and they wrote this way back in 1991—that the commission was underfunded and was not able to do its job way back then. We're getting the same money that we were getting then. That was an independent inquiry set up by the government to look into our activities, which said, very clearly, that we were underfunded then, that we couldn't do our jobs. And we haven't had an increase since then, so the situation's only gotten worse.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Could you give us a photocopy of that passage?

[English]

Mr. Richard Saunders: I can table this copy, Mr. Chairman.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Very well, thank you.

[English]

Mr. Richard Saunders: They were right.

Of course the situation has become worse since then because costs have gone up and so on, for travel in particular.

So when we asked for $1,037,000, that was based upon us being available when the communities wanted to raise issues with us; if they wanted a commissioner to attend a meeting to deal with an issue, we'd be able to respond.

If somebody raised a representation, a formal complaint under the act, we would be able to respond promptly and we would be able to do research on certain points, which was an issue raised by Mr. Bryden, I believe, so that we could verify things, so that it wouldn't be just a political speech. We would want to know what the facts were. And periodically we need legal advice. We're not able to do any of those things with $400,000 and some-odd dollars. With $1,037,000, we believe we could discharge all of those duties properly.

The last time we met with the minister she sort of pressed us and said, “Well, you know, that's not realistic. It's a big increase.” And it was blah-blah-blah: forget about what you'd like to do, what the communities want you to do, just obey the law, and what's your minimum bottom line to just do what the law requires you to do, like dealing with a representation when somebody files one properly?

We said probably $850,000. That would mean that if a community says it wants us in its community to discuss issues, we'd say that unless they were filing a formal complaint we couldn't come.

So we basically have those figures: $1,037,000 would enable us to do a moderate, reasonable job, and with $850,000, I suspect we won't be sued by anyone for refusing to carry out our statutory minimum obligations.

You had some questions on health at the community level, like the diabetes issue and some of the dust issues. You had a question about housing. I'll ask my colleagues to deal with that. These two guys are encyclopedias about the communities.

The Chairman: Monsieur Awashish.

Mr. Philip Awashish: Thank you. Before I deal with the specific questions on the table, I just wanted to make a comment to Mr. Finlay about the three issues.

We've already mentioned two issues: first, the proper implementation of the treaties, and second, the appropriate amendments to the Cree-Naskapi Act. The third issue is the settlement of outstanding rights, claims, interests and concerns of the Cree-Naskapi first nations. That would cover the offshore islands, jurisdictional problems and territorial issues that I mentioned in our report.

Mr. John Finlay: Do you mean your first one in making the commission work?

Mr. Philip Awashish: The first one we mentioned was the proper implementation—

Mr. John Finlay: Right.

Mr. Philip Awashish: —of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement. The second is the appropriate amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

Mr. John Finlay: Right.

Mr. Philip Awashish: The third is the proper settlement and resolution of outstanding claims, rights, interests and concerns of the Cree-Naskapi first nations.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you.

• 1425

Mr. Philip Awashish: Now I'll talk about the housing, which is certainly one of the issues we've identified in our report that is an outstanding common issue among all the Cree communities, including the Naskapi communities. It's not only a problem or a concern of the Cree first nations and Naskapi first nations. I think it's a problem right across Canada. It has come up among other first nations across Canada that there certainly is a serious shortage of housing as well as a serious shortage of the financial resources to meet the present housing needs of the Cree first nations and the Naskapi first nations—also a problem right across Canada.

Of course the Cree can only get a certain part of the national envelope for housing and housing funds. The Cree recognize that. The Cree have made a serious effort to accelerate their own housing programs and projects within their Cree communities by using Cree funds and Cree resources.

But since the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the population of the Cree nation has doubled from 6,000 to 12,000 Cree. Clearly, the population of the Cree nation is a fairly young population. The majority of them—60%—are under 25 years, I would say. There are young families evolving within each Cree community that require housing. There certainly is a shortage within the Cree communities. The Cree have attempted to meet the housing needs of their respective communities by using not only funding from the government but also by using Cree funds. It's still an outstanding problem to be dealt with.

I think I'll call upon my colleague, Robert, to speak on the health issue. He's more aware of the health problems within the Cree communities.

The Chairman: Monsieur Kanatewat.

Mr. Robert Kanatewat: I don't have the status of the exact figures on diabetes in the territory, but it has tripled over the years since the establishment of the Cree health board. It has been one of the major problems of the Cree nations as a whole. Even though they're dealing with a lot of this, they still haven't come to terms with it because of the various population expansions and so on that Commissioner Awashish has talked about, the doubling in size.

Even though it's doubled in size, it has tripled in regard to the health issues, even though we do have a good set-up for health facilities in each Cree community. In a sense, we do have that problem because of this housing situation where overcrowding has occurred in every Cree community. Basically, that's one of the issues why we have health crises at various times.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Kanatewat. Do you have any other questions, Mr. Finlay?

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: I have one little problem. I'll ask Philip Awashish. You said proper implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec and the Northeastern Quebec Agreements and appropriate amendments to the Cree-Naskapi Act, and then you said settling of all claims outstanding for lands and resources. Wasn't that what those acts and agreements were supposed to do? Did I miss something?

• 1430

Mr. Philip Awashish: Yes. I said the settlement and resolution of the outstanding rights, claims, interests and concerns of the Cree and Naskapi first nations. This would include the offshore island question.

Mr. John Finlay: All right. Okay.

Mr. Philip Awashish: Matters that may not be dealt with by the agreements themselves.

Mr. Richard Saunders: For example, the Naskapi have some claims in Labrador, which are obviously a federal issue but weren't part of the agreement. The offshore issue is another one. There are a number of them.

Mr. John Finlay: Okay. Thank you very much.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Finlay.

I want to thank our witnesses, Mr. Saunders, Mr. Kanatewat and Mr. Awashish for having come to share the fruit of their experience with the members of our committee and for having discussed their report with us. We will follow up on the questions you have raised. I want to add that you are always welcome here and that we will welcome you back three or five times a year if you wish. Don't hesitate to get in touch with us if you want to meet with us again. We, the members of the House of Commons, are at your service and ready and willing to help our friends the Cree and the people of the North to find solutions to improve their quality of life.

Thank you very much for coming here today. Merci beaucoup.

[English]

Mr. Richard Saunders: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Finlay, and please express our thanks to the other members who had to leave. We appreciate this opportunity. If you require anything further from us, any information or any follow-up, please contact us at any time.

[Translation]

The Chairman: The meeting stands adjourned.