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]

Thursday, May 10, 2001

• 1110

[English]

The Chair (Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.)): Good morning. I shall call the meeting to order.

This morning we have with us Mr. Terry Henderson, from the Department of Aboriginal Affairs, who was invited by the committee to address the Cree-Naskapi Commission that was before the committee a couple of weeks ago.

I understand you have Mr. Jim McCarthy with you, but you will be doing the majority of the presentation.

Mr. Terry Henderson (Director General, Implementation Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): That's correct, Madam Chair.

The Chair: Okay. Without further ado, I'll let you get on with your presentation.

Mr. Terry Henderson: Madam Chair, members of the committee, good morning. I would like to take a few minutes to set out some context for our discussions this morning.

The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement are land claim settlements with the Crees, Inuit, and Naskapis of Quebec. They were signed in 1975 and 1978, respectively, and represent the first modern land claim agreements in Canada, of which we now have fourteen.

Section 9 of the JBNQA and section 7 of the NEQA required the Government of Canada to enact legislation to provide for local government by the Crees and Naskapis on their lands. This legislation, the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act 1984, which I will refer to as the act, replaced the Indian Act and provided considerable scope for local self-government. The act also included provision for the establishment of the Cree-Naskapi Commission, one of whose duties, as you know, is to prepare biennial reports on the implementation of the act.

Since 1984, the Government of Canada's relations with the Crees and the Naskapis have been governed by both the act and the JBNQA or NEQA, as the case may be.

One of the major initiatives under the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act has been to establish with both groups a stable and predictable funding relationship, based on block funding and grants that are consistent with the intended relationship, the available resources, and the flexibility appropriate to self-governing entities.

Regarding the James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, the land claim settlements themselves, the challenge for the Government of Canada has been to implement, in concert with the other parties, the main provisions of these complex agreements.

In the late 1980s, following a comprehensive review, and the realization that all parties had experienced difficulties in the implementation of these agreements, the Government of Canada undertook to negotiate implementation agreements with each of the Cree, Inuit, and Naskapi beneficiary groups to assist in clarifying and planning for implementation.

In 1990 this resulted in implementation agreements being signed with the Inuit and the Naskapis. We believe that as a result of these agreements and the implementation provisions and processes established therein, our relationships with the Inuit and the Naskapis are now stable and mutually satisfactory. However, the James Bay Crees chose not to negotiate such a comprehensive implementation agreement, but preferred instead to seek implementation based purely on the original provisions of the JBNQA.

With the Crees, we are negotiating the implementation of the individual provisions of the JBNQA on an incremental basis. This has not always been a smooth process. At this moment, Canada is the object of several litigation actions launched by the Crees, each alleging failure to implement certain provisions of the JBNQA.

I would like to focus on what is positive in our relations with the Crees of James Bay.

• 1115

We have in recent years made every effort to establish a new relationship and to address outstanding issues regarding the implementation of the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act and the JBNQA. Since 1995 the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has had a chief federal negotiator leading this process. Our current negotiator is Maître Jean-Martin Gagné, whose Cree counterpart is Mr. Bill Namagoose.

The biennial reports of the Cree-Naskapi Commission represent for us one of the important sources of information to inform the parties' joint priority setting in this implementation process. The process is overseen and guided by the Cree-Canada Round Table, made up of Cree leaders and federal ministers, which held its inaugural meeting in June 1998. It is a process consisting of staged negotiations, sometimes tripartite, involving the province of Quebec, and at times overshadowed by the litigation context. Nevertheless, both we and the Crees have put our minds and efforts into this process, and though we have not always agreed on the details, we have accomplished a lot with respect to implementing both the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act and specific provisions of the JBNQA.

I'm prepared to elaborate on those accomplishments and current activities if the members wish.

Madam Chair, I thank you for the opportunity of providing these opening remarks, and I would now be pleased to respond to questions from members of the committee.

The Chair: Thank you so much.

I failed to put down the responsibility of Mr. Jim McCarthy. He's the director of the James Bay implementation office with DIAND.

Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): I'll pass at this time.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Thank you for coming, Mr. Henderson, and you too, Mr. McCarthy.

As you know or have guessed from reading previous testimony, the reason we've invited you is that we were reviewing the Cree-Naskapi Commission's 2000 report. Chapter 10 of that report indicates there was a certain dissatisfaction with the response to their previous report in 1998.

I just want to make sure that I've understood the hierarchy of the implementation branch. Mr. Henderson, I just want to confirm that you were the director of the branch in 1998 and that you remain so today. Is that correct?

Mr. Terry Henderson: I am the director general of the implementation branch.

Mr. John Godfrey: You're the director general, right.

Mr. Terry Henderson: I have directors reporting to me, one of whom is the director of the James Bay implementation office, currently Mr. McCarthy.

Mr. John Godfrey: In 1998 Mr. Jeff Moore, Mr. McCarthy's predecessor, held that post, did he not?

Mr. Terry Henderson: He was Mr. McCarthy's predecessor. That is correct.

Mr. John Godfrey: All right.

What caught our attention is that it seemed from various pieces of correspondence of the minister of the day, Minister Stewart, and of the commission that a—how should I put it?—more fulsome response to the 1998 report would be forthcoming. By that I mean that I would have assumed it would be in written form. This commitment—and we have the minister's letters—would have.... I would have thought an appropriate response was a written response, just as they did a written report, which is what we do. Instead, there seems to have been an oral response, which is quite unsatisfactory because the commission then has the difficulty of trying to make something out of it when it is not on paper. There is some indication of times where Mr. Moore pushed certain questions aside.

Can you tell us why there was not a written response, as one might have expected from the minister's directive to your branch?

Mr. Terry Henderson: Thank you, Mr. Godfrey.

To start with, the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act does not call for a formal response, written or otherwise, to the biennial reports of the Cree-Naskapi Commission. To my knowledge, no minister—Minister Jane Stewart or the current minister, Minister Robert Nault—have ever undertaken to respond in writing per se to those particular reports.

Mr. John Godfrey: Why would that be?

Mr. Terry Henderson: With all due respect, sir, I cannot really speculate on why my minister has chosen or why my former minister chose to act in that particular way. There's been no requirement to do so, and in fact they've chosen not to respond in a formal way to those reports.

• 1120

Mr. John Godfrey: How am I to understand the phrasing of Minister Stewart's letter of November 27, 1998? “An approach is now being developed, outlining how federal departments, the province of Quebec, the Commission, the Cree and the Naskapi might be engaged to follow up on the 41 recommendations you have provided in the report”. Are you telling me that this commitment was satisfied simply by Mr. Moore's appearance and by his oral response to the report? Does that constitute following the minister's directive?

Mr. Terry Henderson: I think my answer to that specific question could become fairly complicated and complex. With the committee's forbearance I will certainly endeavour to respond, but it may take me some time.

To begin with, it's not entirely clear to me whether or not such contacts and follow-up with the Cree-Naskapi Commission took place and, if they did not take place, exactly why they did not take place. As you pointed out, Mr. Jeff Moore, director of the James Bay implementation office at the time, is not with me, so I don't have that clarification. If there was an undertaking to contact and follow up with the commission and that was not adhered to, I guess I am fully accountable at the end of the day for that.

That said and assuming that there were no such contacts made as suggested in Minister Stewart's letter, our review and analysis of the 1998 biennial report has never been sufficiently complete to our or, I believe, our minister's satisfaction. Our views on how best to deal with the recommendations of that report have evolved over time.

I might point out that there are actually five letters from ministers of particular interest and relevance here, and I'm not too sure which letters in total the committee has at its disposal presently. However, there are five letters that were signed by ministers of Indian Affairs and Northern Development between November 1998 and March 2000. Three of those letters were signed by Minister Jane Stewart, and two of those letters were signed by Minister Robert Nault.

If one reads those letters, some do indeed speak to undertaking some follow-up work and so on and to making contacts back with the commission. Aside from that, however, as one reads through the sequence, one can probably read that there is an evolution in the views and the thinking expressed by the minister as to the nature of the 1998 biennial report and as to how we might respond thereto. If you look at all those letters in context, I think they do give a somewhat changing and dynamic perspective on what the expectations were.

I will say that indeed our preliminary views and assessment of the 1998 report and our revisiting of those views have revealed to us that many or most of the recommendations of the report go in some contexts beyond the purview of the Cree-Naskapi Commission with respect to reporting on the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act. I think that kind of conclusion is expressed in various minister's letters concerning the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act, not in detail but in some summary form and in generalities.

Having viewed those and not having had an opportunity to conclude our total review and analysis, we've quite frankly been struggling with how best to deal with that report and respond in an appropriate way to the Cree-Naskapi Commission. I believe my minister has been faced with the same kind of uncertainty and struggle.

That was my elaborate response, sir.

Mr. John Godfrey: I'll just end with one observation, Madam Chair.

• 1125

Since the Cree-Naskapi Commission seems to be reporting not only to the minister but to this committee, I just put it on the table that it might not be out of order for this committee to issue a report. It would acknowledge the receipt of the 1998 and year 2000 reports and would request from the minister a response to that report within the usual timeframe as we would for any report we did ourselves. I'm not sure, but I think that we might be able to do that from a procedural point of view. As a result, we would now and in the future have a written response to reports that have taken a great deal of time and energy to prepare and which have never, as far as I know, ever had a written response. I think it's about time they did.

The Chair: Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik, Lib.): On a point of order, Madam Chair.

Did the witness, Mr. Terry Henderson, mention the five letters? Could the committee get a copy of the five letters he mentioned?

[English]

The Clerk of the Committee: We received those two. That was all we had. The two letters we received were the only two briefs.

The Chair: We've received only two, so I guess I'll look for the other three.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Chatters, did you want to...?

Mr. Guy St-Julien?

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: How long do I have? Five minutes?

The Clerk: Three minutes.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Fine. Madam Chair, it is going to be a question, but I would like to elaborate a bit first. In the case of the conclusion contained in the report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission, it was expressly stated:

[...] if Minister Nault is serious about respecting the spirit and the intent of the treaties, he must do more than offer words about good intentions.

In its policy Gathering Strength, the federal government stated that: Canada's treaties, both historical and modern, are basic components of the Canadian federation, the foundation for sharing this country's wealth.

Two conventions on flooding were signed in this country between the federal Crown, a province, and a provincial hydro- electric corporation. These two conventions came to be in the seventies and they are the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, 1975, and the Northern Flood Agreement with Manitoba in 1977.

On the first page of your presentation, you mentioned that all the parties had problems ensuring the implementation of those agreements.

Those two conventions are perpetual in nature and include express provisions binding on the parties of the Crown in perpetuity, in conformity with what had been agreed. Now, in both cases, official federal commissions indicated there were serious failures in their implementation mainly having to do with socio- economic trickledown such as housing, employment and those community infrastructures that were to revert to the Native signatories, in other words the Cree bands of Northern Quebec and Northern Manitoba.

In the case of the Quebec Cree, housing must be undertaken under special programs that will have been established by the Joint Economic and Community Development Committee under provision 28.8 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. This committee was disbanded by Canada and Quebec after only two meetings. In both cases, there are negotiations between the First Nations beneficiaries and the Crown that implemented it.

In the case of James Bay, progress in the negotiations having to do with the new relationship was very slow according to the Cree side. One of the main concerns of the James Bay Cree is that the federal government negotiators bluntly refused to recognize the status and nature of federal obligations provided for in the James Bay agreement. Apparently, the federal lawyers in fact refused that the words "treaty" or "permanent" be used in the negotiations with the Cree. They also asked the Cree to sign away rights flowing from the permanent treaties, for example the right to fire protection services in exchange for the ad hoc implementation of many major parts of the Convention.

I am winding up, Madam Chair.

The James Bay Cree give the example of what happened with the Northern Flood Agreement where, in the case of four of the five signing parties, they believe that the NFA and the obligations contained therein were extinguished in exchange for lump sum settlements.

Here is my question: Did the James Bay implementation office ask for the surrender or termination of the permanent rights and obligations stemming from the James Bay agreement? Did it do so in the case of the fire protection services? If the answer is affirmative, how is this compatible with the policy set out in Gathering Strength and the rights stemming from the treaties confirmed in clause 35 of the Constitution? Why do the federal officials refuse to recognize that the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is a treaty even though it is widely known that this is the first modern treaty signed by Canada.

• 1130

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Henderson.

Mr. Terry Henderson: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I am not a lawyer, nor am I represented by the Department of Justice here, so I can only say what I know about that whole question.

I believe the Government of Canada fully recognizes the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement as being land claim agreements within the meaning of “land claim agreements” in chapter 35 of the Constitution Act.

I believe the difficulties that the Department of Justice has had with the interpretation of this is not that they are not land claim agreements, or, in another term, “treaties”, but it's a question more of whether each and every provision of those agreements gives rise to treaty rights or treaty obligations.

Having expressed it that way, I have difficulty myself being able to distinguish and elaborate on that kind of a description, again not being a lawyer and not being from the Department of Justice.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Madam Chair, on a point of order. In view of my question, could we get a written legal opinion from the Justice Department lawyers, please?

I know that Mr. Terry Henderson is an excellent official. He is not a lawyer, but in view of my question, I would like the members of the committee to get a written legal opinion, please.

[English]

The Chair: All right, Monsieur St-Julien.

Mr. Serré.

Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Before I ask my question to Mr. Henderson, I want to express my disappointment on the fact that there's nobody here from the PC Party, nobody from the Bloc Québécois, and nobody from the NDP Party. I want to congratulate David Chatters, because in spite of all the turmoil in his caucus right now, he took the time to come here.

The reason I feel it's very important to express that disappointment is the fact that those three parties were very forceful in not requesting, but demanding, that Mr. Henderson appear in person and bring him to account on the question of accountability that had arisen out of the commission's presentation to the committee. We as a government concurred, and I for one was insisting that Mr. Henderson appear in person and not send one of his colleagues. So the fact that they're not here this morning is very disappointing. I guess as happens often in this Parliament, the government will have to do the opposition's job a little bit.

Mr. Henderson, the only reason I and other members insisted that you be here today is the follow-up of the commission's appearance before the committee and a letter from the commission to Mr. Godfrey, the vice-chair. It states:

It is our understanding that the Committee will be following up by asking officials of the Department of Indian Affairs for explanations concerning their failures to carry out in a timely or substantive way, their Minister's commitment to follow up on the 1998 Report.

The report was tabled on October 5. Six weeks later, November 27, 1998, the minister wrote:

With respect to your latest biennial report, my officials have been analyzing and discussing it extensively....

So six weeks later, apparently officials had studied the report extensively, and it was expected to report somehow to the commission.

• 1135

The first time that the commission heard from from the officials was 16 months later. There was no meeting in the meantime. That was the first the commission had some response from the officials—which was brief, and according to them, not substantive, and oral.

I feel that this totally unacceptable. Regardless of what the legal requirements are, when commissions like this one or committees of Parliament present reports, certainly the departments and officials have a duty to respond, and to respond in a timely matter. Otherwise these commissions have no reason for being there.

I would like to have an explanation, as requested by the letter to the committee, as to why it took so long to reply, and how can this commission be of service, how can the system work if, when they present reports, or for that matter, when a committee of Parliament presents a report, it's not responded to?

The Chair: Mr. Henderson.

Mr. Terry Henderson: Thank you for your question, but I'm not sure how I'm going to be able to respond to it.

Whether or not there is a response to the report is more within the purview of my minister than it is with me. I carry out certain functions on behalf of my minister to prepare some analysis, to undertake reviews, but at the end of the day, it is my minister's prerogative to carry out those kinds of functions. So I would have a very difficult time expressing my own assessment of the merits or otherwise of not responding to the Cree-Naskapi Commission report.

Mr. Benoît Serré: You were the superior official to Mr. Moore at that time, right?

Mr. Terry Henderson: Yes, indeed I was.

Mr. Benoît Serré: Okay. The minister writes six weeks later:

Mr. Jeff Moore, Director of the James Bay Implementation Office, will soon be in touch with the Commission regarding this follow-up approach.

Were you or Mr. Moore in touch with the commission soon after that? Have you had discussions with the commission? Have you had meetings with the commission?

Mr. Terry Henderson: As I explained earlier to Mr. Godfrey in responding to his question, I do not know conclusively whether or not there was any kind of contact on the report. I know there were definitely contacts around budgets and other matters with the Cree-Naskapi Commission. Whether there were with respect to the report, I can not say categorically.

If there were not, then I am accountable for that, and in fact I'm here today giving account to the committee if that did not happen. However, as I also tried to explain to Mr. Godfrey, there was an evolution in our thinking, and reviewing the minister's letters, not just Minister Stewart's letter, the one you're citing, but the whole block of five letters, will show an evolution in thinking and some struggle that was being faced not only by the department, myself, my officials, Mr. Moore, and presently Mr. McCarthy, but I believe by the minister herself and himself, on how best to be able to respond to the Cree-Naskapi Commission.

Mr. Benoît Serré: I'm not going to dwell on the past, on whether there was no meeting or whatever, but are you having discussions with the minister now as to how things can improve? Certainly this is not acceptable.

It's not only with this commission. We as members of Parliament—and I think members of all parties have experienced this—write to officials, and even to ministers, and it takes six months to get a reply. By the time we get the reply, the issue is over or irrelevant. This is totally unacceptable. As a matter of fact, I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister to that effect just last week.

But on the matter that's before the committee now, have you had discussions with the minister, and do you plan to put a process in place so that at least there's a timely and fixed process so that the commission and the officials from the department meet on a regular basis and can discuss and talk about those frustrations with the process?

The Chair: Mr. Henderson.

Mr. Terry Henderson: I have not personally had discussions with the minister on this particular subject matter. The minister has been briefed on the subject, and at this point in time, I await further direction from my minister.

• 1140

The Chair: Mr. Chatters, you wanted an opportunity?

Mr. David Chatters: I'll jump in to some extent, but this is not my area of expertise. I'm the critic for natural resources, so I'm a bit out of my depth.

I do find it somewhat curious—particularly in response to Ben's comments. We're sitting here in committee, basically with a group of government members criticizing ministerial bureaucracy for not responding to the minister's direction. It is truly a curious situation. Regrettably, there aren't other opposition members here, who called for these witnesses, obviously.

We always seem to come to the same point in relations between aboriginal peoples and the Government of Canada. We start out going down the road to negotiate and come to some conclusion in good faith; but instead of dealing directly, head-on, with key issues—issues of the utmost importance, upon which so many other things hinge—the government always sets such issues aside and negotiates an agreement that tries to avoid controversy.

A recognition of the legitimacy of aboriginal sovereignty on behalf of the Government of Canada is one such issue not being addressed here. The government of course has long said it recognizes the inherent right of self-government of aboriginal people. I would support that—I think it's right. But it's quite a different issue from the existence of aboriginal sovereignty in this country.

If the government would take a position on this issue, these difficulties would disappear; they would be gone. But as long as the government doesn't want to talk about it, refuses to recognize it, and refuses to take action to indicate their support of aboriginal sovereignty, we're going nowhere. We are at a stalemate in this country.

You can only go so far and then you can't go any further, particularly when it comes to implementing some of the recommendations in the report, such as setting up aboriginal courts to be recognized as federal courts of Canada. These things go to the issue of whether or not the Government of Canada recognizes aboriginal sovereignty.

I would be interested in hearing the witnesses comment on this.

The Chair: Mr. Henderson.

Mr. Terry Henderson: Yes. I don't believe I can set forth the position of the government on aboriginal sovereignty, sir.

Mr. David Chatters: Is that because the government doesn't have a position?

Mr. Terry Henderson: I can't comment on the position because it would be relative to higher-level government policy.

Mr. David Chatters: Well if the government has a policy, you should be able to reiterate it.

Mr. Terry Henderson: I'm unable to do so, sir; it's beyond my purview.

You did mention agreements with respect to the land claim agreements, and in my opening remarks I mentioned that we have 14 comprehensive land claim agreements in place today, of which the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement are two. Our total dedication to ensuring the implementation of those agreements to the best of our ability is demonstrated by the significant resources and efforts we have put in.

Mr. David Chatters: Well I didn't expect an answer, but it certainly reaffirms my concerns about how the government's addressing this whole issue of aboriginal sovereignty.

With that, Madam Chairman, I have no further questions.

The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: First, Madam Chair, I would like to give advance notice that on Tuesday I intend to present a motion to the committee to allow the committee to issue a report, which would in some way incorporate the 1998 and 2000 Cree-Naskapi reports, and then trigger the necessity of an obligation by the department, within the statutory period. We have to work the details out, but I wanted to tell the committee what I'm up to here.

• 1145

Secondly, we have with us—and I would ask for the indulgence of the committee to allow him to come to the table—the chair of the Cree-Naskapi Commission, Mr. Saunders. Since what we're trying to do is resolve issues and proceed, if it were agreeable to others I would like Mr. Saunders to join the witnesses at the table. I'd like to get his comment on how he reads the response of the department and also on how we can move forward.

Would that be agreeable to the committee?

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): No, it's not agreeable to me.

I haven't had a chance to ask a question, Madame Chair. I'm sorry.

Mr. John Godfrey: I will withdraw and postpone my question, if Mr. Finlay would like to appear.

The Chair: Mr. Godfrey, we haven't gone through the list yet.

Mr. John Godfrey: I will delay, sorry. I took your instructions....

The Chair: Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: I want to apologize to the committee and to the witnesses for not being here at the start of your remarks, Mr. Henderson, but I have since read them, and to be perfectly frank, I think we are missing the point.

The major point here on page 1 of your brief document, based on my knowledge of what is going forward—as you said, fourteen tables.... What we have been trying to do in previous Cree-Naskapi reports—I draw the attention of the members of the committee to what is written:

Regarding the JBNQA and NEQA, the challenge for the Government of Canada has been to implement, in concert with the other parties, the many provisions of these complex agreements.

There was no implementation process in the original agreements.

In the late 1980s, following a comprehensive review and the realization that all parties had experienced difficulties in the implementation of these agreements, the Government of Canada undertook to negotiate “implementation agreements” with each of the Cree, Inuit and Naskapi beneficiary groups, to assist in clarifying planning for implementation. In 1990, this resulted in implementation agreements being signed with the Inuit and the Naskapi.

Is this accurate? I believe it is.

We believe that as a result of these agreements, and the implementation provisions and processes established therein, our relationships with the Inuit and Naskapis are now stable and mutually satisfactory.

I trust that this is still true.

However, the James Bay Crees chose not to negotiate such a comprehensive implementation agreement, but preferred instead to seek implementation based purely on the original provisions of the JBNQA.

—which all groups, according to your report, sir, said they were having difficulty with.

With the Crees, then, we are negotiating the implementation of the individual provisions of the JBNQA on an incremental basis. This has not always been a smooth process...

—as per the report of the Cree-Naskapi in 1998, the presentation of which I was present for.

Canada at this moment is the object of several litigation actions launched by the Crees, each alleging failure to implement certain provisions of the JBNQA.

I'd like your comment on whether we are in contravention of the normal procedures, when there are court cases going on as to what we should be discussing here.

If people go to court, they want an answer. And the court must give it to them. You say here, “I would like to focus on what is positive in our relations with the Crees of James Bay”. That's certainly what I would recommend.

• 1150

We have in recent years made every effort to establish a new relationship, and to address outstanding issues regarding the implementation of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act and the JBNQA. Since 1995, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has had a Chief Federal Negotiator leading this process. Our current negotiator is Me. Jean-Martin Gagné, whose Cree counterpart is Mr. Bill Namagoose.

I'd like to know what the status of that particular thing is.

The biennial reports of the Cree-Naskapi Commission represent for us one of the important sources of information to inform the parties' joint priority-setting in this implementation process.

Then you go on to say:

The process is overseen by the Cree-Canada Round Table made up of Cree leaders and federal Ministers, who held their inaugural meeting in June of 1998. It is a process consisting of staged negotiations, sometimes tripartite, involving the Province of Quebec, and at times overshadowed by the litigation context. Nevertheless, both we and the Crees have put our minds and efforts into the process, and though we have not always agreed on the details, we have accomplished a lot, both with respect to implementing the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act and specific provisions of the JBNQA. I am prepared to elaborate on those accomplishments and current activities if you wish.

Well, I certainly do wish. I wish because I think we should focus on the positive and we should focus on the things that have been achieved. We should understand the problems of settling land claims and coming to agreement and so on. I know the Crees have been at it a long time. So has the department.

So let's hear the good news as well as the not-so-good news. Let's make some decision from then on. If we are out of line discussing things that are before the courts, then that's fine. We had better not discuss them.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: We're at our seven minutes now, so you'll have to be very brief.

I think there are about three or four questions in there. I'll give you a little bit of time.

Mr. Terry Henderson: Is there a sense, Mr. Finlay, which question you would like? Is it a focus on the positive relationships—the accomplishments?

Mr. John Finlay: I would say yes, sir.

Mr. Terry Henderson: If I have a short period of time, I would have a difficult time doing it, but I will attempt to take a stab at the various and sundry agreements that have been reached with the Cree pursuant to both the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act and the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement over the past several years.

May I do that, Madam Chair?

The Chair: Is it the wish of the committee?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Henderson.

Mr. Terry Henderson: With respect to the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act of 1984 itself, which establishes a form of self-government—local government, effectively—for the James Bay Cree bands as well as the Naskapi band, in 1993 we established ongoing allocations for the Cree community capital, including housing, to a total of $9.9 million annually. That was a seven-year agreement. That agreement is continuing to this day.

In 1995 we—and when I say “we” I mean Indian Affairs and Northern Development—negotiated an agreement for operations and maintenance of Cree communities. Operations and maintenance includes a variety of things, not only maintenance of capital infrastructure, and so on and so forth, but the actual operations of the communities themselves—an extensive list of items. That covers all local government services with appropriate adjusters every year. We do adjusters. We look at price and population impacts on the amounts of money that are flowing and adjust them accordingly. That has resulted in over $44 million flowing in 2001-2002. So it would be that amount at least again in the next fiscal year and so on. These are ongoing kinds of funding.

In 1997 INAC—Indian and Northern Affairs Canada—once again arranged for $6.5 million in one-time funding under the new housing policy. In March of 2001, with respect to housing, a further special $2.1 million in emergency housing assistance was provided to the Chisasibi Band to help address their mould problem.

• 1155

I believe Minister Nault, when he appeared last Thursday, made reference to this emergency housing nationally of about $30 million. Well, $2.1 million went specifically to one Cree band, the Chisasibi Band.

In 1998 the Department of the Solicitor General, moving away from INAC itself, negotiated a Cree-Quebec-Canada tripartite policing services agreement, including Canada's provision of $3.8 million for construction of police stations.

So those are the kinds of things with respect to the federal government, INAC and other departments, enabling the Cree bands to pursue their aspirations under the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act—their local government model.

Now, in direct response to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement with respect to the Cree, from 1993 to 1997 INAC has provided $39.4 million for essential sanitation services. That relates quite directly to a provision of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, 28.11.1(b), which speaks to the provision of funding for those kinds of purposes—that's water and sewer, etc.

In 1997 we signed a $15 million agreement for the provision of fire protection and for further essential sanitation services. Again, fire protection is a provision of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

We have provided to the Cree Trappers Association, which is a provision within the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, in 1997-98, $200,000; in 1998-99, $750,000, plus $114,000 in operational funding; and in each of the last two years, 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, we've provided $300,000 for the operations and programs of the Cree Trappers Association.

In March 1999 we concluded an agreement for the Waskaganish access road. There were provisions under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement for three access roads to be constructed. This was the final, outstanding one, and this was cost-shared with the Province of Quebec—Canada picking up $24 million and the Province of Quebec picking up $21 million.

In October of 1999 we finalized—this is a non-financial kind of an accomplishment—the transfer of the category IA lands to the Cree bands.

In 1999-2000 we provided $5.4 million for again fire protection equipment, so that supplemented earlier fire protection funding that was provided. This again relates to a specific provision in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

In October 2000 we agreed to provide another $20 million over two years for essential sanitation services. The second half of that money is flowing this current fiscal year, 2001-2002.

So those are the accomplishments with respect to the James Bay Cree. I could speak about others with respect to the Naskapi band as an individual band as well, if the committee wishes.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you very much.

The Chair: I have Mr. St-Julien and Mr. Godfrey still wishing to ask questions.

Mr. St-Julien please.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Madam Chair.

There is something we must admit. Mr. Henderson, I want to emphasize that the government is perhaps trying to back you into a corner, but to my mind you have been doing good work since you have started working on this file. I am not afraid to say that it is not easy, but we have a mandate. We are mainly the trustees of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement of November 11, 1975. Honouring one's signature is a top priority with me. When I got married, I signed on the dotted line and I have honoured it ever since. I am still with my wife.

[English]

A voice: Congratulations.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: But that is not a problem. The president of the Cree-Naskapi Commission pointed it out to the department and stated:

One the Crown's duties as a trustee is to maintain and see to the fulfilment of the legitimate hopes and aspirations of the Cree and Naskapi as reflected in the agreements by implementing the latter in a positive manner, with good faith. Trying to reduce the privileges of the Cree and Naskapi provided for in the agreements, to obtain the surrender of permanent provisions in exchange for ad hoc advantages or to avoid in any other way honouring the obligations flowing from treaties are contrary to the letter and the spirit of the agreements, to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Settlement Act...

• 1200

Have you seen the Cree-Naskapi Commission report, Mr. Henderson?

Mr. Terry Henderson: Yes, sir.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Did the Justice Department also see it? I know that you cannot answer for them, but they must have seen it.

Mr. Terry Henderson: I think so.

Mr. Guy St-Julien: In chapter 7, on the stakes and concerns of the Cree, there is a summary. I know that Mr. Nault, the minister, is working very hard at finding solutions but the question must be thrashed out. I often meet Dr. Ted Moses and the chiefs of the Native communities participating in Canada's and Quebec's economies. Presently, there are implementation problems. You have given us a whole list and you have mentioned millions of dollars. That is not a lot when we know that Loto-Québec has revenues of 10 million dollars and gives even less back to our community. But that is another story.

Could you tell me what problems we have? I have the list here. I am mainly thinking about the problems we have in honouring our November 11, 1975, signature. It is easy for me to remember the date, it is my wife's birthday.

We must remember that we are the trustees of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. I want to say to you, Mr. Henderson, that I have a lot of respect for you and your staff. But the young people growing up and the families in those communities have problems. We have to be aware. When the Gulf War was declared, 18 seconds later the government ordered the F-18s to take off and that cost 3 billion dollars.

We must find a way to honour that 1975 signature. Can you list our present problems? We must find solutions together. I have the list here, but I would like to hear you on this.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Henderson, briefly, please.

Mr. Terry Henderson: Yes. Thank you for the question.

We certainly do respect the provisions of the 1975 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and are making concrete efforts to try to ensure the federal government is fulfilling all of its obligations under that, ideally in collaboration with the other parties to that agreement, of which the Province of Quebec is one.

I did mention in my opening remarks that there was a realization in the 1980s that all parties were having a difficult time implementing provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement. So we undertook to negotiate with the beneficiary groups implementation agreements, which were not in any way, shape, or form intended to provide a full and final release or to influence the rights or the obligations under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, but rather to clarify and help the parties implement provisions they had had difficulty implementing in the past.

We did succeed with the Inuit and the Naskapi in achieving comprehensive implementation agreements, and I think our relationships have unfolded quite satisfactorily since then. We have issues from day to day, but we deal with those issues.

With the Cree we are dealing with the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement in its original form. Since the middle of 1995 we have had a chief federal negotiator working. Many of the accomplishments that I read out speak to actual accomplishments of this table, stemming from the Cree-Canada Round Table of Cree leaders and ministers.

What we still have at the table, and there can be more coming to the table at any time, are questions of renewing the operations and maintenance funding transfrer payment agreement. It's in place right now, but we're trying to renegotiate that at the table. The community capital agreement is at the table to be renegotiated. So it's outstanding, but that's looking forward. It is a forward-looking kind of a negotiations process.

• 1205

We are looking to conclude, hopefully fairly shortly, under the auspices of Human Resources Development Canada, an agreement with the Cree on special training programs. We're fairly close to that. It's being negotiated as we speak. There are further meetings being scheduled with the Cree and Cree representatives.

Community centres is a provision within the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, again under chapter 28.11.1, which probably has not been dealt with adequately. It is on the table. We would hope to be negotiating that as we proceed through the process of discussions and negotiations with the Cree.

Three associations exist under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement: the Cree Trappers Association, the Cree Outfitting and Tourism Association, and the Cree Native Arts and Crafts Association.

In the past we've provided moneys for many years to the Cree Trappers Association. As I itemized in our accomplishments, we've supplemented the money considerably over the past few years and are looking to in fact negotiate a five-year agreement with the Cree, one that would be negotiable at the end of the five years.

Those are the kinds of things at the table. The table that exists with our chief federal negotiator, Jean-Martin Gagné, along with his Cree counterpart, Mr. Bill Namagoose, will look at these and other kinds of items from time to time. There is no intent on the part of the federal government to reduce or limit the obligations under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. It is to help us clarify what the obligations are and move forward.

In most cases, I dare say almost in all cases, for any agreements we sign with the Cree, we are not seeking from a legal perspective a full and final release under those obligations. We are seeking simply an acknowledgement that the agreement responds to the provisions of the agreement and that for the period of time in which the agreement is in place the federal government is fulfilling its responsibilities. It hasn't fulfilled the responsibilities; it is fulfilling those responsibilities. I think in almost all cases, with the agreements we have signed, there's the odd exception. We are simply looking for an acknowledgement, not a permanent, full, and final release from those obligations.

Does that answer your question, sir?

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: And housing?

[English]

Mr. Terry Henderson: I believe my minister, Minister Robert Nault, spoke to housing last Thursday. I can simply reiterate the statements he made. I won't quote him.

He indicated that he takes the housing situation for first nations extremely seriously and is doing what he can within the limits of resources within the federal government. He also expressed that it is the government's view that housing is not an obligation per se with respect to the Cree under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. It was expressed at the table last Thursday and is clearly the government's view.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Henderson.

I've been fairly generous with the time allocations for the questions. I now have Mr. Godfrey wanting to ask a question.

Mr. John Godfrey: I'd like to return to where I was, Madam Chair, and ask the permission of the committee once again if we might ask Mr. Saunders to come forward. I'm particularly interested in hearing his response, should the committee be so inclined to hear it, to the points made about implementation by Mr. Henderson and then reiterated by my colleague, Mr. Finlay. May I have permission from the committee to invite Mr. Saunders?

The Chair: I want to get a clarification. I know one of the questions Mr. Finlay asked was about the litigation going on now, and whether some of the questions being addressed here are part of the litigation process. Can I give you an opportunity to respond?

Mr. John Godfrey: I also was going to ask Mr. Saunders the same questions.

The Chair: I don't want to deal with issues that I think are not proper for the committee to address.

• 1210

Mr. Terry Henderson: Thank you, Madam Chair.

Quite correctly, I cannot appropriately speak to the litigation cases that are under way right now, because of the nature of litigation.

I will say we are in a situation in which we have several litigation cases between the Cree and Canada, and in some cases Quebec is a defendant as well. Yet we are, at the same time, negotiating at the table the hopeful resolution of a number of the outstanding, potentially unfulfilled obligations under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

That is an unusual situation. Typically, the department and the federal government choose one road or the other, for various reasons—and I won't get into those because those are within the purview of the Department of Justice. But typically, when items are being litigated, we are not also sitting and negotiating on those items at the same time, unless there's some understanding that we're negotiating an out-of-court settlement on a particular matter.

Under the circumstances with the James Bay Cree, however, we received permission to follow both tracks at the same time, in the interests of everyone. In fact, litigators—I believe it was the litigators for both sides, for the Cree and for the Government of Canada—signed a disclaimer letter that did in fact suggest that no discussions, negotiations at the table, and information provided would be used against the other party in the litigation. That was signed, and it enabled us to be able to move forward in a negotiating mode while at the same time we're in a litigating mode.

Does that help, Madam Chair?

The Chair: Yes, thank you.

Mr. John Godfrey: I would still like to hear from Mr. Saunders.

The Chair: Is it the wish of the committee for Mr. Saunders to come to the table? Yes?

Mr. Saunders, I would like to invite you to the table, please.

Mr. Finlay.

Mr. John Finlay: Excuse me, Madam Chair, but I did not give my consent before, and I do not give my consent now. I understand unanimous consent is needed, but if I'm in error, then by all means have a vote.

A voice: It requires quorum if it's not unanimous.

Mr. John Godfrey: Then we're lacking quorum.

Let me put it on the record that I think it would be helpful to have a direct discussion between the Cree-Naskapi commissioner and those responsible for the implementation. In that discussion, we could carve out those areas that might be subject to litigation.

If I don't have the agreement of Mr. Finlay, then let me ask Mr. Henderson this question: Are you suggesting that the primary reason you couldn't answer to the report in writing was because of litigation?

Mr. Terry Henderson: No, that's not what I said at all, sir.

Mr. John Godfrey: I just wanted to make sure that was not the issue.

Mr. Terry Henderson: That is not the issue, sir.

Mr. John Godfrey: If that's not the issue, then what would be wrong with having Mr. Saunders appear at the table?

Mr. John Finlay: He's not going to express an opinion about that.

Mr. John Godfrey: No, I'm just asking the committee.

Mr. John Finlay: Oh, you were asking me?

Mr. John Godfrey: I'm asking you.

Mr. John Finlay: Well, fine, John.

Mr. Saunders came with the Cree-Naskapi Commission that was the subject of investigation by this committee. I'm not really interested in hearing a debate between Mr. Henderson and Mr. Saunders. If we want Mr. Saunders to deal with this problem further than he has, we can call him as a witness again. I'm sure he'd be glad to come.

Mr. John Godfrey: I guess my only point is that we could probably resolve this by having everybody at the table. We then don't have to have another session, that's all. When people are in some contradiction with each other, I find it useful to have them discuss it in an amiable and civilized fashion before the committee.

The Chair: Excuse me, I'd like to give an opportunity to Mr. Carignan.

Mr. Jean-Guy Carignan (Québec East, Lib.): I just want to say I agree with Mr. Finlay's position, that's all.

The Chair: All right.

Well, I know I missed the opportunity for the Cree-Naskapi Commission to appear before the committee also, but I felt they had an opportunity to speak to the committee. Some questions coming out of that necessitated Mr. Henderson's appearance before the committee.

• 1215

I don't know if we want to see a meeting in which two sides are just asking questions of each other. From what I seem to understand, a lot of these are justice department interpretations. I don't know how far this will get the committee on the issue, but I do see that you would like to request a federal response to...is that what you were addressing?

Mr. John Godfrey: Let me just say I will of course defer to the committee, but perhaps Mr. Saunders, on behalf of the Cree-Naskapi Commission, may wish to make some written submission to us based on what he's heard today, particularly regarding some of these finer details about implementation.

On Tuesday I will try to present a procedurally correct motion that will have the effect of requesting that the government respond, in writing, to the two reports of 1998 and 2000. That would be notice of motion for a vote on Thursday.

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: On this matter, Madam Chair, I would not want him to wait until Tuesday to table his motion. The notice required is 48 hours. He should table it by tomorrow so that we can discuss it next Tuesday.

[English]

Mr. John Godfrey: My concern was that we be correct about this. I'd rather take a little time to make it correct. We've been waiting for twenty years—

Mr. John Finlay: Exactly.

Mr. John Godfrey: —so I'm not sure the passage of another 48 hours won't—

The Chair: I have a question, though, for Mr. Henderson, although maybe it was addressed during the other sessions I wasn't here for.

My difficulty has always been in understanding this: If they created a commission that would report biannually—

An hon. member: To Parliament.

The Chair: —was it an oversight by either side that there wouldn't be federal responses to these reports?

Mr. Terry Henderson: Madam Chair, with all due respect, I don't think I can speculate on what Parliament intended or contemplated when the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act was enacted in 1984. My understanding is that any legislation that is enacted is in fact taken at face value as what Parliament intends at the time. That is, what was intended was exactly what is expressed in the legislation, so we read it very much at face value.

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate your leadership. You are patient with us.

I have two questions, Mr. Henderson. First, on the subject of housing, we have started to deal with the problem in the case of the Inuit. The government of Canada has provided $50 million over five years and Quebec has matched this amount, for a total of $100 million. The previous year, each side had provided $5 million. So the total is $110 million. Just north of the 50th parallel, both the community of Kuujjuaraapik and Whapmagoostui are benefiting from the $110 million from the governments of Canada and Quebec. In the case of the Cree, however, we have been unable to find a solution to reach a long-term agreement. That is my question. There must be an agreement.

My second question is about the health of young people, Aboriginal families and the Cree in the James Bay area. People living in these Aboriginal Cree communities in the James Bay area have a hard time in the summer because of the dust. The health costs are high because young people have asthma and older people do not leave their homes because none of the streets are paved except in Oujé-Bougoumou. In the south, even small streets and lanes are paved. In Canadian cities, small streets and lanes are paved. Everything is taken for granted. But in Aboriginal communities, we are not doing our duty as regards the health of young people and older people and all the Cree living in the James Bay area.

My question is this: why are we refusing to provide funding to pave all the streets of the Aboriginal communities and the access roads, particularly the road we have been talking about for years, between Chibougamau and Mistassini, especially the part that is our responsibility, the one located on the lands in category 1-A? Why do we not assume some leadership with the Cree, with Quebec in particular, to find a way to make young people and all Cree families in the James Bay area feel safer by removing this dust, which is irritating to people, including pregnant women, during the summer?

• 1220

I would like to tell you that we have a serious problem, but I would like to hear what you have to say about it. Why are we not getting involved to improve the health of these Cree families in the James Bay area?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Henderson, very briefly.

Mr. Terry Henderson: So your first question, sir, had to do with the—

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Housing.

[English]

Mr. Terry Henderson: —Inuit housing agreement and how that differs?

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Yes, my question is about housing for the Inuit as opposed to housing for the Cree. Why are we giving $110 million to the Inuit, and nothing further south?

[English]

Mr. Terry Henderson: Okay.

Just for clarification, sir, I'm not sure where the figure of $110 million came from. I'm familiar with a figure of $100 million, but perhaps we can get that clarified.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: I am sorry. The figure is $100 million, but the previous year, the government of Canada and the government of Quebec each contributed $5 million.

[English]

Mr. Terry Henderson: Thank you.

The provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement with respect to the Inuit are different from the provisions of that agreement with respect to the Cree. There is explicitly a provision—29.0.40. I learned it well. It's in chapter 29. It speaks to the continuing provision of housing and related services to the Inuit of northern Quebec. So there is a specific provision there.

The Inuit in fact invoked a dispute resolution mechanism in 1998 against the federal government. That was pursuant to our 1990 implementation agreement, which set out a number of implementation processes and this dispute resolution mechanism. Through that process, along with Quebec, we were able to come to an agreement to jointly satisfy the provisions of 29.0.40.

Now, if I elaborate on that somewhat, the federal government believed, at the time that we were negotiating this and before, that the federal government no longer had the obligation to provide housing to the Inuit per se, not because it was expressed that way in the 1975 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, but because subsequently, in 1981, the federal government signed with the Province of Quebec a transfer agreement that the federal government believed transferred the responsibilities for that provision directly to the province to fulfill.

However, through the dispute resolution mechanism, the healthy discussions that we had, I think there was a recognition by both governments that we did not want to hold the Inuit ransom for a difference between two levels of government. Thus, we concluded a $100 million, five-year agreement to provide for Inuit housing in northern Quebec—a very positive outcome.

There is no similar provision in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement with respect to the Cree, so I would reiterate my minister's position on that as he expressed it last Thursday before this committee.

The second question is a very difficult one. I am not responsible within the federal system for health. Health Canada does get involved with certain programs, as does the province with respect to certain programs for the Cree and the Naskapi.

I also pointed out earlier, I believe, that the funding that is provided to the Cree bands and the Naskapi is provided pursuant to the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act, recognizing their self-government, local-government status. So that funding is provided to them by way of block funding, by way of grant, in fact, which is quite unlike how we fund other first nations in this country.

• 1225

It's our view that there is total flexibility by the Cree bands to use.... And I will throw a figure out of $54 million per year, which is a combination of the operations and maintenance funding of about $44 million this year, plus close to another $10 million for capital infrastructure. They are totally free within those sums to allocate according to the priorities they see fit, and establish them band by band, with the assistance of the Cree Regional Authority, which is a group associated with the nine Cree bands.

I think that's the best answer I can give, sir.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Could I come back on the next round?

[English]

The Chair: We have gone very much over your time, Mr. St-Julien. I have to give opportunity to Mr. Finlay and Mr. Godfrey also.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I refer to your opening remarks, Mr. Henderson, in the last sentence of the second paragraph of the second page: “Since 1995 the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has had a Chief Federal Negotiator leading this process” to try to implement the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. “Our current negotiator is Me. Jean-Martin Gagné, whose Cree counterpart is Mr. Bill Namagoose.”

Could you tell me something about that little group, the negotiating group? Do they meet regularly? Do they deal with some of these issues? Do we get reports from them? They must have been appointed in good faith to see if they could help this situation.

Mr. Terry Henderson: Indeed, those two negotiators, along with their negotiating teams, do meet on a very regular basis and set out joint priorities and work plans, action plans, for the kinds of discussions and negotiations that will ensue over a period of time—and I've referred to a number of the accomplishments through that kind of process since about 1995, as well as others that are under way right now.

There's a team. Mr. Jim McCarthy is the director of the James Bay Implementation Office. Today we view him as the senior negotiator, if you like, in support of Maître Jean-Martin Gagné, who is the chief federal negotiator.

Do we get reports? The minister certainly gets reports, because the chief federal negotiator reports directly to the minister. Again, what goes on at the negotiating tables is something that is between the parties of the negotiations and not something I would want to divulge. Once we have an agreement, we're happy to be very open and public with it. But there is a lot of activity going on at that particular table and at other tables. We have sectoral negotiation tables pursuant to that main table that are going on with other government departments and our own department trying to resolve some of these outstanding issues.

Is that helpful, sir?

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you.

Have you anything to add, Mr. McCarthy?

Mr. Jim McCarthy (Director, James Bay Implementation Office, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): No, sir, that describes it pretty well. It's ongoing, tough work. We meet at the main table with the chief federal negotiator these days roughly every three weeks to a month, and then there are what we call side tables dealing with specific issues that meet roughly the same number of times.

Mr. John Finlay: Would you be aware of and look carefully at the Cree-Niskapi Commission's biannual reports in your work?

Mr. Jim McCarthy: Yes, I do. I have reviewed the 2000 report, especially, which is the one that came in on my watch.

Mr. John Finlay: Will some of those recommendations and concerns end up in action in your department, in your section?

Mr. Jim McCarthy: Those recommendations are part of the fact base or base of opinion that we use to decide what to do and what to do next. There are references to things we are negotiating and in some cases they're quite current in terms of, for instance, recommendations regarding self-government. We are pursuing those things also with the Cree.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.

• 1230

Mr. John Godfrey: I have a very simple question for the two gentlemen. As the people who are directly and formally responsible for responding to the Cree-Naskapi Commission and its reports, is it your current intention to provide a formal written response to the year 2000 report, and if so, by what date?

Mr. Terry Henderson: Sir, just for clarification, it is not my responsibility to respond to those reports. If anyone would assume that responsibility it would be my minister, although he's not obliged to do so by the Cree-Naskapi of Quebec Act. I would take direction from my minister in that regard. So we have undertaken preliminary assessments and reviews, which are not to date completed. We have briefed our minister and we would await the direction from our minister on how best to proceed.

Mr. John Godfrey: Should the minister request a formal written response to the year 2000 Cree-Naskapi Commission report, we would of course expect one forthwith, would we?

Mr. Terry Henderson: By all means, sir.

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. St-Julien.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Madam Chair.

To follow up on your comment about article 29.0.40, you said that there had been some transfers to Quebec. I tabled a petition in the House of Commons in March to get an answer from the minister. The health issue is being discussed with Health Canada, because we have a problem with the dust and its impact on the health of children and older people, in particular, who cannot get out of their homes during the summer, especially when it is very hot. Since the signing of the James Bay Agreement in 1978, the health of all the Cree communities in northern Quebec has come under the jurisdiction of the provincial government.

The First Nations and Inuit Health Branch of Health Canada for the Quebec region could visit the community and submit its recommendations if the Quebec government agrees. You have a problem, and it is dictated by the Cree-Naskapi Commission, by Dr. Ted Moses, the Grand Chief of the James Bay Cree. They have made a request. Are you also asking Quebec to approve intervention in this difficult area? We know that if the Quebec government gives its approval, it is possible to intervene in the case of an urgent problem.

At the moment, there is a Canada-Quebec infrastructure agreement which is 1/3, 1/3, 1/3, in part 3. We have talked about access roads to Cree communities in the James Bay area. This is being discussed within the Cree communities. Do you agree that we should ask Quebec to take action with Canada in order to solve this problem regarding the health of the Cree in the James Bay area?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Henderson.

Mr. Terry Henderson: I have described, I believe, the process we have at play with our chief federal negotiators, and that's under the umbrella of the Cree-Canada Round Table. And to a large extent, almost 100% extent, I rely upon that table and that process for setting the priorities for the Cree negotiations. If this item were to appear as a priority before that table it would be addressed appropriately. That's not a guarantee of a resolution, or what involvement the federal government would have at the end of the day, but to me it would be the appropriate forum for that kind of a proposal to be made.

[Translation]

Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much. That was two minutes and 57 seconds. That's a first.

I'm not sure if any other members have any more questions to the witnesses we have before us, so I would like to thank Mr. Henderson for coming and adding further to the discussions on the Cree-Naskapi. I'm sure the individual members will have an opportunity to speak to Mr. Saunders in the event that he wasn't able to come to the table.

• 1235

I know these are very complex issues, but I think these opportunities give us a chance to look at these different agreements through different angles. I know each and every one of the land claim agreements is different, in that they're very individual agreements between individual groups of people. It's always very difficult to have a one-approach system to all these. I think in dealing with as many of these as we can before the committee it will give the different members a different understanding and an appreciation for the two sides that have to deal with the implementation and interpretation of these agreements.

I thank you all for coming this morning, and say thank you to the witnesses for giving us the information they did this morning. Thank you.

Mr. Terry Henderson: I thank you, Madam Chair.

The Chair: The meeting is now adjourned.