Chapter 1 -

The Spirit and Intent of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement

Chapter 2 -

A Review of Past Issues

Chapter 3 -

Chairman's Remarks

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Letter to the Minister

Introduction

Chapter 1
The Spirit and Intent of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement

Origins of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement

It is important to look back to before the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was signed or even contemplated. At that time, the Crees of northern Quebec did not exist as a distinct Cree nation. They lived in separate communities and communicated with each other infrequently. They did not meet or come together in any formal way. What brought them together was the James Bay Hydro Project, a fact that many today do not realize. When they heard about the Project, the Crees of Mistissini called a general meeting of all the Cree leaders. That meeting, held in June 1971, was the first gathering of the Crees as a nation. The aim of that first meeting was to stop the Project. In July 1971, the Crees submitted a resolution to the Honourable Jean Chretien, then Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, insisting that no lands be flooded in their territory. ¹ When the resolution produced no results, the Crees went to court. On December 8, 1972, a judgement favourable to the Cree cause was handed down. ² As a result, the Government of Quebec, which clearly wanted to settle the issue, made a proposal. ³ However, there was an appeal and the judgement was overturned. ⁴ That brought the Crees, the Inuit, the federal and provincial governments and Hydro Quebec to the negotiating table. The result was the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement signed on November 11, 1975. ⁵ In the Agreement, the Crees and Inuit gave up their Native title to vast areas of land in return for monies to be paid out over 20 years. The Agreement, however, is far more than a land-for-money deal. It is Canada's first modern aboriginal treaty, constitutionally protected under section 35, the treaty and aboriginal rights provision of the Constitution Act of 1982. ⁶ It is one of the first steps taken by the federal government and by aboriginal people to establish self-government.

Spirit and Intent

What then are the true intent and spirit of the Agreement? The Cree-Naskapi Commission believes that the answer to this question is simple:

The intent of the Agreement is that the Cree Nation become self-sufficient and self-governing. The spirit is that this self-sufficiency and self-government be achieved by the federal, provincial and Cree governments working together cooperatively, in a spirit of goodwill.

We believe that this is the answer that would have been given by all those who negotiated or signed the Agreement in 1975. Today, despite the fact that the promise of the Agreement remains unfulfilled, we believe that the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement still holds the key to a better future for the Cree Nation.

There are, however, obstacles. Part of the problem is the Agreement itself: in particular, its vagueness. A greater factor is the attitudes that currently prevail among both the federal and provincial governments and the Crees, and a certain lack of leadership and vision. But these obstacles can be overcome. In this chapter, we suggest how the spirit and intent of the Agreement can be revived so that it can yet fulfil its original purpose. The time has come to go back to the Agreement, to discover once again what it means, and for all to dedicate themselves to putting it into action.

The Problem of Vagueness

The first obstacle to the Agreement's implementation is the vagueness and incompleteness of some of its terms. Unfortunately, the Agreement's drafters left many things imprecise. As a result, there have been difficulties. In addition, many articles of the Agreement were to be settled later. Now, after 18 years, they remain unsettled. The failure to settle these issues has caused serious problems for the Cree communities. Had the Agreement been precise and complete, the Crees and the two governments would now not be in dispute. An example which demonstrates this point is compensation. Where the Agreement is precise about compensation money - who was to pay, the amounts, and the starting dates - it has been successful. The Crees have known when and until what dates they would receive funds. There are, of course, situations where a government cannot fund a promised program; but such matters can be dealt with through negotiation, especially where the terms are clearly and fully stated.

A Question of Attitudes

The second obstacle is the attitudes of the governments - federal, provincial and Cree. The federal government has neglected many of its responsibilities under the Agreement. Given the Agreement's vagueness, this is perhaps inevitable. On some issues, it seems to assume that matters will look after themselves. This happens, in part, because of its bureaucratic structure. The situation is made more complex, however, by the fact that governments change and each new government has a different attitude. Sometimes, a new government is less responsive to the Agreement and does not look at it with the same priorities.

The Quebec government, too, has been negligent in implementing the Agreement. This is especially problematic because Quebec is a direct party to the Agreement in a way that the federal government is not. While the federal government is a guardian of Native people with overall responsibility for the Crees, it did not build the dams or flood the lands. These actions were taken by Quebec. The Quebec government has, however, acknowledged its negligence. It is important to get the disputing parties to the negotiating table where they can focus on the Agreement as it is written. The Crees have lost some of the assistance and goodwill they could have had from the federal and Quebec governments. The Crees tend to look at the Agreement strictly and focus only on the things they see as important. They assume that because the federal and provincial governments signed the Agreement, they must be at fault if the terms are not implemented. Instead of pressuring governments and compelling them to action, the Crees blame them for not carrying out implementation. The Crees must remember that they themselves are signatories, and therefore that they have a duty to do more than complain. The Commission believes that Crees should appoint one or two people to lobby and negotiate with the two governments on implementation of the Agreement. These people could work closely with the Chiefs of the Cree Nation and would help force the governments to deal with outstanding issues.

Leadership and Vision

A third obstacle to implementing the Agreement is - to a certain extent - a lack of leadership and vision. It seems as if each party is waiting for others to do something. The federal and provincial governments have tried in some cases to implement the Agreement but there is always the obstacle of costs. As for the Crees, they keep waiting for governments to act. Rather than coming together to develop a Cree Nation, they focus on their immediate and local concerns. This hesitation is understandable, but it is necessary to go beyond the narrow focus of families and communities to build a nation. Building a nation, becoming self-sufficient and adjusting to society at large - these are what is important in a world that changes as rapidly as ours.

Revitalizing the Agreement

As stated above, we believe that all parties must now revitalize the Agreement and make it central to building a Cree Nation. They must go back to the intent of the Agreement - self-sufficiency and self-government - and to the spirit of cooperation and goodwill that prevailed when the Agreement was signed.

A first step in this revitalizing process should be a dedication to the centrality of the Agreement and the terms in it. This dedication should start with a clear understanding of what exactly the Agreement says. The basic responsibilities and obligations of the various governments are there in black and white. Part of the revitalizing process, therefore, should be educational in nature. Cree leaders, community members, and especially youth need to be shown what it is that this complex and important document says. They must find ways to make the complex simple, so that all can understand it and use it as a basis for moving forward.

This leads to a second step: a consultation with those who first negotiated and signed the Agreement. We would like to see a procedure set up by which those first responsible for the Agreement are asked to explain what it means to the young people and the leaders of today. Most of the Cree signatories to the Agreement are still very much alive. With the federal and provincial governments and with Hydro Quebec, assembling key people is more difficult. There may have been deaths and, of course, many will have left their jobs. Still, it is possible to call upon those who were there at the beginning. These people have great experience with the Agreement and can demonstrate what its terms really mean. If it is impossible to convene these people for discussions, perhaps neutral persons can be designated to interview them. Such a project would help bring everyone back to the original intent and spirit of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and make it again a central focus for a Cree Nation.

A third step would be to involve the youth and elders in this revitalizing process. We see a hopeful trend here. Young people are looking at the Agreement and then approaching elders to see what they have to say about it. It is important to nurture this trend and develop it. All Crees, but especially the youth, must look to the elders and be prepared to learn what they know. They must bring elders out, talk to them, and use their wisdom and knowledge. This is particularly important in today's world where things change so rapidly and where the communities are no longer isolated as they were before the James Bay Projects began. Self-government and self-sufficiency will be meaningless if the Crees do not have a distinct culture and traditions to give them a soul and an identity. The elders are the custodians of the Cree culture and its traditions. If they pass away without communicating their knowledge and beliefs to young people, it will be impossible to realize the promise of the James Bay and Northern Queb ec Agreement and all that it stands for.

CHAPTER 2
A Review of Past Issues

Funding and Legislative Issues

In the areas of funding and legislation the Crees report improvements but claim that they measure very little against the potential of the Act.

Funding

With the Statement of Understanding of 1984, the Crees were to receive funding for all the programs and services they were empowered to administer under the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. The Statement stipulates that "Base Year" calculations were to apply from April 1, 1984 to March 21, 1985 and were to continue with annual adjustments to March 31, 1989. Prior to March 31, 1989, there was to be a major review of funding requirements to establish a new Base Year formula for the following five years. This procedure was to be followed every five years thereafter. The federal government, however, does not recognize the Statement of Understanding as binding on the grounds that the Statement never received Treasury Board approval. As a result, the Base Year formula for operations and maintenance funding was never updated. With the failure of the Statement of Understanding, the Crees are left with a funding formula that is outdated and does not meet their present needs.²

Operations and Maintenance Funding

Inadequate operations and maintenance funding continues to impede Cree and Naskapi self-government. While they clearly understand that these are times of fiscal restraint across Canada, the Cree and Naskapi bands argue that the operations and maintenance funding they receive does not meet minimum requirements.³

Taxation

The bands recommended that the tax exemptions in sections 187 and 188 of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act be clearly defined. The Mistissini Band reported that Quebec has assessed the Band, its fully-owned subsidiaries, and community members for income, capital and provincial sales taxes.⁴ In the recent case of Otineka Development Corporation Ltd. v. Canada,⁵ Judge D. G. Bowman concluded that The Pas Indian Band was a municipality under the Income Tax Act and that its fully owned subsidiaries were exempt from provincial sales taxes under s. 149(1)(d) of that act. This case may serve as a precedent in the determination of tax exemptions for Native-owned corporations.

Quorums

As we reported in 1991,⁶ the quorums required for voting on certain by-laws are too high. Both the Cree and Naskapi report that it is extremely difficult to assemble quorums to pass important legislation.⁷ There is a pressing need to amend those sections of the Act so that band business can be carried out.

Conflicts Between Local and Federal Legislation

Ratifying certain by-laws has become a dilemma for many of the communities. With certain issues the community may be in favour of a by-law, only to have it challenged in court and abolished. Of particular note are by-laws to curb the use of alcohol. Many communities want to establish such by-laws to control abuse.⁸ When they ratify such laws, they are challenged and the law is declared an infringement of individual rights. The Naskapi alcohol by-law and the Naskapi child curfew by-law, for example, were nullified on grounds that they violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.⁹

Community Membership

Determining membership of the Cree communities is an issue of concern. Sections 5, 187, and 189 of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act contain provisions that apply the Indian Act to determining membership. The Cree of Mistissini state that these sections derogate an important and essential principle of Cree self-government. They argue that these sections be amended to allow the Cree Nations to determine their own membership.¹⁰

Land Registry System

As we reported in previous reports, many communities have no land registry systems as is called for in Part X of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.¹¹ As a result, there is no mechanism for dealing with conflicting land claims. Moreover, the bands have difficulty granting land leases to third party interests - companies or agencies that want to establish offices in their communities. The Land Registrar from Department of Indian Affairs - Quebec Region visited all communities to register existing third party interests on Category IA land. Unfortunately, there were numerous discrepancies and the momentum on this initiative dwindled.¹² The Cree-Naskapi Commission has prepared a Land Registry Report¹³ and provided it to the communities. The reports provided summaries of existing and expired third party interests. Some communities have successfully established land registry systems. Mistissini has invited other communities to review its plan of action and to benefit from its experience.¹⁴

Amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act

In our 1991 report, we outlined the need for a comprehensive review of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.¹⁵ In a resolution dated August 8, 1991,¹⁶ the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec) mandated the Cree-Naskapi Commission to undertake a complete review of all parts of the Act (except Part XII, which deals with the Commission's mandate.) In their submission to the 1993 consultation hearings, the Naskapi reported that they believe the Cree-Naskapi Commission to be the appropriate body to co-ordinate this review, and that they are ready to join the Cree in such an undertaking.¹⁷ The Commission points out that the success of this review will require co-operation and goodwill from everyone involved.

To assist in such a review, the Cree-Naskapi Commission has published A Plain Language Summary of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.¹⁸ In English, French, Cree and Naskapi, this layperson's version outlines the Act's complex terms in clear, direct and non-legal language. Although it has no legal status, the plain language summary is a valuable reference tool and explanatory aid and will allow everyone to follow the discussions involved in revising the Act. The Commission is pleased to report that the summary has been enthusiastically received by the communities.

Inquiry into the Cree-Naskapi Commission

We reported in 1991 that the Inquiry into the Cree-Naskapi Commission had conducted a review of the Cree-Naskapi Commission as directed by section 172 of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.¹⁹ Currently, uncertainty surrounds the recommendation of the Inquiry. In The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, and The Northeastern Quebec Agreement, 1990,²⁰ the Department of Indian Affairs - Quebec Region reported that consultations on the recommendations had begun. The 1991 Annual Report²¹ noted that the Inquiry's report had been tabled in Parliament and that the results were under review. The 1992 report²² claims that the results of the report had been reviewed and would be discussed with the Crees and Naskapi in 1993. To date, no discussions have taken place.²³ A review involving all parties must be initiated to remove the uncertainty surrounding the Inquiry's recommendations.

Funding of the Cree-Naskapi Commission

The current funding levels for the Cree-Naskapi Commission are not sufficient for the Commission both to carry out its mandate under the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act and to serve in the capacity recommended in the Report of the Inquiry into the Cree-Naskapi Commission.²⁴ Indeed, the current levels are inadequate for maintaining the Commission's ongoing operations and administration. An alternative funding arrangement is needed to rectify this situation.

Social and Economic Issues

At the consultation hearings in Val D'Or, Waskaganish reported that it has initiated a successful training program for community services. In addition, it has developed a comprehensive social development plan and has begun a "social healing project" that addresses the need for after-care counselling, group development and treatment.²⁵

Housing

As in past reports, we must draw attention to the housing crisis in the Cree and Naskapi communities.²⁶ In addition to the problems we have outlined previously, we note the following:

• The distribution of houses does not meet family requirements. Often, elders are allocated multi-level, multi-bedroom units, while large families share with other families units that have insufficient room.²⁷
• The Naskapi reported a situation in which the housing problem continues to worsen. Because of insufficient housing, community members have had to move to Schefferville. Here they have rented units while they wait for housing to became available in the community. While residing in Schefferville, these members continue to benefit from community services. However, when federal officials allocate operation and maintenance funding, they do so based on the number of band members currently living in the community. This practice reduces the community's funds. As a result, there is less money for housing, which exacerbates the existing problem.²⁸

Because insufficient and inadequate housing fosters social and economic problems, we consider it urgent that all parties convene and deal with the situation.

Education

Under section 16.0.28 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, funding for the Cree School Board is a responsibility of both the federal and provincial governments. Canada is to contribute 75 percent of the Board's funding while Quebec is to provide 25 percent. At present, there are funding arrangements between the Cree School Board and Quebec for youth education. However, if Canada does not contribute its 75 percent for youth education, the Board anticipates a serious funding shortfall.²⁹ Further, Canada has refused to contribute its share as stipulated in sections 16.0.24 and 16.0.25 of the Agreement.³⁰ This funding problem is not new. In past presentations to the Cree-Naskapi Commission, the Cree School Board has stated that it was seriously underfunded by both Canada and Quebec despite section 16 of the Agreement.³¹ In 1989, Quebec ignored the Agreement and unilaterally imposed provincial budgetary rules on the Cree School Board.³²

Elders

In our 1991 report to Parliament, we noted the need for a formalized role for elders.³³ At the consultation hearing, we heard reports of one instance where such a formalized role is not working properly. The Whapmagoostui Band described a "cultural" conflict between the Chief and Council on the one hand and the Council of Elders on the other. The source of the conflict is the difference between traditional and contemporary leadership procedures. The Band explained the need for a clear distinction between the role of Chief and Council and the role of the Council of Elders.³⁴ The Commission believes a spirit of respect must be fostered between the band councils and councils of elders so that such conflicts do not arise.

Sacred Places

In many communities, there are areas that are sacred.`These areas are comparable to places of worship in non-native society. At the consultation hearings, representatives expressed The wish that people respect these areas. It is especially important that when developments which may affect these areas are undertaken, the communities be consulted.³⁵

Training

Training and development are not just one-time, start-up expenditures; they are an ongoing need if the Crees and the Naskapis are to survive in today's rapidly changing information society.

• Although more than 50 percent of the Cree population is under the age of 25, there are few programs in place for these people.³⁶ The need for youth training programs, youth centres and summer employment programs is urgent.
• There is an equally urgent need for programs which introduce Cree and Naskapi adults to the workforce and for ongoing training programs for those already employed.³⁷

Daycare

Hunting, Fishing and Trapping

Hunting, fishing and trapping is a problem area that we have not described in previous reports. Most hunters and trappers work on their traditional hunting or trapping grounds for a minimum of 120 days of the year. Because almost all of the traditional hunting and trapping grounds are on Category II and III land, communities cannot pass by-laws governing them. As a result, there are no means by which the bands can protect hunters' and trappers' interests. Moreover, due to the vagueness of section 24 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, hunting, fishing and trapping are governed by provincial game and wildlife conservation laws. These laws are designed to regulate sport hunting and sport fishing. They are being applied to the Crees as if harvesting were nothing more than a leisure activity.⁴⁰

Bands have identified other problems connected with hunting, fishing and trapping. These include a lack of appropriate land and wildlife management, problems connected with Native harvesting, and an influx of southern sportsmen, now that access roads are available.⁴¹ The Waskaganish Band has begun to address these issues with a proposed action plan.⁴²

Naskapi Economic Development

On September 13, 1990, the Naskapi signed the Northeastern Quebec Agreement Implementation Agreement with the Government of Canada.⁴³ Section 8 of that agreement dissolved federal obligations under section 18 of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement to provide programs, funding and technical assistance. A working group on job creation was established and a study was tabled in Kawawachikamach in January 1993.⁴⁴ Thereafter, the federal government took the position that the Naskapi would not receive funding other than that already available through normal programs.45

Policing

Section 19 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement calls for the funding of one police officer for every five hundred people. This allocation is severely inadequate. In the smaller Cree communities, the officer is on duty 24 hours a day. Moreover, the officer's jurisdiction is limited to Category I land. When there are problems on Category II or III land, the officer has no authority to act.⁴⁶ There is a clear need to increase the number of police officers per capita and to expand their jurisdiction.

The Naskapi would like to carry out a justice and police study so that they can define and implement objectives in these areas. At the urging of the Surete du Quebec, the Naskapi have entered into negotiations with Quebec's Public Security and the federal Solicitor General.⁴⁷ These negotiations will lead to an agreement with the federal and provincial governments for policing services under the Solicitor General's First Nations Policing Policy, 1992.

Administration of Justice

As recent reports have pointed out, Native justice requires reformed methods and principles that differ from those of justice in non-Native society.⁴⁸ Under the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, there are no provisions for the Cree and Naskapi to use customary practices to deal with judicial problems.⁴⁹ The Commission suggests that this area receive special attention when the Act is amended.

CHAPTER 3
Chairman's Remarks

Chairman's Mediation

We are pleased to report that pursuant to the Coon-Come-McKnight (1988) Agreement¹, the three topics mediated by the Chairman were settled to the satisfaction of all parties involved. As a result, lengthy and costly court procedures were avoided.

• The 1989-1994 operational and maintenance funding was settled;
• The Ouje-Bougoumou community case was settled; and
• The emergency measures problems and the capital funding cases were also settled.

Each of the agreements, duly signed by the Crees and by the federal government, indicated clearly that all parties were satisfied with the settlements. As members of the Commission, we are proud to have greatly facilitated the parties' tasks, which at times were difficult and involved tense situations.

The Direct Transfer of Funds

As Chairman of the Cree-Naskapi Commission since 1986, and having served as mediator for numerous cases, I feel that it is important to comment on Cree self-government. This right to self-government is protected under section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. However, a self-government to administer indigence and poverty must be proscribed.

The Crees must have adequate financing arrangements in order to properly administer, as a responsible government, monies for the benefit of their communities. Presently - speaking from experience - there is an abundance of programs, subsidies and grants. But one by one, each is more complicated to administer, as civil servants must try to resolve the judicial and financial chaos. All these programs, grants, and subsidies must be channelled directly to the benefit of the Crees. I should mention that such a large portion of the funds intended for the Crees was defrayed to cover the costs of the civil servants responsible for the administration of such programs or for external consultants hired by the Crees. This bureaucracy is extremely costly to Canadian taxpayers and, while it contributes to creating employment, it is employment in the federal service and not in the Native communities. This is a useless, cumbersome and unsatisfactory management process if self-government is to be implemented.

As time evolves, the Crees are becoming more experienced. It is my opinion, therefore, that, this being 1994, it is time for the Crees to administer their own programs. I am confident that they are fully competent and that they are in a much better position to make rapid and efficient decisions regarding the well being and development of their communities. It is imperative that governmental and Cree bureaucracies, be reduced as they are too costly for both taxpayers and the Cree communities. The funds to which the Crees are entitled should be disbursed directly to them so that they can administer their own programs. Whether it be for operation and maintenance, capital funding, emergency measures, policing, health or education, all funds delegated to the Crees should be remitted directly to the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), the Cree Regional Authority, and the nine Cree band councils so that they can manage and distribute the monies. Such a measure would alleviate many complaints from the Cree com munities regarding untimely grant or subsidy payments for current construction projects or for projects planned for subsequent years.

Royalties

Another matter of great concern to the Commission is the royalties belonging to the Crees for the natural resources that stem from traditional grounds. It is inconceivable, in a period of self-government and with an inherent right to such royalties guaranteed in constitutional texts, that the Crees not receive their just and rightful dues or "royalties" from the rich natural resources extracted from their territories and exported south. I say this notwithstanding section 2.1 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, which I quote:

In consideration of the rights and benefits herein set forth in favour of the James Bay Crees and the Inuit of Quebec, the James Bay Crees and the Inuit of Quebec hereby cede, release, surrender and convey all their Native claims, rights, titles and interests, whatever they may be, in and to land in the Territory and in Quebec, and Quebec and Canada accept such surrender.²

I believe that a partnership should be established between Natives and non-Natives for the intelligent development and useful management of the renewable and non-renewable natural resources found on Cree territory.

Avoiding Litigation

It is clear that shared projects must be encouraged and judicial and non-judicial confrontations must be avoided. In light of this, to have such a long list of pending court cases, in all jurisdictions, sets a poor example for other Native bands in Canada. This is especially so as these cases originate from the presumed non-respected obligations of one or another party to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, this "modern treaty," which is cited with too much enthusiasm by uninformed observers! To illustrate this point, consider the following list of pending court cases supplied by the Cree and Naskapi lawyers:

1. Chief Peter Gull et al. v. Domtar Limited et al. - S.C.M.: 500-05-023110-768
2. The Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec) et al. v. The Attorney-General of Quebec et al. - S.C.M.: 500-05-001440-807 (Air transport case)
3. Alashua et al. v. Le Procureur general du Canada et al. - S.C.M.: 500-05-018552-818 (Dissident Inuit case)
4. Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come et al. and Chief Robbie Dick et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada and the Honourable Pierre Cadieux et al. - F.C.T.D.: T-962-89 (GWR Project)
5. Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come et al. v. Hydro-Quebec et al. - S.C.M.: 500-05-004330-906 (GWR Project)
6. Cree Regional Authority and Bill Namagoose v. Raymond Robinson and Le Procureur general du Quebec (Intervenor) and Hydro-Quebec (Intervenor) - T-451-91 (GWR Project)
7. Grand Conseil des Cris (du Quebec) v. Honorable Judge Paul Mailloux et Aluminerie Alouette Inc. et al. - S.C.M.: 500-05-010069-910 (Access to Information Commission - GWR Project) (Robert Mainville & Associes)
8. The Eastmain Band et al. v. Raymond Robinson et al. - F.C.T.D. 1512-91 (EM 1 Project)
9. The Cree Nation et al. v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada et al. - F.C.T.D. T-1913-90 (Forestry)
10. Naskapi Development Corporation et al. v. The Attorney-General of Quebec et al. and the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec) et al. (Mis-en-cause) - S.C.M.: 500-05-017462-910 (Right of First Refusal)
11. Health Proceedings - S.C.M.: 500-05-011243-803; Q.C.A.: 500-09-000505-818; Q.C.A.: 500-09-001440-809
12. The Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec) et al. v. The Honorable William McKnight - F.C.T.D. 0 T 2490-86 (Failure to file annual reports)
13. Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec) v. Her Majesty the Queen - F.C.T.D. T-2846-90 (Taxation)
14. Chief Kenneth Gilpin et al. v. Hydro-Quebec et al. (S.C.M. 500-05-011892-922) (EM 1 Project)
15. Chief Abel Bosum et Als, -vs- General Attorney of Quebec, S.C. Montreal, 500-05-017463-934
16. Chief Abel Bosum et Als, -vs- Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 3007-93

Another law firm, mandated to represent the Crees and the Naskapis, is dealing with the following cases:

1. Attorney General of Quebec v. Cree Regional Authority et al., Federal Court of Appeal, A-1008-91
2. Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come et al. v. La Commission Hydro-Electrique de Quebec (Hydro-Quebec) et al., Quebec Superior Court, 500-05-004330-906
3. Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come et al. v. The Queen, Federal Court Trial Division, T-962-89
4. Eastmain Band et al. v. Raymond Robinson et al., Supreme Court of Canada, No.: 23382
5. Chief Kenneth Gilpin et al. v. Hydro-Quebec et al., Quebec Superior Court, 500-05-011892-922
6. Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec) et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec et al., Supreme Court of Canada, No.: 22705
7. Naskapi Development Corporation et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec, Quebec Superior Court, 500-05-017462-910
8. The Cree Nation et al. v. The Queen, Federal Court Trial Division, T-1913-90

Several of these cases could be dealt with easily through mediation. It is not our intention to say that all such cases can be resolved this way. But with the goodwill of the parties involved, the Cree-Naskapi Commission, as in the past, could facilitate the litigations. Our past success speaks for itself and will attest to the future. The parties have gained great confidence in our role. Why not return to this faster, more satisfactory and cost-efficient process for problems that do not raise fundamental judicial questions?

Settlement of Complaints

On a weekly basis, the Cree-Naskapi Commission staff as well as the Commissioners themselves settle numerous complaints. Often, with the expertise we have developed, there is now no need to undertake a lengthy investigation in order to render a decision. In several cases, due to the limited constraints of our mandate under the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, we have facilitated contacts between those most likely to settle the disputes rapidly: the individuals, the Cree and Naskapi bands and the public servants (of Canada, Quebec or Hydro-Quebec). This ongoing process is notable since, with it, the Crees and the Naskapis are better informed of their rights and obligations. In the past, few representations were brought to the Commission. Now the Commissioners and their staff are engaged in settling or resolving a multitude of problems brought to their attention. As we strive to resolve the problems arising from unfulfilled obligations, we play a key role in paving the way for future negotiations. What is neede d now is to review all the agreements, to extract the unfulfilled obligations, and to present them in a consistent manner. Over the years, such a mediator's role has become our trademark. It's up to the parties to profit from it.

ENDNOTES

Endsnotes for Chapter 1