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]

Thursday, March 18, 1999

• 0923

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)): I call to order the 57th meeting of the House Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Today we are dealing with Bill C-56, An Act respecting an agreement with the Norway House Cree Nation for the settlement of matters arising from the flooding of lands, and respecting the establishment of certain reserves in the province of Manitoba.

Before we go to the first witness, I would like to welcome some members of the audience, students from Nipissing University in North Bay. They drove down to Ottawa last night and are here to see how policy is developed in the Parliament of Canada. They've been studying the Indian Act and some of the changes that have been forthcoming. They have some knowledge of the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, so they should be well versed and very interested in what goes on here this morning.

• 0925

Before we start with Myrna Gamblin, I'm going to ask Elder Sandy Beardy of the Cree Nation to say a prayer for us, please.

Elder Sandy Beardy (Elders Council, Cross Lake First Nation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and ladies and gentlemen.

I think it's only right, in a meeting like this, to open with God's word, because that's where our help comes from.

I'm going to read two short passages:

Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.

Dear friends, if God so loved us we also ought to love one another. Therefore, as God's chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience. Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another. Forgive as the Lord forgave you.

Humility out of fear of the Lord brings wealth and honour in life. The fear of the Lord teaches a man wisdom, and humility comes before honour. A man's pride brings him low, but a man of lowly spirit gains honour:

humble yourselves, therefore, under God's mighty hand, that He may lift you up in due time.

May God bless the reading of His holy word. Let us pray.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

Therefore, O Lord, we ask thee to give these ministers the wisdom, the knowledge and the understanding that we may understand that in your sight we are all in one. We know, O Lord, we are sure, that thou are very near to us, much closer than our own breath. So help us to understand and to help each other.

O Lord, we know the words from thy holy book, where it says he who shuts his ears to the crying of the poor will some day cry out and not be heard. Lord, let us not be like that. Let us love one another. Give us thy love, because you first showed us your love by giving your son on a cross to die for us. You said that he who believeth in me has eternal life. We pray that you open our hearts and minds to these words of yours, O Lord.

• 0930

Forgive us if we said, or will say, something wrong, because native people are poor as far as education is concerned, but help us to teach us where to go. All of us are the same in your sight.

This we ask in Jesus' name. Amen.

Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Beardy.

We're going to try to stick to a reasonable time line, because we have a number of witnesses to hear today. Our usual practice is up to 10 minutes for presentation and 20 minutes for questions. I would encourage us to stick to that this morning.

Ms. Gamblin, you have the floor.

Ms. Myrna M. Gamblin (Individual Presentation): Good morning. I'm from the Norway House Cree Nation. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to address the committee on Bill C-56.

I believe everyone has received a copy of my brief. I had promised in that brief that I would bring copies of supporting documents as to my concerns.

My first concern was whether consent could be said to have been obtained given the circumstances surrounding the whole referendum process of this agreement in Norway House Cree Nation.

The first document I'm going to be submitting to the committee—and I'll give these to the clerk when I'm finished, to photocopy for everyone—is my summons to court, dated May 1, 1997. I received this summons, as did a number of people from Norway House Cree Nation, when we attempted to exercise our traditional right to freedom of speech.

This right extends to the use of media facilities located in our reserve. In this instance we were going to try to express our concerns over the local radio station. I had done a similar thing two weeks before. I wasn't arrested at that time, but then I was talking about different issues. This time around, the people who were there, including myself, were concerned about the lack of band meetings and no discussion on the Northern Flood Agreement negotiations as we knew them to be, because we hadn't seen this master implementation agreement at that time. This was, again, May 1, 1997.

The end result of all that was that I and several other people were detained by the RCMP in the radio station on the reserve for several hours. At the end of several hours we were all arrested, hauled off to the jail, and given a summons, a copy of which I'll leave. Some people got trespass tickets as well. I did not receive one of those.

The court date hasn't materialized to this day. I received a phone call before the scheduled court date telling me that there'd been a mistake made and that somebody would be by to correct that mistake, remove the summons, and probably issue me a ticket, although on what grounds I don't know, and to this day don't know.

So that's one of the first circumstances I wanted to allude to.

Next, I will produce letters pertaining to the denial of access to TV and radio. Many persons attempted to translate the contents of this agreement, because it was never done. I mentioned that there was omission by the parties in terms of not translating this document into the Cree language. There were no band meetings to review the final copy or in fact any final draft of the MIA.

There was no Cree on the ballots in the referendum. I'm submitting copies of that ballot.

There were six referenda conducted during 1997 in Norway House Cree Nation. I have letters and various information relating to the various referenda. I have submitted these before to the standing committee.

• 0935

The first one was a land designation referendum. The Indian Act requires designation before you can mortgage lands or lease them. What happened there was that we had a referendum on June 12, 1997. Several months after I discovered, as had other people along the way—actually, they pointed this out to me—that this land had been mortgaged for $975,000 before the referendum, which is totally against the Indian Act.

As well, there are letters I wrote to the Department of Indian Affairs requesting some response on this, because they were conducting a second referendum on the same issue. But I didn't get any response from them. Instead, there is a letter that was addressed to another band member, Luke Hertlein, explaining why this land had to be recorded as being already designated when in fact it wasn't before this referendum. We didn't know anything about this when we were first asked to vote.

The TLE agreement has no provision for a third referendum, but there was a third referendum in Norway House.

On the MIA, you've heard the change of rules. One of the things I'm still curious about is why the parties did not give the $1,000 payment before the vote since they did give an $8 million advance on other things to the Norway House Cree Nation.

There's an issue as well of band membership. There were 434 people struck off the band membership list for the March election in 1998. The electoral officer, in an attached letter, says these people were not band members and they couldn't vote in the election, only in the referenda.

Then there's a letter from Martin Egan from DIAND, saying that only electors were allowed to vote in the MIA referenda.

They can't both be right. Something is wrong here.

I bring all this up only to illustrate the chaos in which we live. What are the rules? What applies to us? What can we be sure of when we're being asked to make decisions on things?

To me, democracy and arbitrary rules do not go together. Possibly some other type of rule does, but I don't see a democracy functioning in that way.

The other part is coercion. I'm including publicly posted lists of people who opposed the agreement and various tapes of radio broadcasts where we could not respond, obviously.

The other thing is the Northern Flood Agreement and treaty rights issues in terms of how this agreement affects our treaty rights.

Very briefly, Treaty 5 recognizes our traditional pursuits of hunting and fishing. The Northern Flood Agreement recognizes a first priority to wildlife in the northern flood area, the resource area.

The MIA gives ultimate authority to the Province of Manitoba to issue timber permits. It appears to override the priority to wildlife. In a commonsensical way, where there's no timber there's no wildlife, and we don't appear to have a say on this matter at all.

The Norway House resource management board created in this MIA also has 50% of the authority to the Province of Manitoba to regulate our Treaty 5 and Northern Flood Agreement rights.

Last but not least, the master implementation agreement alters agreed-upon water levels in the Northern Flood Agreement.

I'm submitting page 17 of the Northern Flood Agreement. It says that the geodetic datum for 1977 is the base from which all levels above sea level will be measured in the agreement. In the master implementation agreement, the definition of “above sea level” is changed to “geodetic datum of 1970”.

• 0940

Now, I'm attaching here a Hydro memo, quite an old one, where there's discussion of the use of 1970 geodetic datum for above sea level. It says there's a concern that this will increase by six inches the water levels of Footprint Lake at Nelson House.

I'm also attaching a letter addressed to Bob Roddick, the senior negotiator for Norway House Cree Nation, where these engineers are pointing out that more fluctuations can be expected.

There's been a lot of damage done by this hydro project as well. I'm going to be including a map of Manitoba with what's called Two Mile Channel and Eight Mile Channel drawn in.

The top of Lake Winnipeg, if anybody is familiar with it, used to be beaches all along the ridge. The ridge separates the head of Lake Winnipeg from Playgreen Lake. Two Mile Channel is an artificial river that was cut in there by Manitoba Hydro to connect the two lakes with an additional channel from the natural one.

The beach, according to our elders and trappers and other people who work out there, is gone. Since 1977 it's all been eroded away. Before the hydro project, you could walk, from what's called Warren Landing all the way along the head of Lake Winnipeg to Limestone Point, along a sandy beach. That is all gone because of the fluctuations of water levels pulling that sand out of there and then pushing it through the created Two Mile Channel into Playgreen Lake and so on, all the way past Norway House to Cross Lake and wherever it goes from there.

I had information that apparently the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has been doing studies there since last fall. The erosion rate in this area is at 50 feet a year. It looks as though that bit of land will be gone in about 15 to 20 years, so Playgreen Lake and Lake Winnipeg will be one huge lake. It's not going to be separated.

There's a whole lot of other stuff in terms of the environmental issues, but what happens is that the fluctuations of the water levels are affecting the boreal forest and everything that lives in there, including the caribou, the waterfowl, the muskrats and everything, even including the people. There hasn't been a post-project assessment, and I personally believe there should have been an assessment of the project quite a long time ago. There should also have been an assessment of the master implementation agreement under the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. That hasn't been done, and there appears to be clear triggers.

If you look at the data in terms of the way the MIA is written, Hydro is required to post whatever kind of water levels they're going to be fluctuating the water to, but when you read them, what was written there five years ago and what'll be written there under the MIA will be exactly the same, because it's the definition that changes, and it's the measurements, the base line from which they measure, that will change.

So it won't be apparent on the postings, but in reality, the physical change should be there. I can't tell you exactly how much change there'll be because I don't believe it's my job. Anyway, I don't have the resources to do it. I'm hoping the Minister of the Environment can address this issue somewhere along the line.

That's basically it for my presentation.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you very much, Madam.

We'll now turn to questions.

Mr. Scott.

Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Myrna, I would like to come to the question of the referendum, if I could, for a few minutes. In your brief to the committee and in your presentation this morning, you are alleging that the referendum was not a fair process, as I understand it.

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: Which one, the master implementation agreement?

Mr. Mike Scott: Yes.

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: I don't believe it was a fair process, no.

• 0945

Mr. Mike Scott: Can you explain why it wasn't a fair process? Can you tell the committee members what, in your view, was wrong with the process?

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: Very simply, if I were to agree that the referenda were fair in the first place, which I don't... For the record, I don't believe referenda are the way we make decisions traditionally in Norway House Cree Nation.

That being said, however, there were rules contained within the referenda, written into the master implementation agreement. One of the rules was that there was an appeal process if anyone had a problem with the results. No one appealed. Not a single person from Norway House Cree Nation appealed the results.

The other thing was that there were rules in place that if you had a problem with the voters' list or anything else before the referendum, there was a time period in which to make those changes, or to recommend them. But that didn't happen either.

All those processes were in place, but nobody took advantage of them. Instead, the results apparently didn't satisfy some people, so they turned around and said, okay, let's change all the rules and hold another referendum.

Mr. Mike Scott: I was coming to that.

To make it very clear to the committee, there were two referenda; the first referendum, in your view, didn't achieve the result that the people who had proposed the referendum were looking for, so in fact they then held a second referendum to try to get the approval they were looking for.

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: Right. Because there was a no vote in the first referendum.

Mr. Mike Scott: In your view, was there anything untoward done in the second referendum process to try to either coerce or induce people to vote in a way that was different from what they had voted in the first referendum?

For instance, were there promises made to people? Can you tell the committee that, please?

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: Well, in both referenda there was the promise of $1,000 to every man, woman and child in Norway House Cree Nation—

Mr. Mike Scott: In the event of a yes vote.

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: —in the event of a yes vote. The offer was not good if the agreement didn't go through, in spite of the fact that everyone apparently agreed the compensation was owed to us.

Mr. Mike Scott: I don't want to be putting words in your mouth, but as I understand it—and we've had conversations in the past—in your mind, Myrna, the $1,000 was payment for a yes vote. It was an inducement to buy a vote, really. That's the way you see it.

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: That's what I firmly believe. As I mentioned here, they advanced more than $8 million worth of Northern Flood Agreement moneys in the three years leading up to the master implementation agreement. The parties had no problem doing that. They said they were for the purposes of compensation under the Northern Flood Agreement, and this is what they're claiming the $1,000 payment is for as well.

Why was it not possible, in order to ensure that the process would be fair, that the decision-making would not be influenced by the offer of money to poverty-stricken people?

Mr. Mike Scott: Let me ask you this again. This $1,000 was tied directly to a yes vote. People were told that if this agreement passed, if they voted yes, they would get $1,000—right up front.

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: Exactly. If it didn't, there wasn't any $1,000.

Mr. Mike Scott: So there was clearly a strong personal inducement to the people who were going to be participating in this referendum to vote yes—namely, to get a one-time payment of $1,000 right off the top?

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: Yes.

Mr. Mike Scott: Okay.

How much time was there between the first referendum and the second referendum?

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: The first one was July 29, 1997, and the second one was September 23, 1997. So it was less than two months.

Mr. Mike Scott: Was essentially the same question asked in both?

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: Actually, no. It was essentially the same question, asking if people agreed to this master implementation agreement, but on the first ballot the question was a bit longer, if my memory serves me right. I don't have a copy of that with me.

Mr. Mike Scott: Okay.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Scott.

Mr. Nault.

Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora—Rainy River, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Before I start, I'd like to thank Elder Beardy for his prayer.

I am wondering whether Elder Beardy is related to a Bishop Gordon Beardy.

Could I find that out, Mr. Chairman?

• 0950

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Sandy, are you related to Gordon Beardy?

Elder Sandy Beardy: I'm related to all northern provinces—

Voices: Oh, oh.

Elder Sandy Beardy: —because my great-, great-, great-grandfather had ten wives, every one of them had ten kids, and that's where they live.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that answer. Being a good friend of Gordon Beardy's, I now know where he got his wisdom from—the elder.

This is a difficult issue when aboriginal people come to the committee and suggest that there have been some problems with irregularities in making decisions within the community. The first question I have to ask is, do you agree with the whole concept of the inherit right to self-government and the need for non-native governments to respect the role of the leadership in the communities?

That's the first question, but I think it flows to the second question. I would assume that the answer to that is yes, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. You can tell me what you think about that.

Second, how would you proceed with having discussions between native and non-native governments if we don't accept the abilities and the rights of the leadership in the community, who will always have dissenters within their own communities on views? It's the normal process of human beings to agree and disagree, and somewhere down the line there has to be a form of consensus of the majority of the community, I suppose, and then move on to have discussions to get implementation of agreements or improvements of people's everyday lives.

So when you come to the committee and say you disagree with what took place in Norway House, I'm sure we could find many people who would say the same thing. But what are we expected to do every time there's someone who disagrees?

As you know, in the non-native society we have a really tough time agreeing on anything, but we have a set process. We deal with it, and in the end we move on. There's a vote taken. We have a formal process for voting.

Now, you're saying that referendums are not culturally an aboriginal way. The third question, then, would be this: How would you proceed to do it differently, if you were to use the Cree way in Norway House, if the referendum isn't appropriate? Would that meet the test of obviously the Indian Act and the non-natives who think there has to be total accountability and that there has to be some process so that we can prove to ourselves in writing that somebody voted this way or that way?

I'm really having a tough time with this. The opposition in particular suggests there are grassroots aboriginal people all over the country now who disagree with their band councils, whether it's custom band councils or whether it's Indian Act band councils.

So now, because there are these grassroots people who disagree—and quite frankly, there will be people who disagree on every issue, as I said before—I don't think it's necessarily acceptable for us to start making decisions on behalf of Norway House because there's dissension in the community. That should be worked out amongst themselves.

I'm looking for some advice from you, as I do when I go to the communities I represent that are aboriginal. When I tell the elders in the community and the leadership that I hear they have problems, and I ask them what they think we should do about them, normally the answer that comes back is, well, you let us work it out ourselves.

I'm suggesting to you that my response to the dissenters in Norway House is to work it out themselves, and then we'll carry on.

Maybe they had too many referendums, in your mind, but the point is, I don't think non-native governments should get involved in every single dissenting opinion that happens in a first nation. That happens in municipalities, that happens in Ontario governments, and in Manitoba governments.

I throw those three questions at you, and those comments, because it is very difficult to be sitting here and having someone say, look, we want you non-natives to fix this for us.

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: I don't believe that's necessarily what you're being asked to do. I'm quite familiar with the type of situation you're talking about.

I'm going to answer you in a kind of roundabout way, but I will arrive at the answer to your question.

• 0955

Up until about 1986, Norway House Cree Nation did not have this kind of dispute emerging from any of us. We did have our internal dissent, and we solved the problems at home.

Around 1986 there was a problem in terms of leadership refusing to respond to or abide by the decisions of the band members made in our traditional process of a general band meeting. That had never happened before.

There was a reaction from the people in Norway House Cree Nation to attempt to straighten out the leadership. Leadership refused to straighten out, more or less. The end result was that people attempted to exercise their traditional right to impeach a leadership that refused to follow the will of the people.

At that point, the Department of Indian Affairs intervened in the exercise of that traditional right on account of the whole Indian Act Privy Council orders back in 1953 for good government. We had to abide by section 74 of the Indian Act, which has no impeachment provisions.

That threw the whole community into confusion and at the same time paved the way for leadership that did not have to abide by the will of the people, because once in office they stay in office, except for the provisions of the Indian Act.

Mr. Robert Nault: Before we get past that, I assume if you're following the Indian Act there's an election every two years in Norway House.

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: Right—and you can do a lot of damage in two years when you have total, unlimited authority to do whatever you want.

Mr. Robert Nault: Now, after the two years, somewhere in 1988 or 1989, there was an election. Did the same group of people get elected?

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: No. There were changes.

Mr. Robert Nault: So that means the will of the people was not done away with. In fact, the will of the people was done at the next election, when you threw those people out and put a new leader in.

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: No. You're sitting from a perspective where you have a system of checks and balances you can utilize within your government, such as this. You have enforceable conflict of interest guidelines. Witness the latest new scandals, where people are being tossed in jail for having performed various kinds of illegal activities while in public office. Those activities are made illegal by the rules the Canadian people have put in place.

Now, our rules are the traditional rules, but those are not recognized under the Indian Act. Therefore, we are told they're not enforceable. If you want to enforce them, go to court. Fight it out in court. But of course we don't have the money, and even if we tried to scrape up the money we'd end up in court for 13 or 20 years.

So it's just a mess.

Mr. Robert Nault: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Myrna, I would like to congratulate you on your presentation. My comments follow on what Mr. Nault just mentioned. This week, I also asked those questions on democracy.

Mr. Chairman, I am under the impression, as is often the case, that this is culture shock. I would like to go back to what Myrna was saying right before I took the floor.

I think that the Indian Act was imposed on them based on our own model of democracy, but that was not the way things were done by Aboriginal nations.

You just need to listen to Myrna talk to understand that she is a traditionalist. The Aboriginals used consensus to implement democracy; there were long discussions. When these discussions were over, people had a more solid understanding of the situations; they had taken the time to hold discussions.

We are in a democracy, and we are studying a bill, but we have to hurry up because we must adopt it quickly. That is where the culture shock appears. I wanted to clarify that.

It seems to me that, sometimes, we have trouble understanding that our democracy is not the only one that exists. There is also Aboriginal democracy, and it is not necessarily the same as ours. It takes more time. We are always in a hurry. They are in less of a hurry, because they have to have their discussions. That causes what we are witnessing here today.

• 1000

I would like to ask Myrna one or two questions. It will complete what you said in your brief. Officials have already pointed out that there were in fact two referendums on the MIA and that the parameters of the second referendum had been changed. They admitted to that.

However, with respect to the money that people will pocket, whether it be in the case of the first or the second referendum, people always knew how much money they would receive and why. I would like to hear your opinion on that and know if you share the officials' opinion.

Secondly, this week, some witnesses told us that they had not received compensation, that perhaps only about 100 people had received compensation. Could you tell us whether or not you yourself were compensated?

Do you know if band members did not receive money? If they did not receive money, is it because they had challenged it and had publicly stated that the MIA was not a good thing? In other words, was there any retaliation? Were people told that if they openly spoke out against the MIA they would not be compensated?

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Could I encourage a brief answer, Myrna? I have a couple of others who want to question, and we're out of time.

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: Very briefly, then, I'll provide you with a list of the 186 claimants who filed in Federal Court to prevent the second referendum from being held. Those people were told their moneys would be withheld unless they removed their names from the court case. It was said not in so many words, but basically it would be withheld because they were on that court case.

The list then got reduced to 53 by November 28, 1997, after the decision of the Federal Court had been rendered. That was the excuse that was given to us, that they were holding on to the money until the decision was rendered in case the court awarded costs. But the court did not award costs, and yet I was handed this document of November 28, 1997. My name is here among the 53.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): I have one question. We heard previous testimony that there were 2,800 eligible voters for the referenda. Can you tell me how many voted in each referendum?

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: I couldn't tell you offhand because there's a problem there. The lists that were there said about 2,800 voted, but there have been so many voters' lists I would have to sit down and look at them. Each of them are different—for the TLE, for the MIA, for the land designation, and then for the election.

That's why I made reference to those 400-odd people who were told they couldn't vote in the elections because they weren't band members, although they were all voting in all the other referenda.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm a little confused. One of the earlier witnesses said there were 2,800 eligible voters involved in the referenda.

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: I imagine there would have been more than that. It depends on whose rules were being applied. This is what I was getting at. The rules appear to change so frequently that I would have to go back and look at the actual MIA to tell you which rules were supposedly being followed.

Mr. John Bryden: Okay. The clerk has the data, so I'll have a look at it.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll report on the data when I've had a look at it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

Briefly, Madam Desjarlais.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais (Churchill, NDP): With regard to the appeal of the referendum, Myrna, you indicated that there was a rule in place. Was it your understanding that only a band member could appeal that process?

Mr. Myrna Gamblin: Yes.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: And you're not aware of any band member who did ask for the appeal.

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: No band member appealed the first master implementation agreement referendum.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: So who did appeal it?

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: The second referendum was appealed by me, and I believe by some other people.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Who appealed the first referendum?

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: No one appealed the first referendum. That's what I'm saying. No one appealed the first referendum.

• 1005

There's a letter from Sandy Jackson or somebody saying there was a problem with the voters' list, but in the master implementation agreement there were rules for the referendum that said if anyone had a problem with the voters' list to notify the powers that be, I think ten days before. But there were rules there for problems with the voters' list.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: So Indian Affairs then made the decision for the second referendum.

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: Right.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you.

Mr. Keddy.

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank our presenters for appearing here today and for taking the time to come down here.

Very quickly, to Mr. Nault's statement, I guess I'm asking for some understanding on both sides here, from you and from us, obviously. It's difficult for us not to listen to the agendas that have been set by elected leaders of various bands, from whatever area in Canada you come from, if you've gone to band elections every two years. I mean, that's something I'm in sympathy with in terms of Mr. Nault's statement. I don't mind telling you that.

However, there is also a responsibility on behalf of DIAND to make sure there's no dereliction of justice and to make sure there's no impropriety in the application of the rules and regulations within the Indian Act governing elections. Although this is not the committee that I think can settle that, certainly there is a responsibility on behalf of the government to make sure it's fair and equitable.

I have one quick question. You had said that in 1986 there was an attempt by band members to impeach leadership. This was between elections?

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: Yes.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Okay.

Were you successful in changing that leadership in the election that followed?

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: I believe in the next election the same chief got back in but there was a difference in council.

I can say we weren't successful in changing the leadership because the change we were looking for was in terms of how the office of leadership was being conducted. You can change faces, but...

Mr. Gerald Keddy: No, I understand that.

The other issue is that if you have any papers or any other documentation, I would ask that you give them to the clerk so that she can give them to all the members on committee.

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: Yes, I can do that.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Keddy.

I don't see any other questioners, so I want to thank you, Myrna, for your presentation and your succinct answers.

Ms. Myrna Gamblin: Thank you all for bearing with me and having me here.

• 1010

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Our next witnesses are from the Grand Council of the Crees.

I want to welcome Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come.

Chief, I'll ask you to introduce your colleagues. Then the floor is yours.

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come (Grand Council of the Crees): Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning, Bev. How are you?

I met Bev in the elevator. She wasn't sure who I was, so I thought I should introduce myself now.

Before I begin, I will introduce Brian Craik, our federal relations officer from our Ottawa office, Bill Namagoose, my executive director, and Andy Orkin, in case we get into some legal questions.

We have three witnesses marked down but I'm the only presenter. If I were to read the text, it would probably take me 20 to 25 minutes. I'll be the only one making that presentation. Is that okay with you?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Chief, I'm hoping to manage this section in an hour or less, so if you have 20 minutes, then we'll go to questions.

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: Okay.

I want to thank this committee for giving me the opportunity to appear before you today.

Going back to the mid-1980s, the Grand Council of the Crees was contacted by the Crees of subarctic Manitoba. We learned that at the same time we were experiencing the brutal assault of hydroelectric megaprojects on our lands, waters and culture in Eenou Istchee in the early 1970s, the Crees of mid-north Manitoba were undergoing the same nightmares we were.

We learned that just the same as with Hydro-Québec, Manitoba Hydro had diverted whole river systems and flooded thousands of square kilometres of the Manitoba Crees' traditional lands, without their consent.

These official acts of social and environmental devastation in Quebec and in Manitoba were violations of the James Bay and Manitoba Crees' fundamental human rights. These acts of social and environmental devastation continue to be a violation of the James Bay and Manitoba Crees' fundamental human rights.

By these acts we were, and continue to be, deprived of our own means of subsistence in violation of article 1 of the two international covenants. I'm talking about the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. I'm talking about the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. Both instruments were actually signed and ratified by Canada.

• 1015

The result in Quebec, of course, was the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement of 1975, Canada's first modern Indian agreement. The parties were eight Cree bands and their grand council, the provincial utility Hydro-Québec, the Government of Quebec, and the federal crown.

Just two years later, essentially the same result ensued in Manitoba. The parties were five Cree bands and their grand council—the Northern Flood Committee—the provincial utility Manitoba Hydro, the Government of the Manitoba, and the federal crown.

In Quebec, dans la belle province, we discovered within five years of signing our agreement that it was not going to be easy to get the governments to honour their promises to us.

In 1980 there was a major gastrointestinal and tuberculin epidemic in our communities, and eight children died in spite of a promise in our agreement that we would be given sanitation and clean water. We learned then that the only way we would get the governments to honour their promises and obligations to us was to go to court, go visit the Pope, go to an international water tribunal, go to the United States, and go wherever we had to go to get results.

Almost 25 years later, after signing the agreement, there are still fundamentally important parts of our agreement with the Crown that have never been implemented. We are still fighting to get adequate sanitation, community centres, justice systems, economic development entities, and housing. The list of dishonour and deceit goes on and on.

Over the years, successive governments have used a variety of strategies against us. The governments have attempted to divide our individual James Bay Cree communities against one another. The government parties have attempted to convince us that the James Bay agreement is too complex and too vague. One senior federal official told us our agreement is “like a Swiss watch”, and thus “unimplementable”.

Canada also claims that the wording of the agreements allows the Crees to keep coming back, to gain additional benefits from the agreements, when the truth of the matter is neither the James Bay agreement nor the Northern Flood Agreement were properly implemented in the first place.

The government parties have adopted public relations strategies against us, using large firms like Continental, Golin, Harris to establish what they call a SWAT team—special words and tactics—to persuade the public that we were rich Indians who were greedy and wanted too much.

The government parties have subjected us to ongoing delays for almost 29 years, hoping we'd be starved out and frustrated, and would give up.

The government parties got together behind our backs and “conspired to circumvent our Agreement rights”—the actual words of the Federal Court in a case concerning our James Bay agreement right to environmental assessment of new hydro projects.

We have been threatened by the government parties that if we go to court to protect our rights, we will somehow be punished. In court, the government parties have argued many times, most recently last year, that the James Bay agreement is not a treaty but just a contract.

However, as a treaty, of course, it has a spirit and intent, and broad and enforceable objectives. As a treaty it has enjoyed constitutional protection since 1982. As a treaty it constrains government action. As a treaty its obligations and intent must be read as a whole.

At least three times the courts have stated that the James Bay agreement is a treaty. Still the governments argue, no, it is a contract.

Well, in the mid-1980s we learned from the Manitoba Crees that we were not alone with this obscene experience.

The text of my presentation at this time continues from the latest annual report of the Grand Council of the Crees, at page 46, which brings our involvement with the Northern Flood Agreement situation into the present day.

I actually have copies of this report, which I would like to submit to the committee.

• 1020

The report reads:

We have close relations with our Cree brothers and sisters in many places across Canada, particularly where they are facing issues of environmental destruction and threats to their survival as peoples.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

In the fall of 1997, the Crees of Cross Lake, Manitoba, contacted the Grand Council for assistance and for information about our approach to our rights under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. It was decided that Dr. Ted Moses, Cree Ambassador to the U.N. and Cree Federal Negotiator, and some of our legal and technical staff, should travel to Cross Lake on a fact-finding mission. The history they were told in Manitoba is very important for all of us.

The Northern Flood Agreement was signed in Manitoba in 1977. The Manitoba Crees were promised such things as four acres of replacement land for each acre of reserve land that was flooded; future compensation; wildlife management; economic development initiatives; community developments; and a government commitment to deal with mass poverty and unemployment.

By the early 1980s it became clear that Manitoba Hydro and the governments had no intention of fulfilling their promises under the NFA. Then in the late 1980s the governments caused the collapse of the Northern Flood Committee by refusing funding. Conditions in the Manitoba Cree communities were getting worse and worse because the project had severely affected the land and the Crees' traditional pursuits, and because the NFA promises were not being honoured.

The worsening poverty and desperation in the communities opened the way for the governmental parties' next move, the destruction of the Manitoba Crees' unity. Using strategies of “divide and conquer” and “starve 'em out”, Indian Affairs began asserting their policies and approaches of termination and sign-offs on the Manitoba Crees' NFA treaty rights.

The pressure was applied to the smallest NFA communities first, for example Split Lake. Over the next few years, up to last year in Norway House, the federal and provincial governments succeeded in getting these desperately poor bands to enter into sophisticated Comprehensive Implementation Agreements, or CIAs, with the four smaller Cree NFA First Nations.

We have examined these “implementation agreements”, and it is clear they are not “implementation” at all. Rather, they have actually resulted in the legal destruction of NFA treaty rights of the four First Nations that have entered into them. These agreements amount to once-only “buy-outs” of the affected First Nations' NFA treaty rights. These buy-outs had been obtained by the governments Manitoba Hydro for relatively small amounts of money, given the damage done to the Manitoba Crees' way of life, their lands—and given the billions of dollars of revenues and benefits that have been generated for the province and Canada by the Churchill-Nelson River Hydro-electric megaproject.

I should mention that here I'm not going to include everything listed in the report.

The James Bay Cree delegation concluded on the basis of this fact-finding mission that:

The NFA is a treaty creating a strong and binding agreement between Canada, Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro and the Manitoba Crees.

The NFA has been deliberately ignored for more than 20 years by the government parties. The result is 5 Cree communities in extremely poor social and economic shape, in spite of the promises of their agreement signed in 1977.

The federal government has been fully prepared to use strategies to weaken and then destroy regional organizations as the Northern Flood Committee in Manitoba. This led to a situation where five communities were placed in a vulnerable position and could then be “picked off” one by one.

...In respect of these communities, this has meant absolute termination, forever, of all of their rights and recourses under the NFA.

The last NFA Community, the Pimicikamak Cree Nation representing over 5,000 Crees in Cross Lake, half of the total NFA population in Manitoba, is bravely resisting these efforts to destroy its rights under the NFA.

We are reporting on these things because the Manitoba situation clearly has very important lessons for the Eenouch regarding our JBNQA rights, and also the importance of Cree unity with respect to governmental relations and ongoing policies of termination of treaty rights.

• 1025

The Grand Council of the Crees is appearing here today to urgently request that Parliament abandon or, at the very least, amend Bill C-56. Bill C-56 represents a destructive approach to treaty rights, a legacy from the dark ages of aboriginal-Crown relations. It is the very essence of the coercion, division, disaggregation and dispossession that the Minister of Indian Affairs apologized for in her historic statement of January 1998. This act of Parliament is, I believe, evil and will return to disgust Canadians and embarrass the political parties that enact it.

Yes, there are differences between the two flood agreements, the James Bay agreement and the Northern Flood Agreement, but the similarities are far greater. Without a doubt, both agreements were entered into with great solemnity. Both are thus treaties, and the Crown knows this. The spirit and intent of the two agreements is identical. The Crown flooded both Cree Nations' traditional lands, thereby severely damaging our habitats, economies and ways of life. In both cases, these vast acts of environmental and social terrorism deprived our peoples of their own means of subsistence.

Belatedly and without generosity, the agreements that authorized both of the megaprojects were signed after the fact. In return, the Crees in both provinces were promised that important things would be done and paid for, which would go some way to compensate them and to help them to survive with dignity. Both Cree Nations were promised employment, training, community development and other incentives.

I have asked my legal counsel about the effect of these so-called master implementation agreements. Suffice it to say that in regard to the result I would spare no effort to protect my people from being oppressed or bribed into accepting such an injustice.

We do not believe that any aboriginal people would ever freely consent to giving up perpetual and substantial rights in this way. My people have stated time and again that they will not.

The James Bay agreement has no termination clause and no time limits. It does not say anywhere that it will be necessary to negotiate another agreement to implement the first. For these reasons, the master implementation agreement and your bill that ratifies it are a grave injustice and a violation of what the Supreme Court has referred to as “the honour of the Crown”.

These modern flood agreements are legally binding. They are not too complicated or, as has been stated to you about the NFA, too vague. They both contain many specifics that have been ignored. In any case, they are easy to understand in their spirit and intent.

You don't even have to know what is in the NFA or the JBNQA to understand that these once-only MIAs and CIAs are appalling and dishonourable deals. The NFA and the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement both last forever, as long as the sun shines and hydro project turbines turn, and the Crown's responsibilities and obligations last forever with them. This is only fair. The hydro projects last forever and keep generating bigger revenues each year—$3 billion in Quebec and $1 billion in Manitoba—from which the Crees in Quebec and Manitoba were excluded with regard to direct benefit.

• 1030

The Crees' populations will double in a few decades and then double again. No once-only sum of money can deal with these developing situations, and the Crown knows it. This is the real reason for the MIAs and the CIAs and the laws that purport to entrench them. The Crown knows its obligations only too well and, in the actual words of the CEO of Manitoba Hydro, is working very hard to “extinguish” them.

We regard this legislation as a clear breach of the values expressed in the government's Gathering Strength policy. This Bill C-56 legislation is not just a violation of the Norway House treaty and of other human rights. This Bill C-56 legislation is not just a violation of the treaties of the Cross Lake and NFA Crees and of other human rights. We regard this legislation as a violation of the treaty rights of the the James Bay Crees and of all aboriginal peoples, and of other human rights as well. We regard this legislation as a clear message to us: our and your treaties are next.

For this reason, I call upon this government to kill or, at the very least, amend this travesty of legislation or allow it to die upon the Order Paper. It is oppressive and unjust.

With that, I thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Chief.

Questions?

Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Thank you, Chief. It's nice to see you again. Last time we met, the committee was in your community and was very well treated.

This is a very complicated and unpleasant situation we find ourselves in here. The other communities have signed on to implementation agreements, of course, and were either supported or opposed by rank-and-file members of the communities, but if, as you say, there are bribes and if there are violations of human rights, that's of course no way to conduct business.

I would like to look at the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. You have an implementation board that is responsible for reporting biannually, I believe, to Parliament on the implementation of the agreement. Is that something that would be preferable to a once-only agreement of the kind we're discussing here? Or does that not work very well for you?

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: Thank you very much. What you're referring to is the Cree-Naskapi Act Commission—

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Oh, you're right. Sorry.

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: —which is an independent body that is separate from the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Yes, they make presentations and have done biannual reports. The Crees have made presentations, and any individual can make presentations or complaints if they feel they are treated unjustly by the Cree-Naskapi Act legislation. That's the process that was adopted, but there's no dispute mechanism in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement like there is in the Northern Flood Agreement.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Okay. Do you think that process would be preferable to the implementation agreement that's here before us, which is an implementation commission that would report? It would be a long, slow process, of course. There would be a lot of sitting around the table and talking.

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: The reason there's no dispute mechanism process under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is that we on our side had honourable men who represented us—and I believe the government appointed their honourable men to represent them—and we did not say that we needed a mechanism because we were not foreseeing that there would be a dispute.

We had every intention of maintaining that treaty in spirit and intent and we believed that we would all work together to implement it. We believed that we would work together to improve the relations and that we would be able to follow through on what we understood the agreement to provide, whether it was economic incentives, employment, training, etc., or setting up a environmental regime to deal with social and environmental impact assessments and look at the energies that could be created. We didn't need a dispute mechanism. It was understood that we would work together to make this work.

• 1035

Mr. Derrek Konrad: That would be my point: this commission would work together to see what could be done, because a committee like this one meets and considers things for an hour or two or three or four, as you are aware, and hears submissions on both sides of the issue. Very rarely do we get to the details of an agreement, where there is possibly more than one interpretation or where somebody has taken a stand that is difficult.

I read through the commission report that I referred to and I find a number of areas there where the report states that the government is coming up short. I think that gives us an opportunity to say “well, this is where...”, and to make comparisons of what was in an agreement, either laid out very clearly or implied.

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: I would really like to say that's a good board, but I can't, because I have biannual reports of unfulfilled obligations that are thicker than the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. It's not working. You make your presentations, but the government just sits back and washes its hands.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Are you suggesting that the commission should be wound down and some other process implemented?

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: It should be strengthened. It should provide adequate financial and human resources. It should have more teeth, more clout, but it doesn't.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Do I have any time left?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Yes, you do.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: What level of court determined that the James Bay agreement is a treaty? You said that three courts have determined it.

Mr. Andrew J. Orkin (Legal Counsel, Grand Council of the Crees): The Federal Court of Appeal determined that twice and the Quebec Superior Court so far has determined it once. I understand that the Quebec Superior Court decision is under appeal by both the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec.

Leave for appeal in the major Federal Court of Appeal decision that declared it a treaty, which was the Namagoose case—and Bill Namagoose here was the chief plaintiff in that case—was refused to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: It was refused? Thank you.

I think that's all I have. Thank you very much.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Derrek. Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: Chief, you expressed the principle that these agreements, because they make money in perpetuity, should pay off in perpetuity, and you observe that the Cree Nation is going to be doubling and quadrupling in population, and consequently, if I gather correctly, that these agreements should provide for those increases in population and perhaps they're not doing so.

Can you tell me, then, following that principle, what you think the Crown's obligation would have been in either Manitoba or Quebec had there been no hydroelectric projects and had the Cree Nations in their communities doubled and tripled in population and exhausted their traditional resources? What would have been the Crown's obligation to the people then?

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: The Crown certainly, under its own constitution, has fiduciary obligations towards Indians and lands reserved for Indians, and certainly they have an obligation towards the first nations.

Since when did the federal government ever side with the first nations and stand beside them and provide the funding, and say, yes, they have aboriginal rights, and yes, there is aboriginal title? I do not know of one case in which the federal government sided with the Indians. For an ideal case, the federal government should be siding... but the federal government is siding with the developers, with the other side. For aboriginal rights and aboriginal peoples, the federal government is not there. They are silent. Under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, they took a—

Mr. John Bryden: Chief, that's not my question. That's not my question at all. Please. Answer the question.

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: I thought that was your question.

Mr. John Bryden: Should I repeat it again, Mr. Chairman?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): As you wish, Mr. Bryden.

• 1040

Mr. John Bryden: You expressed the view that these agreements, the James Bay agreement and the Northern Flood Agreement, should be agreements that pay off in perpetuity because they make money in perpetuity, and the Cree populations, the communities, as you said yourself, will be doubling and quadrupling in population over the years. From that I gather that you feel that these agreements should provide for those increases in population.

My question to you was, then, following that principle, had there been no hydroelectric projects in either Manitoba or Quebec, what do you think the Crown's obligation would have been to the Cree Nations in those two provinces had the populations doubled and quadrupled and exhausted the traditional resources? What do you think the Crown's obligation to the Cree should have been then?

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: Every first nation would tell you that those lands belong to us, that we are the owners of the land, and that we should benefit from the extraction of the natural resources from our lands. They will tell you that whether it be trees or water or oil that's underneath there; we should benefit so that we don't have to rely on government handouts, so that we have control and jurisdiction over the natural resources.

Mr. John Bryden: Chief, what happens, though, if there is no oil extraction? You're talking about the white man's world coming in and the Canadian government exploiting a resource that you cannot do yourself. When you talk about traditional resources, I understand you to mean hunting and fishing and living off the land. But if you're telling me that... I don't know what you're telling me, actually. You're condemning the Crown for encouraging or being a part of the development of those resources and then you're telling me no, stay out.

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: I do not believe that I'm double-speaking.

Mr. John Bryden: I don't understand, though.

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: We want to continue to fish and trap and hunt as a way of life, but we're not so blind as to think that's the only way to go. We want to pursue that way of life and give a choice to those who want to pursue that way of life. At the same time, we want to participate in development. I don't believe we're anti-development, but I don't believe we can improve our condition just by receiving handouts from the federal government, whatever party may be in power.

I believe that we can manage. We have survived, and we can participate in development and we can run our own affairs. But every time we want to start anything, there's always a permit that we have to ask for or somebody has already been given the wood-rights concession or some mine already has the permits or some other company already has the permit to hunt, fish and trap there and set up an outfitting camp. We can't even move, so no wonder we're always contesting.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Chief.

Mr. Bill Namagoose (Executive Director, Grand Council of the Crees): I'd like to add that maybe if the federal government were to extinguish its extinguishment policy this wouldn't happen. What happens is that when we enter into negotiations with any developer, the federal government comes in and imposes a treaty, something similar to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement treaty, and extinguishes our rights to those natural resources. Therefore we negotiate with developers with our hands tied behind our backs—and probably our feet also. If the government would extinguish that policy, we'd have tremendous leverage, we would be able to benefit from the natural resources and, therefore, we would not be a burden on the federal government.

Maybe then they wouldn't have any obligations to us. We would be able to sustain our own nation and benefit from our natural resources. We wouldn't need any federal Crown obligations or benefits from the federal Crown. We'd be able to sustain our own nation.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Nault.

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask the Grand Chief a question. He has suggested... We're now getting into this whole issue of the James Bay agreement being a treaty. I want to set that aside because that's not what we're talking about today. We're here to talk about the Northern Flood Agreement in Manitoba.

I asked Mr. Allmand the other day if, when he was the minister signing the agreement, it was the intent of the chiefs that this was an adhesion to Treaty No. 5, the area we're talking about, which is the first agreement that was signed and is the treaty we talk about in that particular area. He couldn't tell me nor was he willing to admit on the record that chiefs at that particular signing ceremony said that it was a treaty.

• 1045

I think it's important. If you want to talk about an oral history and an oral culture, where you're sitting at a meeting and the intent of the people there, whether they're elders or women or youth or representatives—the chiefs in this case—is that they have a particular position... Granted, I come from northern Ontario, which isn't too far from Treaty No. 5, and I have a few first nations from Treaty No. 5 in my area, but I'm not aware that anyone is upset with this committee yet—at least with the elected representatives—that this implementation agreement we're trying to talk about, this framework agreement, is a change to Treaty No. 5.

Are you in fact aware, then, that this Northern Flood Agreement is considered by the chiefs in Treaty No. 5 to be an adhesion, a change to their treaty? That's the first question.

I think it's important to know, because I'm somewhat surprised that the grand chief from an area outside of northern Manitoba is here talking about an area whereas we haven't heard from the national chief, who happens to be from this particular area, or at least from Manitoba. He hasn't come here or hasn't asked to be present to tell us that. I'm a little bit surprised, to say the least, that you're speaking on behalf of the Cree in Manitoba. It's a little bit unusual. It's like Charles Fox coming to talk with us; I'd be a little surprised if he came as a representative of the Cree in Treaty No. 9.

I'm trying to get a sense of what your mandate is. I know you're coming to tell us how you feel about the James Bay agreement and, quite frankly, that's fair ball. I respect and appreciate that, but that's not what we're talking about today. We're here to talk about the Northern Flood Agreement. I'm trying to get a feel for this. You must have been in communication with these chiefs. Could you give me some sense of what their intent was when they signed the agreement in 1977? Am I now talking about an adhesion to Treaty No. 5?

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: Thank you very much.

I do not purport to speak for any first nations across Canada, but where there are individual treaty rights that are affected, I am affected. Where there is an attempt by governments, or when there is a law, a decision made by the courts, like the Nisga'a decision, I get affected. When laws are passed and policies are developed by governments and perpetuated to bring them to constitutional negotiations, I am affected.

Whether it's coming from Ontario or from the Northwest Territories, I am affected—and I will be affected, because I see sign-offs and I see attempts to cap an agreement. If they're going to succeed in doing this, what are they going to do next? Am I next in line? If they're going to do this to an implementation treaty, I am concerned that I will be the next in line—because that seems to be a policy across Canada. They're very consistent. I don't want to say any more about that. I believe that there are treaty issues at stake here. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is a treaty. Treaty rights are an issue for us here.

Maybe I'll ask—

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, let me try this one more time.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Nault.

Mr. Robert Nault: Are you or are you not aware of the intent of the representatives of Treaty No. 5 when they signed the Northern Flood Agreement, of whether it was considered to be a modern-day treaty? There's a big difference between a treaty and a contract, and that's what you have your legal representation for, I assume.

I'm not arguing about the James Bay side of it. You're making it very clear and you have court rulings that suggest that's a treaty. I'm not talking about that today. I'm talking about the Northern Flood Agreement and what the intent was of the representatives of the day when they signed it with Minister Allmand.

I asked then Minister Allmand, who was there that day, whether that was perceived to be a treaty and whether that was what the chiefs knew they were signing on to, that they were signing on to an adhesion to Treaty No. 5—because that's what it would be. He said, well, you'd have to ask them. In essence, he would not answer the question.

I'm asking this same question today and no one is willing to give me an answer. Either you don't know—and say you don't know—or... I'm not debating your agreement. That's a different subject matter. I'm just trying to get a feel for what we're doing here. Are we in essence amending a treaty, as you're suggesting? Or are we really putting in an implementation agreement, which is what some of the people from northern Manitoba who are coming before us are saying?

Then I have the national chief—and I'm going to ask him this as soon as I get a chance—who is from that particular province and who is not coming to the committee saying what you are saying. You would think he would come to the committee and say, “I agree with Grand Chief Coon Come that in fact they shouldn't be signing that agreement.” But he's not. It's awfully quiet, isn't it, over there at the national chief's office? I'm trying to get a sense—

• 1050

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: I am not the national chief. It's his responsibility if he wants to come here or not.

I'll ask Andy Orkin to clarify and hopefully answer your question.

Mr. Robert Nault: Thank you.

Mr. Andrew Orkin: I think there's an interesting twist to the question being asked, if I've understood it, which is, was the Northern Flood Agreement understood at the time to be a treaty by the chiefs who signed it?

The Supreme Court has articulated a range of tests about determining whether given relationships constitute treaties. The leading case on this is a case called Sioui, which considered in the context of Quebec what was essentially a letter of safe passage from the 1700s, issued by the British Crown, and asked, was this a treaty? It was signed by only one side. The Supreme Court of Canada said yes indeed, that it was a treaty because this was a relationship that was entered into with some solemnity.

That being said, I think we should pause in a moment and ask Elder Beardy, who was a chief at that time and negotiated and signed the Northern Flood Agreement, what he thought he was entering into at that point in time.

But that being said, the twist on this is that if the NFA is not a treaty, Manitoba Hydro and Manitoba are in tremendous difficulty, because Treaty No. 5 definitely is a treaty and gave to the bands treaty rights to a vast area of reserve land in northern Manitoba, and unless the Northern Flood Agreement is a treaty and is capable of amending Treaty No. 5 in order to provide easements for that flooding, Manitoba Hydro is on stolen land. So this is a major problem, not for the Indians, but for Manitoba Hydro and the Government of Manitoba, and indeed, for the Government of Canada, which draws royalty revenues in the form of GST from the sale of that electricity.

So my constant analysis, when asked by my clients in Manitoba if this is a treaty—and an opportunity will come to discuss this—is that they are in a very good position if it's not, actually, because those turbines and reservoirs and easements are on their reserves. I think the Crown needs to consider very carefully what the position is if the NFA, all of these years, was not a treaty, because then it's not capable of modifying Treaty No. 5 and Jenpeg dam is on stolen land.

Mr. Robert Nault: You see, you keep skirting the issue. I can understand the abilities of lawyers to talk about the fact that this should “be perceived to be” a treaty because of this, this and this.

My question is a very simple one. I'm not trying to put a twist on it. The fact remains that Treaty No. 5 still exists today and has not changed the fiduciary obligation of the Crown. To suggest that all of a sudden Manitoba Hydro is on stolen land or something to that effect... There is an agreement to deal with compensation for a wrong done in the sixties and seventies. I'm not arguing that point.

My point is that there is a big difference between what the chiefs in northern Quebec might have thought when they signed the Cree-Naskapi agreement versus what the chiefs in Treaty No. 5 thought when they were signing the Northern Flood Agreement. Every time I ask that question I get this legalistic view, almost a white man's view, of what the chiefs thought. I want to know what the chiefs thought, and I want the leadership to tell us what they thought when they were there.

They were there. If Elder Sandy Beardy was a chief then, maybe it's good that he's here today, because I haven't had anybody tell me what transpired at that very important time in our history.

Elder Sandy Beardy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We talk about treaty land and resources. When we made the treaty, we only gave so much land for agricultural purposes. Other than that, it belongs to us, to native people.

That's the agreement that was made when the Queen's representative made this treaty with this native, and if I get the opportunity later on, I will tell you about these medals I have here.

• 1055

But as far as I'm concerned, we never gave out our land. We had partnership with the federal government, but what he did in 1930 was to give away our land and resources to the provincial government without notifying the native people. But in the future some day, it will be just like high court, like the Supreme Court, like the people who were accused of violating the law in hunting, where it was taken to the Supreme Court and ruled by the Supreme Court that they didn't break any law.

In that agreement, Manitoba Hydro said they were going to replace every acre with four acres. The damage has been done. Where are they going to get the land to replace that acre? They do not own this land. We still own the land. Therefore, when they make an agreement, it's a treaty where the federal government is involved. I was there when they negotiated the Northern Flood Agreement. Any agreement that native people are making with the federal government is bound to be a treaty, because that's a responsibility that the federal government has: to protect the native people and to stand up for their rights when the federal government signed with the province and Manitoba Hydro.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Beardy.

I'm going to move on, with your permission.

Elder Sandy Beardy: Yes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): I want to apologize to my colleague, Claude Bachand, because I didn't give him an opportunity earlier when I should have.

I thought Mr. Nault was answering Mr. Namagoose's question, and I got so concerned... I thought you were going to answer that question.

Claude, with your indulgence, sir.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: I accept your apology, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I would like to welcome the representatives from the belle terre (beautiful country) Cree. I am often told that I am from la belle province, but I know that they are from the belle terre Cree.

I am surprised to see Chief Coon Come pick up his earpiece to listen to interpretation, because I was told that he is taking French classes. That will be my first question: how are your French classes going?

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: Not bad, not bad, my friend.

Mr. Claude Bachand: I would also like to say that I acknowledge Chief Matthew Coon Come's fighting spirit; he has come here on several occasions. He's an extraordinary defender of the Cree not only in Quebec, but throughout the territory.

Once again, we experience culture shock when these people arrive. They do not see things the same way we do, and I think that it is important to maintain a dialogue in order to bridge the gap among people and to succeed in getting along.

I also understand his frustration. I agree with him. Taking away an ancestral right will undoubtedly have repercussions elsewhere. Reading the report of the Royal Commission of Inquiry shows that. Absolutely horrible things happened; we did not honour our word, contracts and treaties that had been signed.

I understand that there was a double standard. Look, for example, at what happened at the Supreme Court of Canada. It is often called Canada's highest court, but with respect to Native cases, where 90% of the time the decisions are in their favour, the government does not apply them, or ignores them, covers them up or refuses to see them. While only 10% of the cases heard by the Supreme Court result in decisions in the government's favour, these decisions are applied strictly throughout the territory. I can understand that frustration, but we are trying to find a way to overcome this today.

• 1100

I have a question for the Grand Chief. I understand that he wants us to reject the bill, but he says nevertheless that at the end of the day, if we must adopt it, the bill must at least be amended. Would this bill be a bit more satisfactory if it contained an amendment to the effect that nothing in the Act or the agreement is to be interpreted as repealing or extinguishing Natives' ancestral rights? Would you be satisfied if that particular provision were included in the Act?

For the time being, I agree with you that applying the NFA through the MIA would limit the scope of the rights included in the NFA.

To avoid that, could we not have a clause in the Act stating that nothing shall be interpreted as repealing or extinguishing Aboriginal rights? Could that be a possible solution?

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: Thank you very much, Claude. How are you?

Mr. Claude Bachand: Very well. And you?

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: Me too.

[English]

Yes, of course, as always we've sought non-derogation clauses in order to protect the Cree or aboriginal and treaty rights overall in any agreement. We certainly have discussed among ourselves as to the possible amendments. We certainly agree with Andy Orkin's suggestions. Maybe I'll ask him to explain it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Orkin.

[Translation]

Mr. Andrew Orkin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The possibility of an amendment was brought to our attention yesterday. I understand it arose out of discussions with earlier witnesses. I was asked to put my mind to this in a hurry yesterday and provide some advice, both to the Grand Chief and to some of the other interveners who will be appearing later in the day. As the Grand Chief has said, it is always possible to try to remedy an injustice by tacking on a clause that may reduce or eliminate the possibility of harm. That's never an optimal way of statutory drafting. It is an octopus approach.

That being said, it is possible to come up with language if the concern of this committee or other members of Parliament were whether this does affect treaty rights arising out of the NFA—if there are such treaty rights. All parties to the MIA have stated that it's not their intention to affect treaty rights. If that's true, it is possible to draft language in this bill that makes it clear that is not the effect of this bill. If it's true—

Mr. Robert Nault: Excuse me. It's already in the bill. Article 13.13.3 says in essence... DIAND officials have indicated that this article protects aboriginal treaty rights of the Norway House Cree. The intent is—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Excuse me, Mr. Nault. Are you referring to Bill C-56 or to the MIA?

Mr. Robert Nault: No, I am saying the legislation you're dealing with indicates that article 13.13.3 of the MIA protects the aboriginal and treaty rights of the Norway House Cree Nation.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): I think we should let Mr. Orkin finish his comments. I thank you for your intervention.

Mr. Andrew Orkin: I don't have the MIA in front of me. I do have it in my bag.

If that's the provision, sir, that I think you mean, it's the one that says nothing in this agreement is “intended” to affect “the aboriginal or treaty rights” of the parties to this agreement. Is that understanding correct?

• 1105

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): That's my understanding, Mr. Orkin. I've just been advised by research staff that this intention is in the MIA. I read it myself. Now, whether it's in this bill is what I'm not sure of.

Mr. Claude Bachand: Exactly.

Mr. Andrew Orkin: There isn't anything in the bill that I've seen—I'm open to correction—that has that effect, and I've read the bill a number of times. The effect of the MIA would not be to reach into a statute and affect the intent of Parliament. If the intent of Parliament is not to affect aboriginal and treaty rights, the way to achieve that is to say that nothing in this law, or for that matter in the MIA, shall be interpreted as having that effect—if that is the genuine intent of Parliament at this time.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you very much. I think you've explained that very clearly.

I want to move on to Madam Desjarlais, please.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: I just want to clarify this so I have a correct understanding of what you said in regard to the Crown when Mr. Nault was questioning you. What I took from what you were saying was that the Crown was to act in the best interests of first nations people, that they had the fiduciary responsibility, and that by rights, then, they should be acting in the best interests of the first nations people.

By not ensuring that an agreement is in place that looks at the increases in population and everything else, by not ensuring that is part of the agreement and is within the agreement so that there will be ongoing supports to first nations people—income coming in—and if the Crown is signing away, say, dollars that might be coming in the future, they are not acting responsibly and in the best interests of first nations people. Is that what your intent was? That's what I took from that. I know Mr. Nault never saw that, but that's what I understood you to be saying. Was I correct in that view?

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: You are correct, Bev.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Thank you.

When you gave your presentation, I couldn't help but sort of relate to your statement of social terrorism. As we were going through this—and knowing what happens in a number of first nations where I believe they are sort of backed into a corner where they take whatever little bit they can get in order to survive—I recalled a presentation that an RCMP officer gave at a justice conference. They were talking about terrorism and how you actually end up having this love-of-the-terrorist syndrome, because the terrorists are out there and picking people, deciding who they're going to choose to kill that day, and if they don't happen to kill you, you're so darn thankful. By the end of the whole terrorist attack, of people being held hostage, the hostages are loving the terrorists because they survived. “My God,” they say, “they must be my saviours, they care about me.”

I got that feeling as to how aboriginal people would feel after 29 years of not being able to get an agreement resolved. You're literally being starved out and the social conditions have reached a point where they just can't get much lower, so you're going to take whatever you can get. I somehow feel that is what's happening in some of these situations.

My question is in regard to your view of a first nations chief-in-council who is elected—not bringing into question whether the whole election process and what happened before was done democratically. Assuming everything has been done fairly, does the chief-in-council have the right to sign an agreement that in essence would change the concept of the treaty? Can they take that right and change what has happened? Do you believe they have the authority, then, to change the previous agreement?

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: Thank you very much.

Before I answer the question, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to table the amendments that we are talking about, the abrogating and derogating clause. I'd like to table that. Is it possible that at least a minimum can be done in order to give us some assurance that there is a non-derogation clause within the act?

• 1110

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Chief. We've done that. We accepted it.

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: Before I answer your question, I'll ask Brian Craik to briefly answer part of your question.

Mr. Brian Craik (Director of Federal Relations, Grand Council of the Crees): One of your observations had to with the nature of the agreement that's signed. Twenty years is a long time to go without major government programs to address fundamental needs in the community. It's also a long time to endure the impacts of a hydroelectric project like this one on hunting and on the traditional life of the people. If you look at the difference between the James Bay agreement and the Northern Flood Agreement, in the James Bay case, the Crees, from the beginning, did have some means to begin to address some of these things. For example, there were remedial works related to the hydroelectric project, which were put in place by Hydro-Québec. In the case of the Northern Flood Agreement, Manitoba Hydro didn't do any remedial works for a long time.

If after 20 years you see an agreement that actually extinguishes the first agreement, you have to ask what the effect of this duress has been—and which these people have been experiencing all this time—on their ability to put forward their rights, to make their case. In the agreement, basically, we see an extinguishment rather than a building-upon. What we would like to see out of this Northern Flood Agreement is an interpretation saying that “this is what's said” in the Northern Flood Agreement, so we'll interpret it in such a way as to give training programs, remedial works and community development projects to these people.

Obviously there's no problem with the governments or with Manitoba Hydro in flowing money under the Northern Flood Agreement; Canada was doing it for three years before they signed this Norway House agreement. Manitoba Hydro has just recently begun to do some remedial work around Cross Lake under the Northern Flood Agreement. There's no problem with that.

The problem is that Canada, Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro feel that the Crees, under the Northern Flood Agreement, got too many rights, that they now have too much, that they have too much leverage. That's what's being extinguished. The worry is that 20 years hence, the compensation money will be exhausted and there won't be any special rights to recognize and address these issues.

I'm appalled at this legislation. If you look at the program that we have for social programs in Canada today, what do we have? We have provinces saying that they need programs to address their particular situation, that they need rights over those programs to determine what their people need. That's what's in the Northern Flood Agreement: a promise for those types of programs. What's replaces it is a far cry from that. It extinguishes the rights to have those types of programs.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Craik.

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Bev, we, the Crees, have amended the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement at least 13 times. We amended it as a nation. We never amended the agreement—nor would we allow a community to amend the agreement—except as a nation, and have done it 13 times. We certainly did not offer $1,000 to be able to amend or not amend the agreement, and we certainly never signed an implementation agreement.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you.

Mr. Keddy did have his name on the list, but I don't see him here.

Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: I get a little uncomfortable, Chief, when other people answer for you, so could I ask you a very direct question and have you answer it rather than someone else?

• 1115

My direct question is, why is it that you feel the people of the communities involved, both past and present—Norway House and the communities that have signed on to these agreements before, that have signed on to the implementation of the Northern Flood Agreement—are wrong? Why do you feel that you have an opinion that is superior to theirs? Why is it that you feel you are in this position to go against the will of the people, against the leadership of the communities that have supported this agreement?

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: Every first nation has the right to make their own agreements, to be able to sign their own treaties. But when it affects... and you may disagree with me... It affects our treaty rights. This agreement is a pattern; the implementation agreement is a pattern. We've seen it over the years. I've been involved with so-called federal government-first nations relationships for 20 years. I've seen the pattern of sign-offs, of capping. In order to get an agreement, you have to sign another agreement. We already have the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

I am concerned that when a right is affected—and I believe a treaty right is affected—then I am affected. I should be given the freedom to be able to say what I feel, because I have concerns. I have high standards when I feel that certain principles are being affected. Human rights standards are national. They're not to be monopolized by a particular government or by a particular department. I don't applaud when I see that a federal government is dictating what format should be followed. In the elections, they have their hands in there. I'm appalled at it. It disgusts me the way that this takes place and that it's been acceptable.

Each first nation has a right to decide, but that may affect other rights. That's where I feel I come in, and I should be able to express my concerns.

Mr. John Bryden: Just to be clear, then, you do feel that the leadership of these communities that support the MIA and Bill C-56 are wrong, that they are making a mistake and that you know better.

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: I did not say that, sir.

Mr. John Bryden: That is what you are saying.

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: I did not say that.

Mr. John Bryden: That's everything that you just said.

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: There is—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Excuse me, Chief. I'm going to intervene. Everybody has heard your testimony and we appreciate it.

I'll ask one more time whether there are any further questions, but they are going to have to be brief. Otherwise we are not going to hear from some other representatives who have come a long way.

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you. I just will take Mr. Keddy's place here.

Brian Craik talked about a fund that can be exhausted before band members can receive the benefit from it—or after a number of years. I would suggest that investing always gives ongoing benefits if it's done well.

Another point I would like to raise here concerns the treaty land entitlement process, which has been overlooked in your testimony. You have said that the government should not be dictating to band councils how they should do things. I wonder what your viewpoint would be if you had a member of a band who said they didn't care to be a part of the reserve process, that the band was receiving benefits on their behalf and investing it in, say, farmland and said that they wanted to own their own farmland. Would you be in favour of that person being able to take that benefit either as cash to buy a farm where he chose or of holding his land in fee simple in an area where that would be feasible?

A recent newspaper article talked about a band in Saskatchewan that spent $1.65 million out of $15.5 million and hasn't an acre of land for anybody. Yet if you had given that to an individual, he would have had a lot of land and he would have no debt.

• 1120

Mr. Brian Craik: Matthew has asked me to respond to your question.

I guess it's always a balance between individual rights and benefits and the collectivity. In the case of aboriginal people, a couple of things are true. The Government of Canada and other governments have great faith in aboriginal peoples running crown corporations, but they don't have much faith in themselves running crown corporations, because they divest themselves of crown corporations. Yet, they create aboriginal crown corporations when they create these funds.

The other thing that's true is that some of these funds have brought great benefit to aboriginal people on a collective basis, because they've been invested for community purposes and for the benefit of the group as a whole. Some of them will have long-term benefits.

Will the funds be exhausted? There's a good chance that the funds will be exhausted.

Will individuals benefit from these funds? I think they will, but if you start to pick apart a fund that's set aside for a collectivity and divide it up and give it all to individuals, it will all be gone and there will really be no benefit over the long term.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: That's possibly because you don't trust the individuals. When you say things like that...

Mr. Brian Craik: No. Well, it's partially that. My real problem with the agreement is that it takes back so much. The $80 million—and more—is due Norway House, as are the rights to go along with it so that they continue their development. That's the problem. The problem isn't what Norway House wants to do for themselves; they want to improve their situation, but—

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I was talking about the treaty land entitlement, not about the Norway House agreement portion of it; that's one part of the bill.

Mr. Brian Craik: It's for each first nation to decide how the benefit is going to be dealt with for the collectivity and for individuals, and I'd say that in every case they come up with a formula. You hope that the local first nation has a government that will bring benefit to the individuals. That's what the Crees try to do, for example; there are a number of Crees employed in Cree enterprises.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I'm not suggesting that they don't benefit, but there may be other viewpoints.

Mr. Brian Craik: Yes.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Craik.

A small question, Mr. Nault.

Mr. Robert Nault: It's small, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just wanted to let Chief Coon Come and Mr. Craik know that according to the Bill C-56 documents that we got from the department, it reads that:

The MIA is intended to be a compensation and benefit package to complement prior settlement and implementation activities effected under the Northern Flood Agreement of 1977.

In essence, that's how they see the MIA. Based on that and on the fact that, as I have said to Mr. Orkin on two occasions already this morning, article 13.13.3 in the MIA says that protection of the aboriginal treaty rights of the Norway House Cree Nation will be in place, I need to get some legal advice. Is it not fair to assume, then, if that's right in the MIA, that if someone did attempt to extinguish treaty rights under this implementation agreement, it would be a pretty good argument to go to court with—if you accept the argument that it is a treaty—and that in fact we are now abrogating our responsibility under that particular agreement? Therefore, if it's written right in the MIA, that would be a pretty good court case.

I ask that question because I'm not a lawyer, but I have a sneaking suspicion that it's not as simple as it is being made to sound this morning and that in fact we're somehow distinguishing something when we're putting it in writing right in the agreement.

Would that not be comfort enough for somebody who was a lawyer and wanted to sue the government for abrogation of its authority or its fiduciary responsibility? I'm talking about 20 years from now, like Mr. Craik talked about, when, if things aren't going the way they're supposed to go, it's right in the act that we are protecting the aboriginal treaty rights of Treaty No. 5.

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come: Andy, do you want to answer that?

A voice: He's asking a lawyer.

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Andrew Orkin: Yes. Well, I'm worried that—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Excuse me. If I might just ask you something, I think we all understand Mr. Nault's question because we've read this and we've asked about this problem.

Now, I know that lawyers have opinions on both sides of many questions.

Mr. Andrew Orkin: Absolutely.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): We'll take yours, but that doesn't necessarily mean we're going to believe it—

Voices: Oh, oh.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): —nor does it mean we're going to rush off to the Supreme Court. We have a job to do and we're going to do it, but we'll take your answer.

• 1125

Mr. Andrew Orkin: Mr. Chairman, I thank you for giving the caution I always give my clients, which is, “please take this as my opinion and not as a form of the legal gospel”.

That being said, I jump in here, sir, with some trepidation about being accused either of being legalistic or of giving a “white man's” opinion.

This being said, this is a white man's agreement. It's been drafted by an army of white men and women somewhere—

Voices: Oh, oh.

Mr. Andrew Orkin: —and it seems to me that if marriage agreements, which are very vague, in which we agree to treat each other honourably and fairly until death do us part, required this sort of text to give effect to them... This looks like a divorce agreement to me. I've seen them and some of them are very lengthy. That being said, let's look at divorce clause 13.13.3:

Nothing in this Agreement is intended to alter the aboriginal or treaty rights of Norway House Cree Nation...

I am more than fully confident that a Supreme Court would look at that clause, say that the intention of the parties was irrelevant and ask, what is the effect? I think this clause was diabolically drafted, and deliberately diabolically drafted, because Canada's statutes and Canada's agreements, when it is in their interest, are full of clauses that say what the effect actually is when it's in Canada's interest to do so, and there is a very standard non-derogation language, which you'll find in any text on statutory or legal drafting. It usually starts with a phrase, “nothing in this instrument, law or agreement shall be interpreted”. Now, that's very different to recording the intention.

There is a polar difference between what this clause does, which in my view is virtually nothing except to record a sentiment for the interest of history... It does not state with any binding effect that this agreement shall not have that effect. It is still in the position of those protesting that they do not intend to have this effect to actually make that true... It's the old marriage agreement thing: if you love me, put it in writing. If you're not intending to take our rights away, why don't you say in your statute that you are not?

If you're confident that you are not and you're assuring the good people of Norway House that you are not, well, let's see it in the law. It's very simple. If that isn't your intention—to actually protect treaty rights if they may at some future point be found to exist—then, I think, this is a very interesting test for you at this point in time.

I fear that the army of lawyers—most of them in the Justice building down the road—that drafted this will very quickly say, “No. We can't put that there.” I predict that will be the result.

What I learn from that is that the intention is actually, possibly deliberately, to leave open the option of seriously affecting aboriginal and treaty rights. That's the only way I can read it, Mr. Chairman. My opinion may be wrong.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Orkin. You've been most helpful. However, the members of the committee and the members of Parliament are going to have to wrestle with this.

I want to say that Chief Coon Come was just as eloquent as other leaders of aboriginal groups that have come here.

I also want to, just for the record, please, read one little short paragraph that the Chief omitted from his oral presentation, because I think it may give some help to the members of the committee.

Chief, I must say I'm one of those who eschews using the word “never” and I also eschew using the words “every time”, because there has to be a first time when we change. If we read the Royal Commission report and try to follow that report, which many of us are trying to do, then we may stumble on the way. So when you say that you are affected, I say that we are affected.

• 1130

You, Chief, know—I'm sorry, I'm editorializing—that it isn't correct that every time you want to start something, you're knocked down. We have the evidence in northern Quebec with your own people who have started things and are very successful with them. We want to multiply that in this committee. That's why we're doing an economic report.

But in your own words, sir:

We know that many things have improved for us since 1975. We now have clinics and schools and recreational facilities and other institutions, and we have made the best of them, even though we now know that these are things all Canadians have and take for granted.

Those are fine words, too, and they show progress. I will tell you that all Canadians do not—even those outside aboriginal communities—have all those things yet. We're still working on it.

I want to thank you all for coming here and helping the committee.

We have more people to see. I'll declare a four-minute recess and we'll go on. Thank you.

• 1131

• 1140

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Order, please.

The Cross Lake First Nation Cree band is here, led by Chief Roland Robinson. Elder Sandy Beardy is joining that group. The chief will introduce the youth member.

The chief and I have agreed that we'll try to manage this in an hour.

Chief, perhaps you can introduce your people.

Andrew, we welcome you back to the table.

So we'll see if we can do our best, with the indulgence of everyone.

Mr. John Bryden: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I see someone who is intending to videotape the proceedings. I suspect that might not be in order. I would ask you to rule on that.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): What we did earlier on, Mr. Bryden, when Youth Chief Jason Miller was taping—and I'm not sure whether you were here—was to say that if they were simply taking a picture of who is here to speak on their behalf, that would be fine, but we would not allow taping of the rest of the proceedings.

Mr. Ronald Niezen (Individual Presentation): [Professor] Can they record just their presentations? There's a wish by the chief to bring back to the community a record—a visual record—of his presentation so that the people can see it. I mean, there's a written record in English, but there is not a record that people can see on their local television network.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Bachand.

[Translation]

Mr. Claude Bachand: Mr. Chairman, when the little red light is on, it means that we can be heard on the radio. Why stop people from filming? I do not understand. If a CBC TV camera were here today, would they be prevented from filming? No? Would they be prevented from filming? Yes? I see. Fine.

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Perhaps we can resolve this, because I think committees are masters of their own destiny.

Does anybody have a problem with them filming this particular thing?

I think the situation that may develop is that back on the reserve, some of them may not have access to the transcripts, to the other things. This might be the only way they can be informed of what proceeded before the committee.

So I don't have a problem with them taking this back to their own people. I think it is important to them, and I don't have any objections.

I think it's a very good way for you to communicate with your people.

That's my feeling.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you.

Mr. John Bryden: My point, Mr. Chairman, is simply that if we allow this, we have to permit it. I'm perfectly willing to permit it, but I think this committee has to rule that we agree that this occur, because it is against the rules, normally.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes, but I think what we're doing is making a special exception—

Mr. John Bryden: That's fine.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: —and just for this one hour.

Mr. John Bryden: Then let's agree to do it, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): You've put the chair in a difficult position, but I'm told that normally we would have to get permission of the House to allow television.

Despite Mr. Breitkreuz' good intervention, I do not have a quorum here in order to debate the matter of whether we are going to allow parties to this to televise.

• 1145

So I am going to say, and rule, that you may take a picture of those people sitting there—you may take a picture of everybody, if you like—for a maximum of two minutes, and that's that. The record is there.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: What's the quorum?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): I need nine.

Yes, Bev.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Because the first nation didn't know that rule was there, and because the committee made the decision that it was financially impossible to take these meetings to the communities involved, could I not request that they be allowed to tape? What if they turn the tape over to us, we get the House's approval, and then they can use the tape? If they're willing to give us the tape afterwards, until we get approval from the House...

I would be quite surprised if the House wouldn't allow this taping, in all fairness to the people from Cross Lake and Norway House. So allow them to tape it, and if the House disallows it, then, if that's okay with them...

Mr. Robert Nault: Look, it's been a ruling of this House. That's why we have certain committee rooms that allow cameras, CPAC, to do it. The precedent you'd be setting would make it very difficult to say to the CBC next time they wander in with a cameraman that he can't just continue to roll all day long. I think it's a very dangerous precedent, and I think we have no choice but to say no.

The fact remains, sometimes we don't see things that happen in a committee.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you.

Are there any more comments?

Chief.

Chief Roland Robinson (Cross Lake First Nation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We've been discussing it. If we're not allowed to videotape, then we'll table our presentations and go. We can't bring all the people of the PCN to Ottawa. We had to scramble to find money for four people to come down here.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Chief, I'm going to go back to my ruling. I'm going to allow two to three minutes of taping as you start your presentation. At the end, if you want to follow it up, that's fine. Everything you say and everything we say will be recorded. It's public information. If you want information, we will supply it.

But I'm going to rule that without a quorum to change, I'm going to go with the accepted practice. I think the point is well taken.

Chief Roland Robinson: I had promised my people—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Well, Chief, I'm sorry.

Chief Roland Robinson: —that I would bring them a videotape.

[Inaudible—Editor]

An hon. member: —

Mr. John Bryden: We don't see you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): All right. We don't see you. Let's get going here.

Chief Roland.

Chief Roland Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

I have with me today the four councils that make up the government of PCN, Pimicikamak Cree Nation. With me is Sandy Beardy, traditional chief; Rita F. Monias, women's council representative; and Jason Miller, youth chief.

I will start my presentation, and I will try to be brief.

Elders, chairman, members of the committee, ladies and gentlemen, I thank you for giving me this opportunity today.

I appear before you as chief of the Indian Act chief and council of Cross Lake First Nation. The Department of Indian Affairs states that we are just one of five NFA communities, four of which have given up the Northern Flood Agreement. They do not tell you that our people in Cross Lake represent 50% or more of the Northern Flood Agreement population, and are resisting any efforts to take the NFA away from us.

• 1150

First of all, please do not make the mistake of thinking that chief and council are the whole government of Pimicikamak Cree Nation. Our people recently enacted our first written law, which can be understood as part of the Pimicikamak Cree Nation constitution. In this part of our constitution, we have done two important things. We have renewed our traditional form of Cree government, which is based on an elders' council and a women's council. In addition, we have reconciled our traditional form of government with Indian Act structures, which, as you know, were imposed on us.

Our first written law involves our four councils—the elders' council, the women's council, the youth council, and chief and council. In your way of thinking, chief and council might be seen as the executive arm of government.

Our people are showing Canada that there can be aboriginal self-determination and self-government. We have redeveloped a system of Cree government that respects our traditions and consensus decision-making. It respects and reveres the rights and roles of our elders, women, and youth. It also understands that the Indian Act is a fact of life. Rather than splitting the community between traditionalist and Indian Act factions, as has happened elsewhere, we now work effectively with both parts of what we have.

Our people now know that this is a model that holds promise. We ask that it be respected, nurtured, and encouraged.

I want to state for the record that we are not here to criticize or condemn the leadership or people of Norway House. We have great sympathy for and understanding of what has been done to them. We know what has been done to them, because for 22 years we have walked along the same path to the edge of the same cliff.

We are here to criticize and condemn the federal government for its dishonour, its oppression, and its breach of trust to our people.

I'm here to tell you of how my people, the Pimicikamak Cree Nation of Cross Lake, have been affected by the federal government's ongoing efforts to terminate our Northern Flood Agreement treaty rights.

Bill C-56 is supposed to be about Norway House. You may ask, why is Cross Lake here to talk about Norway House issues?

First, you may not know that Cross Lake was born out of Norway House, when some of our people moved to Cross Lake and started another community there. This is the way things work in our culture; we move on the land to where resources are, and new communities emerge.

Cross Lake and Norway House are still very close. We are nearby to each other, and our people have cousins, brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, and friends in Norway House, and the other way around. We speak the same language, share the same lands and waters, celebrate each other's joys, and mourn each other's sorrows.

When Manitoba Hydro and the Government of Manitoba came to flood our lands in the early 1970s, Norway House and Cross Lake stood together with three other smaller communities to resist the destruction. We did not succeed, but an important Cree political structure came out of this—the Northern Flood Committee.

The Northern Flood Committee succeeded in forcing the governments of both Canada and Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro to enter into an agreement with it, on behalf of the five communities. This was the Northern Flood Agreement of 1977, which I have in front of me.

• 1155

Since 1977, when the NFA treaty was signed, almost none of the promises it contained have been provided to my people. In fact, the opposite has happened. Because of the benefits promised in the Northern Flood Agreement treaty, the federal government illegally cut spending on regular programs and services to our people to less than half of what was provided to all other first nations in Manitoba.

What is the reason for the failure to implement the North Flood Agreement treaty? It is quite simple: Over the last 22 years there has been a lack of political will to honour the Crown's promises and get the job done.

When a comprehensive implementation agreement was first offered to us in the early 1990s, we were told by government officials that this was the only way for us to receive any NFA entitlements. The government mounted a campaign of disinformation about what the NFA could and could not do, and about what the proposed CIA would and would not do.

Just for your information, I was part of the negotiating team in 1996 when Cross Lake was talking about a CIA. In January of 1977 I walked out of the negotiating team. I knew it was terminating our treaty rights. That's why I had to walk out. I informed the people publicly that I was not supporting this process. That's just for the record.

In 1997 I was elected chief. We didn't want any part of this CIA termination process.

We were told that the NFA was imprecise, that it was vague, and so we had essentially two choices—nothing under the NFA or something under the CIA. What we were not told was that there was a third option aside from a CIA or non-implementation. We were not told that the honour of the Crown and the full implementation of the Northern Flood Agreement, according to its spirit and intent, was an option. We were not told that the government could treat the NFA as solemn and binding. We were not told that the government could quite simply do what they promised us they would do in 1977.

When at the last minute my people instructed their leaders to reject the CIA as fraudulent and dishonourable, the three crown parties, Canada, Manitoba, and Manitoba Hydro, initially resisted and punished us, but then they offered to establish a working group to explore the NFA implementation according to its spirit and intent.

Since they began this process, starting with a letter of May 8, 1998, the three crown parties have expressed optimism about this approach. We must say, we have some concerns.

Two questions come to mind from this working group process.

One, if the working groups and implementation of the Northern Flood Agreement in its spirit and intent can work for Cross Lake, why were the four communities that were forced to sign off on the NFA entitlements with master implementation agreements not offered this process? Why were they required to release their rights under the Northern Flood Agreement?

Two, why is the Government of Canada now the most reluctant partner in the working group process? More than 10 months after making a solemn written commitment to work to honour the Northern Flood Agreement according to its spirit and intent, why has the federal government still—still, today—not sent a permanent and mandated representative to the Northern Flood Agreement implementation working group? Is this a strategy to cover both bases at the same time?

The answer to me and to many other people in Cross Lake is clear. The federal government is intentionally keeping my people in desperation, with 85% unemployment, in the hope that they will eventually agree to termination of the NFA. This is the conclusion that is now being drawn in Cross Lake from Ottawa's dishonourable delay in participating fully in the working group process.

• 1200

Undeniably the government has a strong interest in completing the job of termination of NFA rights that it is now trying to do in Norway House and has done in three other aboriginal communities.

I have been told by a Cross Lake council member—namely, Nelson Miller—who travelled to Ottawa two weeks ago that as far as he could see, none of the standing committee members he'd met with had read either the NFA or the MIA for Norway House.

I guess I would put that question to the standing committee, then. Have you read the NFA treaty of 1977? Anybody?

An hon. member: Partly.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): I have it.

Chief Ronald Robinson: Well, we think this is negligent. How can you pass a law changing people's rights, using the great power you have, without reading what you are changing and destroying? How can you rely on the assurances of the Department of Indian Affairs when the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples has condemned it for failing totally to protect the reserve land rights of first nations since Confederation?

If you ever do read the Northern Flood Agreement treaty you will understand, then, why I say the Northern Flood Agreement is a solemn treaty, and the MIA and CIA process is a fraud, a means of extinguishment.

The government's excuse of vagueness for non-implementation of the Northern Flood Agreement is wrong. The NFA clearly establishes broad principles of fairness and equity that are then to be acted upon by the government. If the government wanted to implement the Northern Flood Agreement it could, in exactly the same way it honoured a vague and unwritten Constitution that governed the whole country.

But is untrue for another reason. The NFA is very specific in many important ways, and these specific promises were never implemented. The NFA calls for four new acres of exchange reserve land to be provided for every acre of reserve land destroyed in the hydro project within a short time after signing. In 1983 Cross Lake completed selection of the agreed quantity of land to be transferred. The Manitoba government did not object to the land transfer within the 90 days they were given to do so, so in 1984 the new reserve lands should have become our reserve land.

That is stated in article 3.3, which I'm not going to get into.

To this day, however, Cross Lake has not received one acre—not one acre—of the land promised to us in very precise terms in the NFA. Where was the federal government's leadership in calling upon the Province of Manitoba to complete the land transfer? What is vague about this obligation? It clearly states it—once you read this treaty.

The NFA also calls upon the government to establish certain specified conservation and development structures. They have never been established. What is vague about these obligations? Does the federal government seriously want to argue that it does not know how to establish and run committees?

• 1205

The NFA also calls for us to be provided with an all-weather road to our community. Part of such a road is a bridge to replace the ferry that we now have to use to leave Cross Lake. This is not vague. Twice in the 1980s an arbitrator ordered the governments to build the bridge. Still they did not.

Just recently, a few weeks ago, the Manitoba Court of Appeal, which is the final court for the NFA, ordered the bridge built. We wonder how much longer this specific promise will take to fulfil or whether the governments will also defy the Court of Appeal.

Now, let me tell you how the Norway House MIA, and your Bill C-56, directly impact on the rights and benefits promised to Cross Lake in the Northern Flood Agreement. The NFA is many things, but most importantly for our people, who had their resources and traditional economy destroyed, it is a regional development plan.

Schedule E explains exactly how this plan is to be carried out, and why. It is designed to address mass poverty and mass unemployment on a regional basis.

We know that anywhere in the world development is undertaken on a regional basis. This was the promise contained in the NFA to the Northern Flood Committee, which was the regional entity we formed to represent us. When you destroy the Northern Flood Agreement and continue to divide our people, you are eliminating every chance we have of regional development. I am talking not only about economic development but also political and cultural development. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples stated that self-government would best be exercised on a regional basis.

If you pass Bill C-56, you're imposing the division of our people and eliminating the last chance we have of regional development as originally promised in the NFA.

We will go it alone if we have to, but if you pass Bill C-56 you're inflicting an injury on us. We will continue to take all steps to ensure that the crown parties honour their NFA treaty obligations to us. This is a matter of human rights. We will continue to go to the international community as well as to Canadians. When we tell them what has been done to us, they are outraged.

Before concluding, Mr. Chairman, let me talk about one instance in which the government did act upon its NFA obligations. This was article 6, in which the Government of Canada is obliged to provide the five NFA communities with an adequate quality and quantity of potable water. It took more than 10 years after the signing of the NFA before the federal government began to attend to this fundamental obligation. That was in 1988.

However, it acted to fulfil its clean water obligations through a process of extinguishment. We were offered a lump sum to provide water infrastructure, but as part of that deal our leaders of that day were asked to sign off on our NFA rights under article 6. A moratorium was put in place for 20 years, until 2008. We still need potable water. We're still short in PCN.

Interestingly, our lawyers at the time were Jean Chrétien, our current Prime Minister, Eddie Goldenberg, and Roger Tassé. They apparently advised us that this was an acceptable approach. Today, only one-third of the houses in Cross Lake are connected to piped water and sewer services. Three-quarters of our people receive their water supply and waste disposal by truck.

• 1210

I'm one of them. I have seven kids, and I try every day... and yet there's only a certain amount of money provided for us in terms of programs to service those people on “tank systems”, as we call them.

We now see that this buyout and extinguishment of our NFA water rights was a trial run for the comprehensive implementation agreements.

Our recommendation is that this committee reject Bill C-56. I also recommend that the committee urge the Department of Indian Affairs to stop trying to terminate our NFA treaty rights. It should uphold the honour of the Crown and finally implement the Northern Flood Agreement for the whole region in its spirit and intent.

Just for the record, PCN will do all things legally to make sure the other parties to this treaty implement this according to its spirit and intent. We have done that. We will continue to do that. We'll not be beaten up in silence any more. We say enough is enough. I wish that you, the committee, will do the right thing.

As we speak, you're on our lands, which we were dispossessed of. We say enough is enough.

Ekosi ana.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Chief.

We are open to questions.

Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you for your presentation. It's nice to hear from people who are, while not directly involved in this particular piece of legislation, certainly very much involved in the issue. You are neighbours to the issue.

Can I ask you, do you ever see a bill or an agreement that your community would ever accept as an implementation of the Northern Flood Agreement?

Chief Roland Robinson: Can you repeat that, sir?

Mr. John Bryden: Can you visualize an agreement ever being struck to implement the Northern Flood Agreement? The Northern Flood Agreement is there, but it would still require legislation, presumably like Bill C-56.

Is there ever going to be a Bill C-56 for Cross Lake?

Chief Roland Robinson: No. Never. We have a treaty here that clearly states what was promised. It was signed, and the give and take process has already happened. It was signed in 1977, sir.

Mr. John Bryden: All right. There are obviously problems with the Northern Flood Agreement, whatever they are; there's been litigation over the years, and difficulties.

One of the things that's attractive about having a master implementation agreement and that perhaps has drawn in or attracted the leadership of Norway House is that at least it sets aside some of the controversy and gets some implementation in place.

We had an earlier presentation here in which it was suggested that the committee consider an amendment to Bill C-56.

There was a suggestion also by Mr. Bachand, who is just leaving now, that there be a clause in Bill C-56 basically stating that nothing in the agreement, in this law, shall be interpreted as abrogating or derogating from the existing aboriginal or treaty rights of any first nation or any member of the first nation.

So this clause that was proposed by the previous witnesses essentially would require that Bill C-56 not detract or derogate from any treaty rights that might exist.

Would that not be something that would not only make Bill C-56 acceptable to Norway House but would also make something like Bill C-56 acceptable to the Cross Lake band?

Chief Roland Robinson: Our legal counsellor is here with me today.

Mr. John Bryden: We have met him, but—

Chief Roland Robinson: You're asking a legal question there.

Mr. John Bryden: Actually, no; I correct you. If you don't mind, I find it difficult and somewhat unacceptable to always hear from lawyers. I'm asking you, actually, a question from the heart.

• 1215

You talked about the fact that you were afraid you were going to lose treaty rights if the Northern Flood Agreement was not honoured or was circumvented by some master implementation agreement. If legislation could be written—and let's suppose Bill C-56 is that legislation—that basically enables some of the aspects of the Northern Flood Agreement to be implemented now for the benefit of the communities, which I presume is one of the reasons the Norway House leadership is attracted to it, and if there was a clause, which I admit is absent, that said clearly that nothing in this legislation will—not “intend to” but “will”—derogate or extinguish treaty rights of the community affected by this legislation, wouldn't that go a long toward satisfying your concerns?

Chief Roland Robinson: Just for the record, when you're starving, and when you've been starved for so long, and lost, you will take anything. You will eat anything that comes your way.

That was the tactic taken by the three signatories to the Northern Flood Agreement. That's what they're trying to do to us right now. They're intentionally withholding the obligations they promised to us.

You know, a couple of years ago, they made a statement that they owed $20 million to us. I can provide you with the records. But our neighbours have been starved out, and right now we're getting a lot of pressure ourselves.

The Government of Canada tried in July of 1998, last year, to come to our community and take over the administration. They were trying to accuse us of mismanagement, and yet they're withholding our money, what they promised to us in 1977.

Mr. John Bryden: I'm very concerned as... and I'm not the government. Despite what the opposition says, my job as a member of Parliament is to try to address the genuine concerns of people who come before this committee.

I don't know the details of the Northern Flood Agreement. I know it's controversial. I know many aspects of it have not been implemented. I do believe one of the reasons for the master implementation agreement and Bill C-56 is to try to at least bring some of these things to pass. From earlier testimony—and some of these witnesses from the earlier sessions are still here—I gather, though, that what's pivotal to not wanting something like the master implementation agreement, or Bill C-56, is the sense that it may extinguish treaty rights.

The last witnesses actually proposed an amendment. I was gratified that at least we had finally gotten away from this constant talking about process and had gotten to substance.

Do I understand correctly from you, as the Cross Lake leadership, that what you are afraid of at Cross Lake isn't just a matter of not getting all of the benefits that exist in the Northern Flood Agreement. You're afraid that if you become party to an implementation agreement, or something like Bill C-56, you will lose fundamental treaty rights that you think exist, or believe existed, in the Northern Flood Agreement.

Can we not solve that problem by the type of amendment that was proposed earlier today?

Chief Roland Robinson: Just for your information, Mr. Bryden—

Mr. John Bryden: John.

Chief Roland Robinson: —John—this treaty I have in front of me was originally signed by Canada, Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro and the five NFA bands, including Norway House. That's what we're discussing here today.

• 1220

What Bill C-56 does for Norway House is release Canada, Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro from past, present and future obligations. That's the intention of Bill C-56. If there's an amendment, I leave that to my legal counsel.

Mr. John Bryden: The legal counsel can now answer, if you wish.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Orkin.

Mr. Andrew Orkin: I'll be very brief, if that's genetically possible as a lawyer.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): I appreciate that.

Mr. Andrew Orkin: The one thing I'd like to address, Mr. Bryden, is that it would be necessary to pass some kind of legislation at some point in order to implement the NFA for Cross Lake.

With respect, sir, this is a total fallacy. This agreement has the signature of the crown on it, and three crown parties. It was ratified by an Order in Council, which has more signatures on it than you'd care to see. There is no legislation required to make this more binding than it is.

But now I'm going to come to your question.

Mr. John Bryden: Please.

Mr. Andrew Orkin: That background, by the way, was essential.

Legislation is required when the crown and its legal advisers know that something needs to stick. This sticks, but in order to make it stick less, something stronger is probably required. Stronger medicine is required. Legislation like Bill C-56 or an analogue of it is not required to implement the NFA for Cross Lake.

Mr. John Bryden: I understand that.

Mr. Andrew Orkin: The passage of legislation is subtractive of this agreement. The chief has explained quite correctly that one party, in whole or part... Clause 6 of the agreement does that very clearly. It says that when there are rights that arise out of this agreement and rights that arise out of the other agreement as well, this agreement shall prevail. The legislation makes sure that this is the case, in clause 6.

The concerns of the Crees in Cross Lake and the Crees you've heard from in Norway House include the concerns of the leadership of the Crees who have signed this agreement. They have a clause in there that says nothing is intended. It was their concern that gave rise to that clause. They do not wish to see treaty rights diminished or abrogated in any way.

As I said earlier, it's an imperfect approach to tack a clause onto a law, but if it's the best that can be done under circumstances in which the die is already cast, maybe that is one way to go. I have not been asked by these good people for my advice in that context, so I'm afraid I can't give it.

Mr. John Bryden: Could I have one more?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Yes, certainly.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you very much.

Mr. Andrew Orkin: I hope that's useful.

Mr. John Bryden: That's very helpful, and I'm sure it's helpful for the chief as well.

I come back to my point, Chief. I don't think you can answer, and I won't really require you to answer unless you wish to do so.

If we're going to make some progress, obviously there is a stumbling block that arises from the Northern Flood Agreement. It is a stumbling block that we've heard some testimony on here. There is a problem. But can't we at least partially implement it, so that we can get some of the benefits going by a master implementation agreement that is backed up by legislation, for exactly the reasons that counsel has stipulated? The legislation is subtractive, but it puts some things in place, although not the entire thing. So long as there's a clause that doesn't say “intention”—I took your point on that, and I understand what “intention” versus “doing” is all about—but backs up what was signed as a master implementation agreement in a substantive way, that basically says, yes, if you sign on to this agreement and it's backed up by legislation, it does not derogate from any treaty rights.

• 1225

Counsel said this is an octopus approach, he didn't say it's ineffective. It's not the most efficacious way of proceeding; nevertheless, it is a way of proceeding. Is that not some kind of middle ground that we, as concerned people both in your community and on this committee, can explore in order to finally come to some sort of resolution that doesn't lock you in forever, that doesn't extinguish your rights, but at least gets the process moving so that benefits can flow?

Chief Roland Robinson: John, which party are you from?

Mr. John Bryden: I'm from the Liberal Party, which is immaterial, actually. We're quite non-partisan around here. Even though occasionally the opposition doesn't believe that, we are nevertheless.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: I'm glad to see you couldn't keep a straight face.

Chief Roland Robinson: All right, John, I will advise you to talk to the Prime Minister, to talk to Minister Jane Stewart about implementing this treaty. There's no need for legislation. You have a vote over there, and I'm sure you have contact with the Prime Minister. Jean Chrétien was a part of this.

Mr. John Bryden: All right.

Chief Roland Robinson: All right.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

Madame Desjarlais.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: I'm glad Mr. Orkin clarified things when you asked those questions, because I was going to get clarification on that matter too. My understanding was that, as it stands now, the Northern Flood Agreement is in place as such and there needs to be legislation that makes it less applicable, as you said.

I wanted to comment on the fact that it took the courts ten years to finally say to put the bridge in place. I know you're probably feeling the same way, and that there may be another appeal in regard to the bridge. I think it was important that you put that in here in order for the rest of the committee to see the types of situations and tie-ups in the courts that are done in a deliberate attempt to not implement the agreement.

Whether we look at the Northern Flood Agreement as a contract or a treaty—I believe it's a treaty—

Chief Roland Robinson: It is a treaty.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: And I acknowledge that. I know there are probably those around the table who don't see it as a treaty. But whether we do see it as a contract or a treaty, it should be implemented. I believe there's a moral responsibility and obligation on behalf of the Government of Canada to implement the treaty.

Maybe you can tell me, Chief Robinson, because I can't imagine why the Government of Canada, if it was acting responsibly on behalf of the Cross Lake Cree Nation through this whole period of time, did not take Manitoba Hydro and the Province of Manitoba to court and tell them to come across with what they've indicated they would give, such as the bridge and those things. Why did it not take them to court on behalf of the Cree Nation, and follow through? Is there any reason they didn't do that?

Chief Roland Robinson: Thank you, Bev.

Just for the record, it is a treaty.

Canada is supposed to be our trustee, yet it's the one leading this termination process, so I have no faith in Canada, the federal government. There have been many promises made to us, like the Liberal red paper. We don't trust anyone any more. We're being lied to. Our people have died.

The Province of Manitoba has benefited from the project, as have Canada and Manitoba Hydro. They made billions and billions of dollars, and Cross Lake alone pays $2.4 million a year on hydro bills—$2.4 million a year!—yet what is coming back to us? It's time.

• 1230

Twenty-two years is a long time. There are a lot of suicides. It's hard. There are a lot of social problems. Yet we were promised that they'd eradicate mass poverty and mass unemployment. We were hoping that with this new process we're going through, with this working group that we established, we'd go to at least 60% employment.

So I can't answer that question. It's up to Canada and the other three parties.

Ms. Bev Desjarlais: Just as a statement in regard to your comment, Mr. Bryden, there's no question it's the government and we are Parliament. But do we not, as parliamentarians, have an obligation to ensure that the government acts on agreements it has made, to ensure that they're put in place, that they're followed through properly?

Esa Tikkanen had a contract. At a certain point, I think he was going to get $250,000 extra because he had played so many games. The hockey team sent him back to the minors so he couldn't get his $250,000. There was a loophole, there was a way for them to keep from following through. I think what we're seeing with legislation such as Bill C-56, and certainly in the non-implementation of the Northern Flood Agreement, is the government putting in place a legislative loophole to get out of coming through with what it has agreed to.

So I certainly want to commend you, Chief Robinson, on behalf of the Cree people of Pimicikamak Cree Nation, for sticking to your guns. I certainly know it's not going to be an easy road if things continue as they have, but I commend you for sticking it out.

Chief Roland Robinson: Thank you, Bev.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Thank you very much.

My name is Garry Breitkreuz. I'm a member of Parliament from Saskatchewan, and I was in your area a couple of years ago. As Reformers, we were developing our aboriginal policy, so I was up there and we talked a lot with your grassroots people, and a lot with especially the women in that area. That's where some of the points in our platform came from. I don't know if we'll have time to reflect on some of those, but you're addressing many of those concerns today that were raised at that point and then became part of our policies.

My sincere hope is that your presentation today will make a difference. One of the frustrations we have as Reformers here is getting the government to act, to move on certain issues, as you now are witness to.

I was hoping that all of the people on the committee would have an opportunity to speak today. I talked with Elder Sandy Beardy here before you sat down, and all of you have something to contribute to this process. I have about seven questions, but I will forgo those questions in order to give each one of you an opportunity to speak from the heart, to tell us as a committee how you feel about this. I think that's important, and it may do more to make your presentation effective than the questions that I would like to ask you would.

Would that be possible? Would it be an offence to you if some of the other members could speak?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Chief.

Chief Roland Robinson: Mr. Chairman, how much time do we have?

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): We can have as much time as the committee wishes to take, but we're going to be limited by other responsibilities. As I said to you originally, I'm looking at one o'clock as absolutely the end. I will simply call the meeting to a conclusion at that point. Perhaps you can be brief, because I know Chief Miller has been straining at the bit to say something, and maybe read it too.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'll give my time for you to speak. That's more important than me, as a Reformer, just getting off questions.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): And there's one other questioner.

Chief Roland Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to have the other council members speak, since this meeting will be closed at one o'clock. If you can allow us to hear from them, we can get to questions afterwards.

• 1235

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): I'm going to get one more question in, so I'll let whoever is speaking at 12.55 know.

An hon. member: There are more people on the witness list.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): I'm sorry, Chief, but I have just been informed that there's someone else on the list, Professor Ronald Niezen. I'm sorry, I've been operating on what I...

Mr. Nault.

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I assume you're operating under the process that sees Reform get five minutes.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Yes.

Mr. Robert Nault: Well, if he wants to give five minutes to these folks, that's fine, but I'd like to ask some questions. There was a presentation made, and I assumed it was the presentation—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Excuse me for just a minute.

Chief, Mr. Nault makes an excellent point. Mr. Breitkreuz has five minutes, just as everyone has five minutes. I've been adhering to that. If Mr. Breitkreuz has no questions and wishes one or the other or both to speak, you have five minutes, and then we'll go to the next questioner.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I hope my five minutes hasn't been taken up by all this kerfuffle here. I think we should go on, because we're wasting a lot of time on process here. I have questions, but I'll let them take my time.

Ms. Rita Monias (Spokesperson, Women's Council, Cross Lake First Nation): Mr. Chairman, at this time I'd like to table my presentation.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): We would be glad to receive it.

Ms. Rita Monias: I will give you copies of what I have on behalf of the women's council in Cross Lake. For your purposes, I'm not women's chief, I'm the spokesperson for the women's council. That's just for the record.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you for that.

Ms. Rita Monias: In a couple of sentences or so, I would like to touch on the Bill C-56 issue.

Speaking on behalf of the women's council in Pimicikamak Cree Nation, we don't want to accept any termination agreement. We know that if Bill C-56 is passed—hopefully it won't be passed—it will also affect our rights in a certain way.

My heart goes out to the people of Norway House. In many ways, they have suffered the way we did. Our process will go on with the Northern Flood Agreement, because we don't want a shotgun stuck to our head while we're made to take it or leave it. That's all I can say.

I hope you consider that this process for the CIA and the MIA was a process by which we would be offered money, here's the money, take it or leave it. We didn't accept the money. We would rather keep our rights under the Northern Flood Agreement, and our treaty rights as well.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you very much, Rita. Your point it is well taken.

Youth Chief Jason Miller (Youth Council, Cross Lake First Nation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

At this time, I'm not going to table my presentation. We are the future leaders. I'm here as the youth chief, so I'm going to speak. I came here to speak, and I will speak.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Chief, you have three minutes.

Youth Chief Jason Miller: All right.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, could we get unanimous consent of the committee to let him have a few more than that? We have the room until 1 p.m.

Mr. John Bryden: There's not enough time if we keep having interventions. Let him speak, and then we'll do what we can. It's crazy to keep interrupting.

• 1240

Youth Chief Jason Miller: Mr. Chairman, members of the House of Commons committee, I am here as a youth chief of the Pimicikamak Cree Nation to speak to you about the implications for young people of the efforts to terminate our rights under the Northern Flood Agreement. The youth council, which I represent, was established in 1996 as one of the four councils of the Pimicikamak Cree Nation. The other councils are the elders' council, the women's council and the chief and council.

The people of Cross Lake recognize the importance of their youth for the well-being of the community. More than 50% of the population of Cross Lake is under the age of 20. When we look to the future, it is easy to see the importance of this fact. When we look at our social conditions in the present, it is just as easy to see that the young people are suffering and our future is in jeopardy.

The most basic brutal fact of life in Cross Lake is that there are no jobs. The Northern Flood Agreement of 1977 promises an end to mass poverty and to mass unemployment, but today, nearly 22 years later, 85% of our people are unemployed, 85% of our people are on social assistance. Each person on welfare receives $205 to survive on for one month. In the north where the prices are high, that $205 doesn't go far. I can only imagine what it must be like to raise a family under those conditions.

I know from talking to the elders that things never used to be this way. Our people used to be able to survive, raise their families and earn a good living from the land, from hunting and trapping, with little money. All they needed were a few supplies, some ammunition, nets, snare wire, things like that. They could live in the bush for months. I never learned to do that because I was born at the time when the Manitoba Hydro dams were being built.

Since then, that traditional lifestyle has almost completely disappeared. Fish and animals have become scarce. To find them, you have to travel and basically risk your life on a boat or a skidoo, because, as other speakers have already explained, the hydro project has made it unsafe to be on the ice or open water. Because of these conditions, few of our young people have the option of learning the hunting and fishing skills they would need to raise a family on the land.

The non-implementation of the Northern Flood Agreement of 1977 is viewed in Cross Lake as a disintegration of our nation's social, political and economic fabric, our means of subsistence. When children reach their teen years, they can see pretty plainly that what they are learning in school has no relevance because there is no expectation that an education will lead to a greater opportunity. Most of the people I know who are at this age lack hope. They start wondering if they are ever going to get anywhere in life. Without hope, they cannot do well in school. Then their poor school performance starts affecting their self-worth. Sometimes their low self-esteem leads to suicide and suicidal behaviour.

Another part of the way teens are affected by the destruction of our way of life and the non-implementation of the Northern Flood Agreement is recreation. For Cross Lake's on-reserve population of 5,000 people there is one arena. Our leaders had to fight Manitoba Hydro to force them to build it, and now we don't have the money to maintain it or run it. Cross Lake has never had enough recreation facilities to replace the activities on the land that we lost, and it has further outgrown the few facilities that exist. For most teenagers there is quite simply nothing to do.

Faced with that kind of boredom, as everybody knows, teenagers will create their own fun. Boredom combined with a lack of hope and not seeing any possibilities for the future is a cause for the high rate of theft and vandalism in Cross Lake. What does it do to young people's self-image when they are arrested? This only makes the problems we have with low self-esteem and suicidal tendencies much worse.

For young adults the lack of hope they may have felt when they were teenagers has become the lived reality. Young men and women feel entitled to work. They expect jobs, but there is nothing for them. Many people of this age in Cross Lake have, against all odds, managed to finish grade 12 or even gone on to college, but their skills go to waste. There is no work. Some start asking themselves, what did I go to school for? And they may turn to alcohol and drugs and start a cycle of self-destruction. They want work, they're willing to work, but all they have to do is look forward to this $205 per month.

• 1245

Where are those 1,000 jobs that we were promised would result from the hydro project more than 22 years ago? There's a sense of grievance that many of those hydro jobs created by the project did not go to Cross Lake, as promised. At the same time, a household hydro bill that amounts to $50 in Winnipeg will amount to $300 in Cross Lake.

Somehow those few people who do manage to get themselves off welfare are suddenly faced with this financial burden. When the time comes to form a family, we find this is nearly impossible because we live in overcrowded conditions. We are short of over 500 houses in the community of 5,000 people. Is this the benefit of the hydro power we are supposed to enjoy?

How can we fail to understand why so many people in Cross Lake are frustrated, angry and depressed? The reason for it is so simple: our way of life has been destroyed and nothing has replaced it. The Northern Flood Agreement is 22 years old and we are still waiting for the help we were promised to start rebuilding our lives.

Above all, my people are angry because the only real energy the government has invested in the Northern Flood Agreement has been to terminate it. The government has done this, and is attempting it again with Bill C-56, by imposing so-called implementation agreements on us that drastically reduce the government's obligations towards us and keep us living in a state of abject poverty.

Cross Lake views Bill C-56 as an act that prevents our development and prevents our preservation, much like the caged animals you see in the zoo or the small fish you see in a bowl. When faced with the facts of the situation I've just described to you, Jane Stewart, David Newman and Bob Brennan, representing Canada, Manitoba and Manitoba Hydro, have each expressed pride in their efforts to implement the NFA. Sometimes they will mention the $35 million spent in the claims process. This amount, for a community the size of Cross Lake, is a joke. Other times they will express pride in comprehensive agreements offered to the four communities as a way to implement the Northern Flood Agreement. In any case, the Northern Flood Agreement sets standards, not dollar amounts. The real measure of whether the Northern Flood Agreement is being implemented or not is the objective conditions in the communities.

Members of the committee, have you each read the Northern Flood Agreement cover to cover to determine whether these so-called implementation agreements are actually meeting the government's ongoing obligations under the Northern Flood Agreement? Have you considered the length of the welfare lines in Norway House? Do you put your seal of approval on the juvenile crime rate? Have you been misfed information that implies the project's adverse effects have stopped? For your information, adverse effects continue day after day, month after month and year after year.

At one end is the hydro power line, and at the other end billions of dollars of profits pour out for Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro and Canada.

Do the nutritional standards of the children in school meet with your approval? Is the poverty and homelessness the Cree people of northern Manitoba continue to experience day after day and year after year something that makes your heart swell with pride? That, honourable members of the committee, is the real measure of the government's implementation of the Northern Flood Agreement. By approving Bill C-56, that is becoming part of your record. By defending these conditions, you are making them your legacy.

What I'm here to say is that at the very least, the four communities that were once given the NFA deserve better. We deserve nothing less than the Northern Flood Agreement. We deserve not to be forced to accept its termination. I am also here to say that my generation is aware of our rights, and we are not prepared to wait another 20 years for the government to recognize those rights and act upon them with fairness and honour.

In conclusion, I urge this committee to withhold its approval on Bill C-56.

Thank you.

• 1250

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you very much, Chief.

Chief Roland.

Chief Roland Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have one more speaker. In our culture, we have a lot of respect for our elders. I hope you'll give a chance to our elder, our traditional chief, Sandy Beardy, to address this committee.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Chief, I want to remind you that Sandy has already been involved in previous things. I certainly wanted to give him an opportunity to speak. He started our meeting. I would like to give him that opportunity, but we've already lost another member because they are meeting with someone in their office from Inuktitut. I told you 1 p.m.; it's going to be 1 p.m. I expect that Sandy will understand and will govern himself accordingly.

Elder Sandy Beardy: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll try to be as brief as I can.

I want to talk about these medals. It is about treaty. I think it's very important to mention this here. I want to talk about Columbus.

When Columbus was lost and ended up with his ship in America, he thought he had landed in India, because that's where he was headed. They found the Indian people here. Columbus and his men were taken to be treated. They were sick. They were hungry. They were fed. They were invited to this great, rich country of ours. So they worked here, sharing the wealth. I'm sorry I can't explain very well what I am going to say, but the native people had compassion for those strangers from across the ocean. They were kind people, they were generous people. Today, still, we are generous.

We were too generous. We lost what we owned.

Eventually the Queen made a treaty. This is Queen Victoria. When they signed the treaty, her representatives here were shaking hands with the chief. They made this treaty that said this treaty would be in existence as long as the sun shines—you see the sun here way back—as long as the rivers flow and as long as the grass grows. You see the representative of the Queen and the native guy shaking hands that they were going to have this land together, agreeing that this treaty would be in existence as long as the sun shines, the rivers flow and the grass grows.

• 1255

You see the wigwam here. You see small ones here in the middle. They're in line, starting with a big tent, and so on. That illustrates that this treaty will be in existence from generation to generation.

In other words, this treaty is forever. It would be a foolish man or a foolish prime minister to try to demolish the treaty they made in 1875. I see they're trying to make some kind of legislation there, which is no good. It's okay, I guess, for them to make laws here.

In 1930 the provincial and federal governments were in existence, but the chief here made a deal with the federal crown that they would work together in sharing the land and resources. But what the federal government did was some kind of a mean trick. He went and made a deal with the provincial government, giving the land to the provincial government, along with the resources, back in 1930, without consulting the native people.

Today, who has that wealth? It's the provincial government and both governments. They forgot about us and how we treated them. We had compassion. We ask you gentlemen in the committee for compassion, to speak for us, to tell the federal government to live up to their promises, and not only here. We gave only that much land to these comers from overseas. Below that is still ours. How many millions of dollars has the Manitoba government taken in minerals? Further west, how many billions of dollars do they get from gas and oil?

What hurts me most... Up north, I raised my kids, 11 of them, from the natural resources, what the Creator had made—the fish, the ducks, geese, and moose. While my kids were eating fish and wild food, a madman came in here and dumped the bad water, dirty water, all over what my kids were eating. They're not able to eat.

Those alone are examples. As an elder, I'm trying to speak for my people. The people are not able to eat any more fresh fish.

I'm sorry I had to bring that up here, but what I've said is true. That's the same way Manitoba Hydro has been to our environment. They destroyed everything, the water and all. My kids today are not able to raise their family out of the land, and I think it's a shame for us to be treated like that.

• 1300

I feel that we won the freedom. I lost my...

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

...in the Battle of Normandy. He gave his life for the rest of us, for our freedom. Yet here we're treated like communist people, which is wrong. In God's sight, we're supposed to deal with and treat each other as equals; we are all equal.

When I was in the army, there was no discrimination. Everybody helped each other—white, black, Chinese, Japanese. We all worked together. We won the war. We won the freedom—for you, anyway.

Who built this city and cities like Toronto and all those places? It's the resources of this country, this rich country of ours, and I think we should share. As a committee, tell the government, why don't you give those native people a bigger portion, a third of that pie at least, so that they would enjoy the wealth they have shared with you?

I hope I don't hurt anyone, because I don't want to hurt you. That's all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Elder Beardy. I think, Chief, with all due respect, I'll listen to what you have to say.

Mr. John Bryden: We must ask some questions.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Are there more questions?

Mr. John Bryden: I would certainly like to make an observation following what Chief Beardy said—and this will be my last comment.

I want to assure everyone... and I'd like to actually direct my remarks to the youth chief, Jason Miller, and through him to the other three. Often I correct this committee and point out that I'm not a representative of the government here; I'm a representative of the 80,000 people who cast their ballots and sent me to Ottawa to try to do the right thing while I'm in Ottawa.

I would suggest to you that those 80,000 people are compassionate Canadians. They do care, and they do want me to try to make the right decisions. I believe there has been a solution, or a partial solution, suggested in the course of this testimony that would enable Norway House, and perhaps Cross Lake, to move forward without losing anything.

I would only ask you, as you go away today, to please keep an open mind. Please don't close out all possibilities to a solution, because I think all of us here are trying very hard. That's the whole function of this committee, and perhaps there is some progress being made as we speak.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

Chief Roland Robinson: Thank you, John, for your comments. We're not going to close our ears. We've been open-minded for 22 years. We're patient people, but we have to come to a point in time where our patience will run out. We have a young generation; the majority of our population, 65%, is under 25 years of age.

For the record, Mr. Chairman, I'm very disappointed that we have only an hour, and yet we have families in Norway House that will be affected, that will have children. There are generations yet unborn that are going to be affected by this legislation. Essentially what it's doing is terminating the NFA rights. That's the purpose of this legislation, Bill C-56. For us to have an hour to speak for our families who are living in Norway House... we should at least get a day so that we can truly voice our concerns. There's not much you can do in an hour. I want to point that out.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Rita.

• 1305

Ms. Rita Monias: I was going to address the standing committee about the presentation I was going to do.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Are you not going to leave it with us?

Ms. Rita Monias: I am going to leave it with you, but what I want for the purpose of the women's council in Cross Lake is that everybody reads that presentation, and I would like a response in writing from each member of the standing committee to the women's council, Chief Rose Scott, and a copy to me. In that way, I want to make sure my issues are addressed. When you do read my presentation, in this way I will know you have done what I asked and what the women's council wanted me to do for them.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): We have your request. Thank you, Rita.

Mr. Nault.

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I need to ask a very obvious question, because it speaks volumes about the relationship that governments have with each other.

I have respect for Cross Lake's opinion, but I also have to respect the views of other communities that have made a different decision than you have made. So if I'm to answer Rita's letter, I would want her to answer my question some time soon, if not today.

What would you do in our position, if you were one of those other communities who have come here requesting... I don't accept the argument of the chief that the other four communities were somehow forced to sign off. Quite frankly, having been a representative of 51 first nations for over 10 years, I don't believe that any of the communities I represent would be forced to do anything. So I don't buy that argument. I have difficulty accepting that. I respect the chief and elders and women and the youth in those communities as much as I respect you for your opinion.

So if you were put in that position, what would you do if you were in my shoes? We are dealing with Norway House; we're not dealing with Cross Lake. They are a first nation on their own. Yes, they do have family in those communities, as the Cree in my region, in northern Ontario, have family all around the jurisdiction that we're dealing with. But if I am to accept your comment on the second page... Your comment says: “Our people are showing Canada that there can be Aboriginal self-determination and self-government.” That means respect for someone's decision. I respect your decision, and you will continue to debate with the governments and with hydro as it relates to the Northern Flood Agreement. These other communities have chosen a different path, and I think we have a right and an obligation to respect their views.

I have a very difficult time with this this afternoon, because you're asking me to tell Norway House and the other communities to forget it because somehow I am to believe they were coerced into this. Quite frankly, as I said, I represent some very poor people in northern Ontario and I've seen what you're talking about first-hand: the housing, the youth, the high unemployment, the suicide rates that are six times higher than the national average. I know all those stories. I've been there and I've spent many months and days in those communities, talking to chiefs and their representatives and the community members.

So I need that question answered. If we are to go ahead here in a different spirit, which you are outlining in your presentations... that there's been a lot of wrongs, that we need to change our approach. Here is an approach that basically says we have communities—in this case Norway House—who want to take a different approach and are signing off. You're telling me I should ignore Norway House and their wishes and accept yours and carry on.

So I'd like an answer to that, and not necessarily today, Mr. Chairman. But I think it's important, because there were other people before you who came and suggested that those other four communities are not correct, that they've been somehow forced to do something they shouldn't do. Quite frankly, I have a very difficult time with that if we're going to accept the inherent right of self-government of other first nations, the right to make their own decisions and make up their own minds.

• 1310

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Yes, Jason.

Youth Chief Jason Miller: If I was in your shoes, Robert, I would first go on a fact-finding mission. I believe these communities were misinformed. A lot of these people speak Cree; they have a little education and they understand the Cree syllabics. You know, those MIA agreements are 400 pages thick. Why couldn't they—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Excuse me, Jason.

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I have a difficult time with this. Nancy, who is an aboriginal person herself, made this comment yesterday. There are people in the communities who don't speak English; that's true, and I know there are people in my region who only speak Ojibway, or only speak Cree. But there are people responsible for making people informed, and if I am to have a trust relationship with first nations, you cannot say to me in this place that I have to go on a fact-finding mission.

A voice: No, no.

Mr. Robert Nault: My point is simply this. If the leadership of Norway House agree to a particular arrangement, am I then, as non-natives have done for 130 years around here, to interpret whether they are correct or not, or do I accept that they have a leadership role and have extended that leadership role to a point where they have signed off on a particular agreement? You are now asking me to interpret whether the leadership in Norway House or other leaderships across the country know what's going on. I think that's exactly the problem that has occurred in the last 130 years. That's a lack of respect. I respect their abilities.

Youth Chief Jason Miller: They tried with us.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): I'm sorry, Chief, but I'm going to make a little comment and then I'm going to do two housekeeping things.

As chair and having served on this committee for a number of years, I support what Mr. Nault is trying to put forward. I find less than appropriate some of your remarks. Mr. Bryden has said we are all here representing the people in this country, and as the elder said, we are compassionate people and we have heard. You are not the only people who have been before this committee to say the things that you have eloquently said, that the elder has eloquently said, that Jason has eloquently said. We're quite aware of that. We are not uninformed. But we have a job to do, and that's what we're going to do.

Yes, Chief.

Chief Roland Robinson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Just for the record, Mr. Nault, Chief Redhead from York Landing First Nation was supposed to be here with us today. He's the present chief in York Landing, where they signed a termination agreement. He's on our side, you know, to force the governments to live up to the original agreement. I'm sure you're going to hear from him in the media or whatever, whatever means—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): That's fine, Chief. That's your—

Chief Roland Robinson: I'd like to—

Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, if I could, I just want to ask the chief not to do it this way. The question I asked was that if you were wearing the other shoe, if you were at Norway House and another community came to this committee and said “Do not approve Norway House's interest in signing this agreement”, what would your reaction be if you were put in that situation of a community that had taken a different path? That's the question I'm asking.

People have a difference of opinion; I accept that and I respect that, but I'm trying to ask you a very serious question: If the next time we have a different agreement, whether it's treaty or whether it's a legal, binding agreement of some sort, and it's for your community, but some community down the road 100 miles away comes to the committee and says “Don't accept that agreement, we don't accept that”, would you respect the Government of Canada if we said “Okay, fine, we're not going to sign that agreement with Cross Lake because you folks from Treaty 5 a couple of miles down the road don't agree with it”? I think that would be very difficult for people to accept, would it not? That's the question I'm asking.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you very much.

Chief Roland Robinson: Thank you, Robert.

• 1315

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Professor Niezen, I want to apologize to you. I was operating from a sheet that didn't have your name on it. The clerk tells me we have your presentation to the committee, and I will see that it is properly distributed to all members.

It's now up to me to ask one question of the committee, of which we have three members here, and that is—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: May I interrupt for a second?

I would like to thank the committee for hearing these people out. We had the courtesy to do that, and I appreciate it.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Breitkreuz.

Mr. Andrew Orkin: For your information, I was on the record as well today as a Canadian citizen, an interested party. I was asked, as an involved party, to assist two of the elective interveners, both of whom I advise in a professional capacity.

My question is on whether the committee is adjourning its discussion on Bill C-56 today, or whether its deliberations will be continuing perhaps into the coming days and weeks. If that's the case, I would appreciate an opportunity to present some remarks on the basis of the request that was made to the committee directly, and to do so in a very different way compared to the assistance I've given these two interveners. I wonder whether that option exists for Dr. Niezen, as well.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): I'm sorry, Mr. Orkin, that option does not exist.

Mr. Andrew Orkin: I thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): We would ask you to send in a submission. The clerk will see that we all get it. We are now struggling with when we will get on with the clause-by-clause analysis of the bill. I just want to ask the members who are here, Mr. Nault and Mr. Bryden, if we are going to look at it for next Tuesday. Does anyone have any thoughts about that?

Mr. John Bryden: It's fine with me.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): There are no opposition members here, but I'll take it up with the chair. We want to get going.

Mr. Andrew Orkin: I thank you for your answer. It was frank and I accept it.

May I make a request—

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Yes.

Mr. Andrew Orkin: —for 45 to 60 seconds of your time and the members' time to respond to the very last question Mr. Bryden asked? If you would give me that time, I would consider myself done.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): If you would answer that and allow me to ask you one question, which I think both Mr. Bryden and Mr. Nault will agree with, then we'll make a deal.

Carry on.

Mr. Andrew Orkin: The question asked was about respect and decisions, and that we have Norway House down the road having made a decision. I think you've put your finger exactly on the issue. I'm going to answer this question for you, as someone who has led, internationally, election observer missions for the International Commission of Jurists, for Amnesty International, for the Canadian Bar Association, to a number of countries. So I have some small amount of expertise in this field.

The precise issue is that the people of Norway House were told the rules of the game were “We're going to hold a referendum and you will accept or reject the MIA.” That exercise was held in July 1997, and the MIA, according to rules the Department of Indian Affairs formulated and administered by its own request—it wasn't the chief and council administering that referendum—was rejected.

To me the issue is respect. We didn't respect their decision as Canadians. We went back and got another decision and changed the rules.

Mr. Robert Nault: What do you do with Nelson House First Nation, as an example? I know you're using Norway House's referendum process as sort of a trigger into a dispute, but it's not just Norway House we're talking about here. There are three other communities already signed on.

Mr. Andrew Orkin: I can answer.

Mr. Robert Nault: We've been told by first nation leaders for a number of years to have some respect for their ability to govern their own affairs. Now you come here and say “Ignore the leadership and the people of Norway House. They don't know what they're talking about. They're making a big mistake. So is Nelson House First Nation.”

• 1320

I take exception to that, because what I have been taught by the elders in my region is just the reverse. If they make a decision, they'll make that decision with their elders, their women and their youth. When they do, as their representative, I should respect that decision. If the shoe were on the other foot and you were the one signing this and some other community came, how would you feel about that as a community? I suspect you wouldn't feel very good.

Mr. John Bryden: I also want to home in on a remark Mr. Orkin made. One of the things this is not about is the referendums; it's about the decision of the leadership of the various bands who have decided to support these agreements. Now we have not just this group but other groups outside of the communities coming in and overruling them.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): Can we have an answer to the question or not? If we're not going to get an answer I'm going to adjourn the meeting. But I don't want to go back over the referendums—this many, that many. That's not what we're asking about. We're asking about getting on with giving aboriginal people in this country more responsibility, more say in their future. That's what we're about.

Do we have an answer in one sentence? Rita.

Ms. Rita Monias: I think I can answer that. The PCN people and the other communities that are not considered to be self-determined people are accountable to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We don't want to be accountable to the minister because we want self-determination. We don't want any minister to come and tell us what to do in our homeland and in our territory, because we have that right. We had it way before any European contacts. So I hope that answers your question.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. John Finlay): It will partly answer the question, except it isn't your bill. You're not mentioned in the bill and you don't have to accept the MIA if you don't wish to. That's up to you.

The meeting is adjourned.