AANR Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS, NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES, DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD ET DES RESSOURCES NATURELLES

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, April 24, 2001

• 1107

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.)): We'll begin. Welcome, witnesses.

Before we get into the presentation today, I wanted to make a couple of announcements and suggest that we may wish to have a little business meeting at the end of this meeting, if time permits, simply to go over future business. I'll give you a sense of what's happening.

First of all, for the balance of this week, there'll be an informal meeting of the committee on Thursday, which means we won't have the full panoply of translation. We'll have translation services but there will not be a record of the meeting because we're going to be showing a film, which I believe the committee agreed to, called Sila Alangotok: Inuit Observations on Climate Change, which brings together actually the two major focuses of this committee, the natural resource climate change side and the aboriginal affairs side.

So you'll get a notice about which room we'll be in, and there will be simultaneous translation.

[Translation]

There will be interpretation. The screening will be in room 308 of the West Block and will last approximately 42 minutes The film will be shown between 11 a.m. and 12 noon. It's an excellent film which was released last year.

[English]

For next week we do not as yet have our sessions fully in place. We have been in contact with Minister Goodale's office to get him to come to talk about estimates, I suppose. That would be the context. We haven't heard yet whether he's available either on Tuesday or Thursday. We know that Minister Nault wants to come to us, but he's away next week, so as of this moment we don't have witnesses or sessions planned for Tuesday or Thursday of next week.

As I say, if time permits at the end of this session we may have a little chat about backup plans in case we can't get Minister Goodale. I wanted to know the will of the committee. I'm doing this in the absence of our chair, who is away this week, but I thought it would be responsible to do a little forward planning.

On that note, I now wish to turn to the business of the day and welcome members of the Cree-Naskapi Commission: Richard Saunders, chair, and Robert Kanatewat and Philip Awashish, who are making their biennial presentation of the Cree-Naskapi Commission.

I think we'll just move right into the presentations. We've asked the witnesses to spend a total of about 10 minutes collectively in making some opening remarks because we want to have the maximum possible dialogue.

I understand Mr. Saunders is going to go first, as chair.

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Saunders.

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

First of all, I'd like to thank the committee for hearing us again. We were here in 1998 with our previous report and I think that was a useful process.

For new members, very briefly, the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act creates, among other things, this commission, which is required to prepare a report on the implementation of the act every two years. The report is given to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who then tables it in the House of Commons and in the Senate. Minister Nault tabled it just prior to the last election, so this is our first opportunity to talk about it.

I have with me today two of my colleagues, Robert Kanatewat and Philip Awashish. They are both former chiefs of their communities, former deputy grand chiefs, and in fact signatories of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, so in many ways they are founding fathers of the James Bay agreement.

We had hoped to have a reasonable amount of time. I think it's going to be a little bit tight to say all the things we would like to raise as issues, so I'll be as brief as possible.

We don't plan to go over every issue in the report. We know that members will be up late reading it anyway, so we don't need to cover every point, but I'd like to cover two major points and then turn things over to my colleagues.

The first point is that we're becoming concerned about the need for greater policy accountability in the public service. We think there are formidable financial accountability mechanisms already in place. The House of Commons in particular has done things like pass the Financial Administration Act and create the legislation establishing the Treasury Board. Very significantly, I think, the Auditor General reports directly to Parliament, and of course individual members spend a lot of time scrutinizing what's done with money. I think that's as it should be, but policy is no less important than money.

One of the issues we've encountered time and again is we have seen what we believe are good faith attempts by ministers to resolve issues, to implement in good faith some of the agreements that have been made, and it's not a partisan issue. We've seen this kind of activity on the part of ministers from various governments. We find, however, that while it's considered monstrous for the public service not to follow financial administration and accountability guidelines, it seems to be considered of little importance if they don't carry out the directions from ministers, from cabinet, and even from Parliament, in the area of policy. There simply are seldom any consequences for watering down decisions that are made at the political level, for waiting for the minister to go away—most of them don't last very long—or for simply ignoring specific directions.

Because we don't have too long to talk about it, we've prepared a discussion paper elaborating on that point. With your permission, Mr. Chairman, we'll leave copies of that with the committee today.

Suffice it to say, we have a very serious concern about the need for policy accountability in the public service. The examples we have given here relate to Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We deal with an example where a specific written and publicly signed commitment of a minister in relation to James Bay was explicitly repudiated in part by officials. There are other, less dramatic examples. We think something ought to be done about it in terms of the policy accountability of legislation.

• 1115

The second item I'd like to touch on is the question around what the Department of Indian Affairs does with reports of the Cree-Naskapi Commission. When Parliament passes a piece of legislation like the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act, we take the view that there's a purpose for that. Lawyers would say the legislation is purposive. There's a reason for it, and there should be some results from it.

When Parliament, in that legislation, requires a commission as a matter of obligation to hold hearings and to report on implementation of legislation, it strikes me that they mean something is to happen. These reports aren't intended to clutter up the desks of members of Parliament and to fill up the archives. These reports, in our view, are intended to discuss, in an intelligent and detailed way, the various issues around implementation of the legislation.

Let me conclude by saying what's happened. We'll talk about the 1998 report, the last report. We presented that to Minister Stewart in October of 1998, October 5. At that time she said her officials would review the report and would give us a response to each of the recommendations made. Then on November 27, 1998, she wrote to us and said exactly the same thing. On January of 1999, January 11, she wrote to us again, saying the department was looking at it and we'd get a response. When did we get a written response? Never. We're still waiting.

We got a brief oral response when the Department of Indian Affairs showed up for the hearings on this report. Of the 41 recommendations we made, they chose not to deal with 29 of them because they felt they were outside of our jurisdiction.

Let's explain that quickly. They said, “Your job is to report on the implementation of the Cree-Naskapi Act, not the James Bay agreement, not the Northeastern Quebec Agreement”. Well, let's look at what the act says. Paragraph 21(j) describes the powers of a band. It says that, among other things, a band has powers under the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act, under other pieces of federal legislation, and under the agreements.

The Cree nations tell us that they're having a great many problems dealing with various issues because specific provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement are not being fully implemented. Paragraph 21(j) of the act requires them to address their powers under the James Bay agreement. They're not able to do so.

Those concerns are raised with us, and we examine those concerns to determine whether or not they are valid, and if they are valid, what the problem is and what kind of recommendations we can make. To simply have them brushed off when the communities raise them is not acceptable.

Another problem is that Indian Affairs has repeatedly said, when a band or a community or some chiefs raise an issue with our commission, “Well, they didn't come and see our officials, so it's not an official complaint. We won't deal with it because it's not official.” When Parliament creates a statutory commission, and requires it to report to Parliament every two years, and people come before that commission's hearings to make a point, I consider that to be just as official as talking to a civil servant.

So I think it's about time that we either dealt with these issues and dealt with our responsibilities under the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act in a serious manner or found some other mechanism to do it.

I could provide a lot more detail, but I think we'll do that in the questions. I don't want to run over my colleagues' time. Perhaps I'll turn the microphone over to my colleague Robert Kanatewat, and then to Philip Awashish.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Godfrey): Thank you very much.

Mr. Kanatewat.

Mr. Robert Kanatewat (Commissioner, Cree-Naskapi Commission): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning. I am pleased that I have the opportunity to speak to the honourable members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources.

First I'd like to thank the members for allotting time from your busy schedule to hear from the Cree-Naskapi Commission. The contents and recommendations in the 2000 Cree-Naskapi report are and have been extremely important to our self-government.

• 1120

Not included in our 2000 report were the community issues and concerns of the Cree Nation of Wemindji. In their submission to the Cree-Naskapi Commission on October 15, 2000, they outlined the following specific concerns and issues.

The first was election bylaws. According to the Cree Nation of Wemindji, the Cree-Naskapi Commission should have a more active role in the local elections as observers and in the provision of resources for elections returning officers and candidates for office.

Two, section 18, dealing with “Administration of Justice (Crees)”, in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, should be reviewed, amended, and implemented in accordance with the goals and needs of the Cree communities.

Three, on the Cree policing agreement, a comprehensive assessment of Cree policing should be conducted that takes into account the aspirations, goals, and needs of the communities.

Four, with regard to conservation officers, the training and appointment of native people and Cree tallymen and conservation officers should be implemented as provided by section 24.10 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

Five, in terms of the James Bay implementation office, in conducting relations with the federal government on such negotiations as the Wemindji access road, the Cree Nation of Wemindji has concluded that the mandate and purpose of the James Bay implementation office should be to facilitate the implementation of the agreements, and not to decide on the obligations to Canada.

Six, with regard to the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec, the Cree nations of Chisasibi, Wemindji, and Eastmain were established long before the town of Radisson was incorporated, and yet the office of the Société de l'assurance is located in Radisson. The residents of Chisasibi, Wemindji, and Eastmain have to incur the expense of travelling to Radisson to renew their licences. That's not to mention the other communities that are even further away from this service. The Cree Nation of Wemindji wonders about the procedures, criteria, and policies of the Société de l'assurance automobile du Québec.

Seven deals with the Wemindji access road. Section 28.16, “Roads to Cree Communities”, within section 28, “Economic and Social Development (Crees)”, of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, provides for negotiations between Canada, Quebec, and the James Bay Crees for the construction of access roads to Eastmain, Paint Hills, presently Wemindji, and Rupert House, presently Waskaganish.

A framework agreement with the Government of Quebec was concluded in 1990, which led to the construction of the Wemindji access road, at a total cost of approximately $38 million. As of March 1999, the Cree Nation of Wemindji has bridge financing of approximately $6.2 million.

The James Bay implementation office has indicated that Canada has no obligation to the Cree Nation of Wemindji with respect to financial participation in the construction of the access road. As far as Wemindji is concerned, the Cree Nation of Wemindji should be reimbursed for the amount of its bridge financing.

Therefore, the Cree-Naskapi Commission makes these recommendations.

One, we recommend that Canada acknowledge its obligations to the Crees of Wemindji by virtue of section 28.16 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. The parties can then settle the issue of reimbursement of the bridge financing advanced by the Cree Nation of Wemindji for the construction of the Wemindji access road.

Two, as the administration of justice and the provision of police services are imperative for good and effective local government, section 18, “Administration of Justice (Crees)”, and section 19, “Police (Crees)”, of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement should be thoroughly reviewed and appropriately amended by the parties to meet the present goals and aspirations, and needs and circumstances, of the Eeyou.

• 1125

I will summarize the issues and quote from the report that the basic needs of the Cree communities—housing, employment, infrastructure, water and sewage services, and capital works—must be met to provide and secure conditions for proper social and economic development.

I will not reiterate the details of the Cree and Naskapi community issues and concerns as stated on pages 50 to 61 in the English version and on pages 54 to 66 in the French version. I will report, and stress to the honourable members, that the Cree-Naskapi Commission would like this committee to call upon the officials of the Department of Indian Affairs for a response to the ongoing concerns of the Cree and Naskapi Eeyouch.

Agooda. Meegwetch. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Godfrey): Thank you.

Mr. Awashish.

Mr. Philip Awashish (Commissioner, Cree-Naskapi Commission): Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, wachyia, and meegwetch, thank you for this opportunity.

The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, both modern-day treaties, obligate the Government of Canada to recommend to Parliament special legislation to provide for an orderly and efficient system with the Cree-Naskapi local government.

This special federal legislation, the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act, was assented to on June 14, 1984. Except for the purposes of determining which of the Cree and Naskapi beneficiaries of the agreements are Indians within the meaning of the Indian Act, the Indian Act does not apply to the Cree-Naskapi first nations, nor does it apply in respect of their local community lands.

One of the principal duties of the Cree-Naskapi Commission is to prepare biennial reports on the implementation of the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act. The Minister of Indian Affairs causes each report to be laid before each House of Parliament. The 2000 report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission constitutes our seventh report.

Incidentally, the Cree-Naskapi Commission is currently the only legal body that reports on some aspect of the implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement.

Pursuant to the provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Settlement Act, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs had an obligation to submit an annual report to the House of Commons on the implementation of these agreements for the period between 1978 and 1998, inclusive.

As the set period specified in the said act for the minister to report annually on the implementation of the agreements has expired, the Cree-Naskapi first nations are now faced with the serious predicament where a proper, effective, and acceptable system or process of reporting or monitoring the implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement is virtually non-existent.

In any case, the Cree-Naskapi Commission has now existed for about 17 years. We have concluded that the Cree-Naskapi local government has evolved dramatically over the past two decades, mainly in response to the fundamental changes in the political, social, and economic landscape of northern Quebec.

The Cree-Naskapi first nations are using their local governments to meet such needs as housing, economic development, traditional pursuits, policing, administration of programs and services, community development, environmental protection, and political representation.

Furthermore, notwithstanding the present legal regime of the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act, the Cree and Naskapi first nations apply traditional law and customs in local governance. Therefore, it is clear that the Cree-Naskapi first nations are exercising local governance beyond the scope of the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act, which presently fails to meet their vision of local governance.

• 1130

In its past reports, the Cree-Naskapi Commission has repeatedly recommended reviewing, revising, and amending the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act in order to meet the challenges, evolving realities, and changing needs of Cree and Naskapi local governance. These findings and recommendations of the commission are supported by the Cree and Naskapi first nations.

But the department ignores these findings and recommendations of the commission. Hence, the the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act remains an inflexible, rigid, and unchanging instrument for the local government of the Cree and Naskapi first nations. Consequently, since its enactment by Parliament in 1984, the implementation of the intent and spirit of the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act has not been conducted by the Government of Canada in a manner that recognizes, enhances, and enables the present practices and the full potential of Cree and Naskapi local governments.

As many of you may be aware, last fall Minister Robert Nault committed himself to consulting the first nations of Canada on broader governance issues, such as a first nations governance legislative package. In addition, in a letter to the present chairman of the commission, dated March 16, 2000, the minister stated that revisions to the mandate of the commission “should only be considered in the context of a much broader initiative aimed at redefining self-government for the Cree and/or Naskapi”.

In light of the suggestion and initiatives of the Minister of Indian Affairs, as well as the support and aspirations of the Cree and Naskapi first nations, legislative and administrative measures must be considered and implemented in order to realize and achieve the full potential of Cree and Naskapi local government.

In particular, for appropriate amendments to the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act to be made, a meaningful and effective process of discussions between Canada and the Cree and Naskapi first nations must be established. The Cree and Naskapi first nations want to redefine “self-government” and adjust their relations with Canada.

This ends my presentation. I will answer any questions that you may have. Thank you.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Godfrey): Thank you.

As is our custom, we begin by asking the opposition to make its intervention. In the absence of the Alliance,

[Translation]

I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Marceau from the Bloc Québécois for seven minutes.

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg—Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

First off, Mr. Saunders, could you clarify for us your earlier statement regarding the fate of the your reports. These are rather voluminous, comprehensive reports which require considerable effort, time and money to produce. And here you're telling me that the federal government barely looks at them and files them away on some shelf where they are relegated to oblivion. Did I understand you correctly?

[English]

Mr. Richard Saunders: I think a couple of things should be said about that. In my personal opinion, the ministers do take these reports relatively seriously, for the most part. Let's not be overly self-important here. They have many things to do, and the Cree-Naskapi Commission reports are only one of those things. I don't think there's any question about that. They run a very large department, a very complicated department. They have many programs and a lot of work to do.

• 1135

My impression, though, is that the ministers, the last several in particular, have personally been quite interested in what we've had to say and have wanted something to be done in terms of reviewing it and studying it. In fact, Minister Stewart, who was the person responsible for the last one, as I said, indicated that it was going to be reviewed and looked at. She said that orally when we presented it to her, and she said it in writing a couple of more times, and it didn't happen.

The problem is that we see this kind of thing going on over and over and over again. I guess that leads us to the business that when a minister indicates that something is going to happen, it should happen. If it's a lawful direction given to staff it should be carried out, whether it's a little thing like, “Go home, read this report, do some analysis on it, give me a briefing, and prepare a letter for my signature”. Something as simple as that should be done, and it is not being done.

In the case of the last report, an official from the department waited for 18 months and then came before us. Beginning this report, we'll tell you in chapter 10 exactly what he had to say about each of our recommendations. It's alarming because basically he had almost nothing to say.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I'm trying to understand how you can say your reports are taken seriously by ministers when they do not provide any kind of response. That's seems somewhat contradictory to me. I think I know where you're coming from. I may be mistaken, but you seem to have a beef with the public service and a desire to blame it a little for this situation. However, the fact remains that in our system of government, fortunately or unfortunately, a minister is responsible for his department. He or she must take responsibility for the actions, or lack thereof , of the department. Perhaps it's a function of your position, but in my view, you're wrong to try and lay the blame on subordinates rather than on the person who ultimately is responsible for the problem, namely the minister.

[English]

Mr. Richard Saunders: Without getting into any kind of partisan, political consideration, which is not my job obviously, what I'd like to do there is quote—and we've quoted it in this document—from the Auditor General of Canada, who's noticing some of the same problems. It's on page 6 in the French edition of his report that he tabled on February 27. The Auditor General on February 27, 2001, in his report to Parliament, Reflections on a Decade of Serving Parliament, said:

In every Westminster-style government, ministers are responsible to Parliament for the state of their departments. Unlike other countries, however, Canada has never modernized its doctrine to distinguish between the minister's area of public responsibility and that of his senior public servants.

Now, I don't argue at all with the fact that it is ministers and not bureaucrats who are accountable and answerable to the House of Commons. That's as it should be. What I do say is that I sure wouldn't want to be a minister with a huge department and spend maybe two, three, or four years in that department and not know what was going on in all the programs and not be able to know, because I hadn't been there very long and didn't know anything about it in the first place, not to understand the implications of the policy at the grassroots level, and not to understand whether or not my decisions were being carried out effectively and in a timely way. I think that ministers, if they're going to be accountable to Parliament as they should be, need to have proper mechanisms so that they can exercise the depth and the breadth of management control over their departments that I don't think they have now. I think they should have those tools.

• 1140

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: I admit that departments are big bureaucratic machines. Ministers are also surrounded by policy advisers. It seems to me that important reports like yours, ones that are well drafted, focusing on issues like the Cree and Naskapi... Parliament enacted legislation in 1984 precisely because it felt the situation was important enough to warrant this initiative.

This type of situation deeply disturbs me. As I see it, we have two choices: as Clémenceau once said, either we decide to act and to act properly, or we decide to do nothing at all. If we do decide to take action, let's be certain we do the right thing, otherwise we should forget about it and put our money elsewhere. You have better things to do than to waste your time drafting reports that no one bothers to read. You put your heart and soul into something which no one notices.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Godfrey): Since the clock is running, I will take that as a comment rather than a question. Perhaps we can come back to this point later.

Mr. Martin.

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you to those who made the effort to come and make this briefing to us today. It's a very thorough document, and obviously a lot of thought and work has gone into it.

But the overriding theme, or the one thing that stands out to me, is a sense of irritation, I guess, about certain things that have been going on or not going on. That's what I'd like to give you the opportunity to explain a little more clearly, because speaking personally, I'm new to this committee.

I'd like to start with one basic question. In one of the briefs, you mentioned that you are not actually subject to the Indian Act, other than for the purposes of the definition of who is an Indian, etc. Maybe you could give me a bit of history on that, just briefly, as to when you were excluded from the Indian Act and how that came about.

Mr. Richard Saunders: I think Commissioner Awashish can give a more detailed explanation.

Mr. Philip Awashish: As I mentioned in my brief presentation, the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act flows from the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement.

In the time of negotiating the agreement, a process in which my colleague, Robert Kanatewat, and I were involved—I can only, of course, speak from the Cree perspective of these negotiations—the Cree decided that the local government regime under the Indian Act was too narrow, restrictive, and not at all reflective of Cree governance. Therefore, the Indian Act should go.

The negotiations leading to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement were an opportunity to advance Cree local government. Therefore, Canada undertook to recommend special legislation for Cree local government. They made a similar commitment to the Naskapi under the Northeastern Quebec Agreement.

The terms and provisions of the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act were discussed between Canada and the native parties concerned from 1975, which is the time of signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, to 1984, which is the time when the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act was enacted by Parliament.

So that's a brief history of the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act. Canada wished to retain at least one aspect of the Indian Act, and that is where the act defines who are Indians.

• 1145

Mr. Pat Martin: Okay. That's very helpful, thank you, although I do notice in the remarks—actually, in your own remarks as well—that, due to the lack of implementation of recommendations that have been coming forward, you are still stuck with an act that remains an inflexible, rigid, and unchanging instrument. In other words, it's a flawed document.

Maybe we knew that when we abolished the Indian Act, which I personally think is 130 years of absolute social tragedy, and I'm really glad that you were the first in the country to cast off those shackles, frankly. But, if we put in place a flawed document that needed to mature by amendment and by recommendation, surely either the minister or the various ministers or their senior bureaucrats have been negligent in not listening to the recommendations and implementing the recommendations.

So the point I'd make, if I have a couple of minutes left, is that I noticed a lot of reference to the idea that possibly a whistle-blower act would help bureaucrats to blow the whistle on dragging of feet without putting their own jobs at risk. There is a whistle-blowing bill coming through the Senate now that might wind up in the House of Commons. Maybe I'll give you the couple of minutes we have left and let you explain how that whistle-blowing might actually help you get some of the implementation that you're asking for.

Mr. Richard Sanders: I think we should emphasize that we're not criticizing all public officials by any means. The vast majority of people in all the government departments do their jobs to the best of their ability, and they do attempt to carry out ministerial directions. But I think it's important to understand that because almost all public servants are scrupulously honest about money, it's no reason to repeal the Financial Administration Act. It's no reason to get rid of the Auditor General. It's no reason to get rid of the public accounts committee. Similarly, because most public servants make a conscientious effort to carry out policy, it's no reason not to have some accountability mechanisms in place to deal with the situations where that's not happening, because the implementation of policy is just as important, I think, as managing the money properly.

On the whistle-blowing, things have to be balanced. If you're responsible for carrying out policy in a conscientious way, that does not mean in our judgment that you should simply say, “Yes, minister” no matter what the request is. There will be occasions when you're asked to do something that's questionable.

Now, you shouldn't be running around blowing the whistle every five minutes because you don't agree with the political judgment of ministers—certainly not. It's not your job. But if you consider that there's some serious wrongdoing, not only by a minister but by officials in the public service, or some palpable repudiation of cabinet policy on an issue, or a refusal to implement something, there should be a mechanism in which you as an individual public servant can raise the matter and have it dealt with—not frivolously, but only when there's a clear and reasonable case to be made. That kind of thing should go somewhere, perhaps to, as we're suggesting, a new ethics commissioner who would be basically the ethics counsellor only with more teeth and accountable to Parliament rather than not accountable to Parliament. There are ways to do that.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Godfrey): We will undoubtedly return to this point, but it's now

[Translation]

Mr. St-Julien's turn.

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—James Bay—Nunavik, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Continuing on the subject of your report, I know that you don't have it in for public servants, because some of them do work very hard. However, you note in your report that one recent example since the passage of the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act occurred in 1986 when an Assistant Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs asserted in testimony before the Cree-Naskapi Commission that the government was not bound by an agreement which the minister had signed with full knowledge that his officials did not approve of it.

We hear a great deal said about democracy. The word was spoken at the Summit of the Americas and elsewhere as well. Moreover, as we know, officials who haven't read your report have discretionary authority over a number of aspects of policy implementation. However, we're familiar with the situation. Even Members of Parliament have difficulty finding out what is happening in departments. When we raise our voices and write letters, I've noticed that officials back down.

• 1150

I'm concerned about the Cree-Naskapi Commission. The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was, as we know, the first land claims settlement of the modern era in Canada. It was signed in 1975 by the governments of Canada and Quebec, the James Bay Energy Corporation, the James Bay Development Corporation, Hydro-Quebec and the Grand Council of the Cree.

You have toured all of the Cree communities and met with people who have shared their concerns with you. I know the Commission is working diligently in the region. However, current housing conditions are such that they represent a health and safety concern. This ties in closely with the theme of strengthening communities and local economies and providing support to people.

Further to your visits, could you speak to the committee members about housing conditions?

[English]

Mr. Robert Kanatewat: The housing conditions actually occur in all Cree communities, not just several but all of them. Specifically, I think the Grand Chief and the Chief of Washaw Sibi recently appeared in front of the standing committee on these issues.

Although the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development did go and visit the Washaw Sibi and committed to appoint $1 million to fix the situation, because of that, the presentation he received when he visited had a tremendous effect on what has occurred in some of those houses that are in dire need of replacement. This happens in not only just a few communities but in all the Cree communities.

Quite recently the person who did the research is also a doctor, and he's of course condemned a lot of the facilities that our people are living in. Because of the overcrowding and because of the lack of housing, it causes a lot of health hazards in the communities. Most of them, or some of them, are condemned for living conditions.

It's not only in this one community; it happens in every community. And also in the Naskapi community, even though it's one community, they have similar problems with these conditions.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you. I'd like to pursue this matter, because it's important.

We know that the Cree-Naskapi Commission submits reports to Parliament, but often, it receives no response. Members often don't get any answers either.

Another issue of concern to me is environmental protection on Cree land. The Cree currently maintain that the environmental and social protection system guaranteed under section 22 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is undermined by the governments of Canada and Quebec. We understand that we have fiduciary responsibility for the 1975 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and that for the past several years, the Cree have been saying that improved environmental protection standards are needed. Did you hear any mention of this while touring the Cree communities?

[English]

Mr. Richard Saunders: This is an issue, I think, right across the country. I think the federal government is in a... I always try to be sympathetic to people I'm criticizing, and try to understand why they have the difficulties they have. I think the federal government's role as a government, and its role as a fiduciary to aboriginal people, are difficult roles to reconcile.

• 1155

We talked about this a bit the last time we were in front of this committee. Governments, once you're elected, think, well, our job is to make decisions, including tough decisions. Our job is to establish priorities for expenditure. Our job is to determine what public services need to be trimmed. Our job is to exercise discretion.

That's why governments are elected. That's basically what they do, and if you don't like what they're doing, then there are political solutions to that.

But if you have something like the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, or for that matter the treaties on the prairies, or any of the land claims settlements, you don't have a framework for exercising a great deal of discretion. You have specific things that you have to do.

The Supreme Court has said treaties create lawful obligations, and they do. So you have a bureaucracy whose job it is to advise ministers on the exercise of discretion, the establishment of priorities, what expenditures to cut, and which ones to enlarge, and you're used to saying, “Well, if the minister buys that, then the accountability is political”. Then over here you have another little duty that says you have a binding agreement, and your job is to carry it out. It's a different mindset, and reconciling those is very difficult.

That's why in 1998 we recommended that the implementation of treaties and land claim settlements be carried out by somebody separate from the normal decision-making of Indian Affairs bureaucracy, and we continue to believe that.

I don't know if I've exactly answered your question, Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Merci.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Godfrey): Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate that answer, Mr. Saunders. This is a bad case of déjà vu for me.

I'm not sure that you were here, Mr. Saunders, the last time we received the Cree-Naskapi report, but I remember both of the chiefs were here, Robert and Philip.

Mr. Richard Saunders: They're more noticeable.

Mr. John Finlay: I had the same feeling of helplessness then as I'm beginning to get right now, because I remember asking, “How does this operate in practice when you have a meeting, and you have three parties—the Government of Canada represented by Aboriginal Affairs, the Government of Quebec, and the Cree-Naskapi—and there are supposed to be some agreements regarding forest management and fisheries and water and so on, all part and parcel of this agreement?” Am I not correct?

You said, “Well, one very effective way they have of not making a decision is to not attend the meeting, and if you attend but they”—they being the province and the federal government—“don't, then you hardly represent everybody, and therefore decisions are very hard to make.”

I don't know. I guess obviously this committee has some responsibility. I think we had some responsibility last time. But we made a report. We listened to you. As Mr. Saunders said, we then put it in the hands of the department, and something should happen. Quite clearly, I guess from what I read here, very little has happened, which doesn't give me a great deal of confidence in the future.

We worked very hard with other agreements, too. I was out in the Nass Valley with the agreement there. We got Nunavut underway, and there are going to be problems with it that we have to address.

Anything you can say that would help point the way, or establish something that we might do that would have some positive effect, I would appreciate.

Mr. Richard Saunders: Mr. Finlay, I won't go into detail again, but I think our suggestion before on having a treaty implementation office whose job it is to implement treaties and land claims agreements is what's needed. It needs to be separate from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and separate from the normal bureaucratic, discretion-exercising mechanisms.

• 1200

Mr. John Finlay: Would it not ultimately have to have some political accountability?

Mr. Richard Saunders: Certainly.

Mr. John Finlay: We couldn't divorce it from government.

Mr. Richard Saunders: No, but I think it needs to be an office whose mindset is the proper and sensible carrying out of what the Supreme Court calls lawful obligations. That's a different mindset entirely from exercising discretion and judgment right across the board.

It's a matter of carrying out the agreement. You mentioned Nisga'a. Tom Malloy goes out there for the federal government and sits down with the first nations. They negotiate an agreement. They think they have something. It's the same as the Crees negotiating with the federal government. They thought they had something. Now they're back in court all the time trying to get implementation. That's not how it should work.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Godfrey): I'm going to intervene at this point

[Translation]

because we're now back to Mr. Marceau.

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a brief question for Mr. Awanish. I'm not certain I understood what you said late in your presentation about the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act. On the one hand, you stated that the act needs to be amended because it is inflexible, while on the other hand, you hint that maybe the problem lies with the way the Government of Canada is implementing the Cree-Naskapi Act. Which is it? Is the act itself the problem, or is it more a question of how the government is applying the act's provisions?

[English]

Mr. Philip Awashish: The problem with the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act itself is the way it is being implemented. When the Cree-Naskapi first nations discussed with Canada the terms and provisions of the act, it was intended that the act would evolve with the dynamics of aboriginal self-government. Cree-Naskapi local government has evolved dramatically, as we said, over the past two decades, and the act was to evolve with the Cree-Naskapi local government. The act should have been reviewed and amended to take into account the present realities and the changing needs of Cree-Naskapi local government. It hasn't been done in that manner. When I talk about implementation of the act, I am also talking about reviewing and amending it accordingly.

[Translation]

Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Godfrey): I now note that I'm next on the list. I have a couple of comments.

First of all, it seems to me important that we remind ourselves what are the rights and privileges of standing committees. Under standing orders we have the right, in effect, to be a policy management accountability group. If you look at the precedents in Marleau and Montpetit, it's very clear that the kind of thing you're asking of a separate act is actually in our own hands, if we choose to exercise it.

I must say, it seems to me, based on what I've heard so far—and this is simply something to put out for discussion amongst colleagues—it would not be inappropriate for us, since we seem to have a gap in our agenda, to ask officials from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to come before us next week and tell us, first of all, about the 1998 report.

• 1205

I gather that the official who was in place and gave you an oral response is now no longer the relevant official. I think this is about more than this particular report. It's about the way we do government and the way we have accountability.

I don't want to impose extra travel burdens, but should it be the wish of the committee to have officials come and explain why this accountability regime seems to have broken down, I was wondering if any of you would be available next week. We should keep that in mind. I think it would be helpful to straighten out the account.

We have your chapter 10, which lays out a certain dissatisfaction with the way the last report was handled, and we would like to have some reassurance that this report will be handled in a different manner. The only way we can get at that is to actually invite the officials in to talk to us, but we should also have in the room somebody from the commission to help us out.

I don't know if that's a useful strategy. Maybe my colleagues will have different views. But I'm noticing that we have a gap in our dance card next Tuesday and indeed next Thursday. We have a bit of flexibility. So I put that out on the table for colleagues. It would be interesting to know if you think that's a useful strategy.

The second matter is that it seems to me that what's interesting about the Cree-Naskapi Commission is that it's unique. The question I'd like to ask is, apart from the fact that the bureaucrats have not responded in the way you would like them to, in general do you think this is the template for the future? If we are to replace in one fashion or another or update the Indian Act, would you say that generally speaking this is a model—and we may need some addition mechanisms, such as a treaty review of the sort you're suggesting—we can learn from and apply more generally across the country as we're looking at new governance models, for instance?

Mr. Richard Saunders: I'll speak just for myself, quickly, and my colleagues may want to add a few remarks. I think it's a good model but it can stand some improvement. The Cree-Naskapi Commission, as it's set up, unlike some other statutory commissions, does not make decisions. It conducts hearings and makes recommendations.

If you look at a commission that makes decisions, such as the CRTC, those decisions stand on their own. In certain cases they can be considered by cabinet. They certainly are subject to judicial review and so on. That's appropriate. But what it means is that the type of commission that makes a decision doesn't need to do any follow-up.

Now we have a commission such as ours, that makes recommendations. I don't believe the taxpayers of this country should be paying people like us to run around lobbying for our own ideas. Tax dollars should not be spent on lobbying. That's not what they're for.

But that leaves us with a problem. If we do a good job of considering representations made by the community, if we do a half decent analysis of the issues, and if we make recommendations that are at least halfway intelligent, what's to be done with them? If our running around lobbying is not appropriate—and I don't think it is—and we don't make binding decisions, then it's quite easy to simply file our reports and forget about them.

That does put the ball in the court of a committee such as this, which, as you say, undoubtedly has the capacity and the authority to follow up on those kinds of issues. The same is true in a somewhat different way for a Senate committee.

So I suppose we are tossing you the ball, and that's why we're here. We're certainly not going to go around lobbying about these things. But since we don't make binding decisions, what are the alternatives? I would suggest that this is a good place to look at those questions.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Godfrey): Thank you.

Mr. Vellacott, I know you've jointed us late. Have you any intervention at this moment?

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, CA): I did the reading beforehand. I'm listening and learning, so I'll defer to others at this point.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Godfrey): Okay.

[Translation]

In that case, we'll go to Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1210

I've two points that I would like to discuss with you, Mr. Saunders. I read the report over 15 months ago, and two things worry me. I have visited Cree communities, just as you have. Grand Chief Moses, community chiefs, the Cree and I are all frustrated by the delay in negotiating an agreement on special training programs for the James Bay Cree, pursuant to section 28.9 of the James Bay Agreement.

Negotiations with Human Resources Development Canada and with the Cree can culminate in an agreement which will enhance the fulfilment of the commitments set out in sections 28.9.1, 29.8 and 29.2 of the Agreement. This is an important component of the Cree's strategy. Such an agreement would reduce the risk of litigation associated with the non-compliance with the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. These special programs, in addition to fulfilling a commitment made in the Agreement, are aimed at increasing autonomy and reducing dependance on social welfare and social assistance costs. This will be achieved by providing training to the main Cree industries and by supporting the theme of strengthening and supporting communities and local economies.

Human Resources Development Canada is again dragging its heels, or so it would seem. In the past, we had the Vanat-Namagoose committee, and now we have the Gagné-Namagoose negotiating committee. The Cree are still represented by the same negotiator and he does an excellent job, but we're still lagging behind. What is the Cree position on training?

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Godfrey): Who would like to take the question? Mr. Saunders.

Mr. Richard Saunders: I'll just begin with it.

First of all, this is the kind of question that Indian Affairs would certainly say is beyond our mandate to deal with. For once they might be right.

I think it provides an example of the kind of difficulty we're having. If one looks at the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act following it, and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, one sees a lot of people's real hopes being addressed. The problems in the economies of the communities prior to the agreement were severe, as they are in first nations communities all over Canada.

Among other things, the agreement was seen as one way to make first nations people, the Cree and the Naskapi, more self-sufficient in their own land, with better access to their own resources, better control over the activities that went on in their communities, and a better share of that land which had sustained them for thousands of years. There are a lot of very hopeful, inspired people, including these two guys, who signed that agreement and thought that many problems were going to be addressed by the Cree and Naskapi people themselves, thereby lowering dependence on other government programs.

To the extent the agreements have been implemented, there's been some progress made. There's no question about that. The gaps where they have not been implemented mean there continues to be less independence on the part of the communities than what everybody was hoping for when this began. Part of the solution is getting proper implementation.

Philip, did you want to comment on that at all?

Mr. Philip Awashish: You asked a question, Mr. St-Julien, about what the Crees and the Naskapi are saying. And you've mentioned there particularly section 28 and also human resources development.

What the Crees are really saying is that, first of all, they are entitled to the regular programs and services that other first nations across Canada receive. Secondly, they are entitled to the regular programs and services that other citizens of Canada receive. For those two items they don't really see why a treaty should be signed.

• 1215

However, they were also promised and guaranteed special programs and services, and these are provided for the Cree under section 28 in particular. That is one way they understand that a treaty had to be provided for them to receive and be guaranteed special programs and services. Nevertheless, the treaty does state that they are entitled to regular programs and services other first nations across Canada receive, and they are entitled to programs and services other citizens of Canada receive.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Godfrey): Okay.

[Translation]

In the interests of fairness, Mr. Marceau, do you have a question before Mr. St-Julien proceeds?

[English]

You're okay.

[Translation]

Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two questions remaining.

There is something else that concerns me about your summary and your report. Just last week during the Easter break, Grand Chief Moses and several trappers voiced to me their frustration over the major delays in working out a funding agreement with the Cree Trapper's Association of Quebec. This is an important issue. James Bay is a vast area and trappers are worried. Have they shared their concerns with either one of you, Mr. Saunders, Mr. Awashish or Mr. Kanatewat?

[English]

Mr. Philip Awashish: The trappers do speak to me about issues that concern them, but they don't speak to me because I am a commissioner. They speak to me because I am an individual who they know was one of the individuals involved in the negotiations of the agreement and also an individual who was involved in the implementation of this agreement.

The trappers do talk about the Cree Trappers Association, income security programs, firearms legislation, and other concerns. They are concerned about federal obligations and of course Quebec obligations to them as trappers.

They are concerned about the Cree Trappers Association, as an example. The Cree Trappers Association provides benefits, programs, and services to them. It enables them to pursue a traditional way of life, a life based on hunting, fishing, trapping, and related activities in the Eeyou Istchee, which is what they call the Cree homeland.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Godfrey): I would note, by the way, that the film we're going to be seeing on Thursday was created, appropriately, by the International Institute for Sustainable Development in Winnipeg and the hunters and trappers association, so there is a nice coming together there.

[Translation]

Do you have a second question, Mr. St-Julien. Mr. Finlay is next in line.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you. I could go on all day, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair: I know, but that's not possible.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Go ahead, Messrs Saunders, Awashish and Kanatewat. I'd like to hear about the negotiations with an eye to the future. Your report was tabled several months ago and officials are here. The James Bay Cree strategy was approved in 1997, but what is the status of the negotiations, outstanding obligations, the dispute settlement process, Canada-Quebec relations and the expansion of the federal base to include other departments and Cree claims? Do you participate in the negotiations to provide some direction? Your commission does some good work, but does the Government of Canada and the department bother to consult you every month on the reports and on everything else that is taking place?

• 1220

I know that you have first hand knowledge of the situation. In conclusion, would you like the Government of Canada, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and senior officials to consult with you more often?

[English]

Mr. Richard Saunders: I think it would be helpful if they did. As you know, being a commissioner is a part-time activity. We all have lives apart from that, but clearly we are, as you say, on the ground. We do have a reasonable level of contact with the communities and with the leadership. Hopefully, we are familiar with a number of the issues, and we'd be happy to consult with Indian Affairs or anybody else who wants the benefit, however great or small, of our experience.

In particular, my two colleagues have as individuals a wealth of experience in relation to the life of the communities on James Bay, to the negotiations around the agreement, to the actual administration of the act, and so on. I could go on all day, as could you, but...

So the answer is, yes, we'd be quite prepared to consult with anybody who wants to consult with us.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Godfrey): Thank you.

I think what we'll do is have a last question from Mr. Finlay, and then I'm going to attempt to suggest a bit of a work plan for next week. At least I'll put the proposition forth and see whether anyone salutes it.

Mr. Finlay.

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

I'd like to go back to something you said, Chief Awashish, about those services. I think you characterized it very well, and I'd like an example.

You said first that the Cree are entitled to services other first nations receive. I agree with that. Now give me a concrete example of what that means. I know there are many things. Take housing, perhaps, or health care. Is that what you mean?

Mr. Philip Awashish: The Department of Indian Affairs and other federal departments provide certain programs and services to Indian bands, first nations, across Canada. The Cree are entitled to the same programs and services.

Mr. John Finlay: Fine. Right.

Mr. Philip Awashish: You mentioned some of them. That is correct.

Mr. John Finlay: To be very specific, the Aboriginal Head Start program should be available to the Cree in northern Quebec.

Mr. Philip Awashish: What type of program?

Mr. John Finlay: The Aboriginal Head Start Initiative.

Mr. Philip Awashish: Yes.

The Vice-Chair (John Godfrey): You know what this is for, early childhood development, early intervention to—

Mr. Philip Awashish: Yes.

Mr. John Finlay: The second thing you said concerned services other citizens receive—a passport, let's say, citizenship services, or Canada Pension?

Mr. Philip Awashish: That is correct. We're talking about other programs and services received by other citizens.

Mr. John Finlay: And then for the Crees there are special programs and services. Give me an example. Are they what's outlined in the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act?

Mr. Philip Awashish: They are special programs and services. They are also called benefits and guarantees. They are outlined in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

The reason the treaty itself mentions that the Cree are entitled to regular programs and services that other first nations or other citizens receive is to make a distinction and make it clear that the special services and programs outlined in the agreement are over and above the regular programs and services received by other first nations members and other citizens of Canada.

Mr. John Finlay: If I could ask one last question, what on balance are the Crees committed to providing to offset whatever these special services and programs are that, according to what you've said, other first nations are by definition not getting or other citizens are not getting? There must be some sort of quid pro quo here. Can you give me an example?

• 1225

Mr. Philip Awashish: First of all, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is an out-of-court settlement. The Crees, along with the Inuit party, were suing Hydro-Québec, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Quebec over land claim rights and over the proposed hydroelectric development project. The agreement itself constitutes an out-of-court settlement as well as a modern-day treaty. The terms and references of this agreement, settlement, or treaty were negotiated by the parties concerned. It was a give-and-take situation. The Crees of course had to give something also, so the end result is the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, our modern-day treaty. The Crees are being compensated for what they lost.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Godfrey): Thank you.

First of all, let me on behalf of the committee thank the commissioners for coming. We are certainly appreciative of your presentations and mindful of the concerns you've raised.

In that spirit I'm going to canvass my colleagues—to return to the proposition I made during the meeting—to ask whether it might be useful, since we have two spaces so far next week, to ask departmental officials to come and talk to us about...

[Translation]

Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: That's an excellent idea, Mr. Chairman. This time, it's not the assistant deputy ministers we want, but rather the deputy ministers, those at the top. Each time they make an appearance, the James Bay Cree bring with them their leaders, notably Grand Chief Ted Moses. Today, we are honoured to welcome Philip Awashish, Robert Kanatewat and Commissioner Richard Saunders. We want to hear from the people who head up the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, not from assistants.

[English]

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Godfrey): We will do our best. We have two possibilities on Tuesday and Thursday, and as I've indicated, this is all a balancing act. I think it would be very helpful to have at least... I'm not sure where everybody lives here, but it may be possible to arrange schedules, depending on the discussions.

I think it would be very useful to have somebody from the commission here. I think what we would like to ask is specifically in reference to the 1998 report as outlined in this one. We'd also like to get some sense of this whole accountability piece, where—I don't care how you frame it—there does seem to be a disconnection between the minister and the public servants. I think we are fully mandated to explore these problems.

Would that meet with your approval, fellow members of the committee?

[Translation]

Is that alright with you?

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Fine.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Godfrey): Is there a problem, Mr. Marceau? Fine then. It's always a delicate balancing act because we've already had to ask the minister... We'll try for Tuesday or for Thursday. There is still the possibility of calling in Mr. Goodale. We'll do our best.

Mr. St-Julien.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I agree that we should hear from Mr. Goodale, but I think there should be a 50-50 split. That's important.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Godfrey): No, no. We have two options: either Tuesday or Thursday.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Let's try for Tuesday morning then.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Godfrey): Fine. We'll do that.

[English]

Are the commissioners, or any of you, as a subset, available at least?

Mr. Richard Saunders: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

The Vice-Chair (Mr. John Godfrey): Great. We will be in touch then.

I now declare this session over. Thank you.