WRITING

Richard Saunders, Chairman
Philip Awashish, Commissioner

DESIGN AND PRODUCTION

gordongroup marketing + communications

PRINTING

TRANSLATION

George Guanish (Naskapi)
Mary Mokoush (Naskapi)
C.I.L.F.O. (French)
Daisy Moar (Cree)

PHOTOGRAPHY

Ian Diamond

CONTACT US

Cree-Naskapi Commission
222 Queen Street, Suite 305
Ottawa, Ontario K1P 5V9

telephone: 613 234-4288
facsimile: 613 234-8102
toll-free: 1 888 236-6603

Table of Contents

Message from the Chairman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Chapter 1
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Chapter 2
Amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

Chapter 3
The JBNQA and the New Relationship Agreements
Between Eeyou of Eeyou Istchee and the Government of Canada
and the Government of Quebec . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Chapter 4
Response of Canada (i.e. the Department of Indian
Affairs and Northern Development) to the Recommendations in
the 2006 Report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Chapter 5
Concerns and Issues of the Eeyou (Cree) Nation and
Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Chapter 6
Role and Importance of the Cree Trappers’ Association . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Chapter 7
Recommendations of the Cree-Naskapi Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

Chapter 8
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Message from the Chairman

This 2008 Report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission is the result of what the Cree and Naskapi communities as well as the Government of Canada told us during the Special Implementation Hearings held in February of this year. The Report also takes into account the issues that have been brought to our attention in the formal representations made under section 165.(1) (b) of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. In the chapters which follow, all of that input is addressed and our recommendations flow from our analysis of that input.

2008 marks a major turning point in the relationship between the Crees of Eeyou Istchee and the Crown and I would like to take this opportunity to reflect on what has taken place. I shall also reflect on the situation in which the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach finds itself.

THE CREE OF EEYOU ISTCHEE

The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA), (which did not include an implementation plan), was signed in 1975. During the thirty-three years since the signing there have been numerous disputes and frequent litigation concerning the obligations under, and the implementation of the agreement. This in turn has led to a difficult relationship between the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee and Canada and Quebec. Through the efforts of the Crees, Canada and Quebec, that has changed. The Agreement Concerning A New Relationship Between le Gouvernement du Quebec and the Crees of Quebec (the 2002 Paix des Braves) addressed outstanding issues between the Crees and Quebec. The Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Crees of Eeyou Istchee of 2008 addressed in parallel fashion outstanding issues between the Crees and Canada. These agreements have been ratified by the Cree people as well as by Quebec and Canada. They represent a major achievement in resolving problems through negotiation.

Lessons Learned

There are some powerful and compelling lessons to be learned from the story of how the JBNQA came about in the first place, as well as from the thirty-three year struggle over its implementation. For First Nations, the experience of the Crees of Eeyou Istchee has, it seems to me, demonstrated the importance of four major requirements for success in resolving land disputes. These are; vision, unity, capacity and relentlessness. All of these requirements were in fact inherent characteristics of the Eeyou communities and manifested themselves in the leadership when and as needed.

The Eeyou had the clarity of vision to perceive the announcement by Premier Bourassa in 1971 of the “project of the century” not only for the threat to the Cree way of life which it clearly was, but also to understand the extraordinary opportunities which it presented. The leaders of the time knew that it was vital to future generations to use every available tool to block the project until an agreement could be reached which would mitigate its worst effects and maximize the benefits to the Cree people.

Although there certainly were debates about how to respond to the Premier’s plans, once an approach had been decided upon, a remarkable degree of political unity was established. This resulted in the Cree position being taken seriously and minimized opportunities to use divisions within the Cree nation to justify ignoring their demands. At times when any society faces grave external threats to its way of life, exceptional internal political discipline and unity are needed. The Crees of Eeyou Istchee have shown that such unity can be achieved and that it works.

The Crees needed to respond quickly and effectively to a proposal with complex legal, cultural, environmental, engineering and economic dimensions. This posed a challenge for communities with a total population of fewer than seven thousand. A small team of technical experts was assembled early in the process. It is important to note that the Cree themselves had and quickly perfected negotiating skills that are the equal of any in Canada. Over time the communities also produced experts in most of the other relevant specialties. Capacity also meant the development of what, in other circumstances, would be called “project management” skills. Of even greater importance was the development of decision-making processes to consult and obtain mandates from the communities on complicated issues in short periods of time. The Crees also established working contacts with the media keeping both them and the public fully informed about developments. This proved to be very helpful to the process.

One key requirement in any struggle by First Nations to gain recognition and implementation of their rights is relentlessness. Politicians and public servants have very short attention spans. There are many groups competing for their attention. Even the very largest groups in society are frequently unable to keep government focused long enough to address their issues. Convincing a single Minister of Indian Affairs that something is a priority will not usually bring success. One reason for this is the extremely short term of office of most ministers. (Between 1986 and 2006 there were 11 Ministers of Indian Affairs for an average of 1.8 years in office!) This reality means in practice that senior public servants provide “advice” to ministers who usually have almost no knowledge or experience upon which to evaluate that advice. The bureaucrat has in all likelihood been giving the same or similar advice to the previous three or four ministers. It is difficult for new approaches or real change to happen in the face of this policy inertia. A few meetings with a single minister therefore are very unlikely to result in meaningful change. The lesson from the James Bay experience seems to be that relentless advocacy with a succession of ministers year after year is needed. Consistent use of litigation to enforce constitutional and treaty rights is often needed to impress upon governments the need to respect their obligations and to find solutions. Building and maintaining alliances with groups concerned with public policy is also essential. Finally, House of Commons and Senate committees are able to scrutinize government and can help preoccupied ministers and disinterested bureaucrats to focus on First Nations concerns. The use of all of these approaches and others must be continuous and unrelenting. The accomplishments of the Crees of Eeyou Istchee over the past thirty-seven years are in my opinion are a triumph of vision, unity, capacity and relentlessness.

Thankfully, there is some evidence that the federal and Quebec governments have learned from the James Bay experience. Over most of the past thirty-plus years governments, through both their actions and their words appear to have regarded the Crees from what was essentially an adversarial perspective. This appears to have changed. In fairness, I think that the traditional structures and

4               REPORT OF THE CREE-NASKAPI COMMISION

decision-making processes of government were ill-suited to negotiating much less implementing treaties and land claims settlements with First Nations.

Governments were elected by majorities (or pluralities) of the voters. This was seen as giving them a mandate to govern i.e. to make decisions and set priorities even in the face of strong opposition. The old precept that “the King can do no wrong” was democratized first into “parliamentary supremacy” and later into the idea that so long as Parliament (or the Legislature) approves, the government may do what it deems best. This was accepted, albeit with ongoing debate, for many years by most Canadians. The 1982 amendments to the constitution changed that. Most Canadians now feel that there are definite limits on what the government can do regardless of whether Parliament agrees. In the case of Section 35 of the 1982 amendments, Aboriginal and treaty rights (including land claims agreements) were moved beyond the scope of governments’ ability to ignore or change them unilaterally. Now, as the Supreme Court said in Badger, “Treaties… Create enforceable obligations… ”.

Clearly governmental structures and decision-making processes based upon having a mandate to exercise wide discretion were not appropriate to deal with the implementation of “enforceable obligations”. Discretionary implementation of the terms of the JBNQA for example was no longer an option. By 1998, Hon. Jane Stewart, the then Minister had said: “Reconciliation is an ongoing process. In renewing our partnership, we must ensure that the mistakes which marked our past relationship are not repeated.” The current government has also recognized that treaty obligations have not been fulfilled and that government must change how it deals with these issues. The Minister, while introducing changes to the specific claims policy made significant comments when he said: “There have been instances in which the Crown has not fulfilled its treaty obligations…” and “First Nations, like all Canadians expect their legal rights to be respected and upheld.” Earlier in the same statement, he had said: “Recognizing that tinkering around the edges of the process is not enough, we are proposing major reforms that will fundamentally alter the way specific claims are handled.” These approach of successive governments of differing political persuasions does indicate an intention, at the political level to do what is needed to improve the relationship between First Nations and the Crown. The degree to which it actually takes place will depend upon the extent to which it continues to be a political priority, the degree to which the senior bureaucracy decides to implement it and the relentlessness with which First Nations continue to demand it.

The Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach

The relationship of the Naskapi with the Government of Canada at the present time is, at best, highly problematic. The Governments of Canada and Quebec are working with the Inuit of Northern Quebec to establish the Nunavik Regional Government. The proposed structure would be a public government and would include within its boundaries the Category II lands of the Naskapi as well as the Category III lands in which they have a clear traditional and practical interest. The Naskapi rights in relation to their Category II lands are guaranteed in the Northeastern Quebec Agreement(NEQA). The Naskapi are not comfortable with the prospect of being in a minority position within the jurisdiction of the public government being proposed. They have a number of serious concerns which they believe have not been addressed in a satisfactory way. They contend that the federal government has a duty to protect their rights and that it has failed to adequately carry out this duty. The Naskapi made a formal representation to the Cree-Naskapi Commission under section 165. (1) (b) of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. The Commission held a hearing on the matter and invited Canada to appear. Canada refused. The Commission raised the matter with the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Northern Affairs during our testimony on February 1, 2007. We also requested that the Committee call the Naskapi and hear their concerns first hand. The Committee did this and the Naskapi made an extensive presentation. Unfortunately their concerns

have still not been addressed to their satisfaction. Although this is not a recommendation of the Cree-Naskapi Commission in the current report, I am of the opinion that the Naskapi need to give serious consideration to initiating legal action to block any final agreement on the Nunavik Regional Government until their concern about the protection of their rights have been addressed.

Conclusion

The Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Crees of Eeyou Istchee is a most welcome development. The new and positive relationship which it is intended to facilitate is a reason for celebration and the old arguments which it resolves will not be missed. As important as those considerations are, what is even more significant over the long term is the fact that the agreement sets out a process for the establishment of a Cree Nation Government by negotiation and federal legislation. The task ahead is formidable but the opportunities it opens up for future Cree generations are extraordinary. The experience about to occur may also be of great value to other First Nations across Canada. Certainly the Cree- Naskapi Commission is more than willing to contribute in whatever way we can to this momentous undertaking. One area in which the Commission might be helpful is in the development of mechanisms to monitor governance processes, to resolve complaints and to mediate disputes.

I could not conclude my remarks without saying that there must be both justice and the perception of justice for the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach as the Inuit of Nunavik establish their own (entirely deserved and long overdue) regional government structures. Canada, especially given its awareness that “… tinkering around… is not enough… ” must take the Naskapi concerns seriously and ensure that a final agreement on Nunavik governance fully protects and is perceived to protect their rights. As the Minister said: “Negotiation is always better than confrontation in securing peaceful settlements that respect the interests of all parties.” Canada should move quickly establish a negotiation table to resolve this matter otherwise legal actions appear to be the only viable alternative.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Section 9 (Local Government over Category 1A Lands) of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement provides that “there shall be recommended to Parliament special legislation concerning local government for the James Bay Crees on Category 1A lands allocated to them.”¹

Section 7 (Local Government over Category 1A-N Lands) of the Northeastern Quebec Agreementprovides for similar undertakings respecting local government for the Naskapis of Quebec on Category 1A-N lands allocated to them.

The Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act is the “special legislation” contemplated by section 9 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) and section 7 of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement (NEQA). This special legislation was enacted by Parliament and assented to on June 14, 1984.

The Cree-Naskapi Commission established by section 158 of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act has a duty to “prepare biennial reports on the implementation of this Act”² for submission to the Minister who “shall cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament.”³

The Commission reports also on the implementation of the JBNQA and the NEQA as particular sections of these Agreements contemplate the powers and duties of the local governments of the Cree and Naskapi First Nations. The Commission reports on the implementation of these Agreements in virtue of paragraph 21(j) of the Act which stipulates that the objects of a band are “to exercise the powers and carry out the duties conferred or imposed on the band or its predecessor Indian Act band by any Act of Parliament or regulations made thereunder, and by the Agreements.”⁴

The present report constitutes the eleventh biennial report to the Minister pursuant to sub-section 165 (1) and in accordance with sub-section 171 (1) of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

The Commission conducts Special Implementation Hearings in order to prepare for its present report. These hearings, conducted in Montreal on February 5–7, 2008, provided an opportunity for the representatives of the Cree and Naskapi Nations and the Government of Canada to express their concerns and to discuss their issues. The findings and tone of the report are based on the Commission’s understanding and analysis on the issues and concerns raised in these hearings.

Over the past years and in its past reports, the Commission has advocated the need for the full and comprehensive review of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act with the objective of identifying and determining appropriate amendments for the advancement and benefit of Cree and Naskapi local

government. Chapter 2 (Amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act) of the present report addresses this need again.

The Government of Quebec, Government of Canada and the Eeyou Nation of Eeyou Istchee have agreed through their respective agreements to establish new and positive relationships. Chapter 3 (The James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement and the New Relationship Agreements Between Eeyou of Eeyou Istchee and the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec) of the present report discusses the background and events leading to the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between le Gouvernement du Quebec and the Crees of Quebec and the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee.

Since its response to the 2002 Report of the Commission, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has provided a comprehensive response to the recommendations of the Commission. The responses of the Department represent an entirely different approach in its dealings with the Commission. It appears that the Department wants to improve its relations with the Commission as well with the Cree and Naskapi communities. Consequently, the Commission reports and comments on these responses of the Department in its biennial reports. Chapter 4 of the present report outlines and comments on the response of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to the 2006 Report of the Commission. In this manner, the Cree and Naskapi Nations are aware of the Department’s responses to their particular issues and concerns. In addition, the Commission also discusses, in Chapter 4 of the present report, its follow-up activities on the 2004 Report of the Commission.

Chapter 5 (Concerns and Issues of the Eeyou (Cree) Nation and the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach) of the present report outlines the issues and concerns of the Cree and Naskapi Nations as expressed in the Special Implementation Hearings of the Commission.

In 2008, the Cree Trappers’ Association made a special presentation to the Commission. Therefore, the Commission, in Chapter 6 (Role and Importance of the Cree Trappers’ Association) of the present report discusses the evolution of the importance and role of the Cree Trappers’ Association in the maintenance and continuance of Cree culture and the Cree traditional way of life.

The Commission concludes in Chapter 8 (Conclusions) of the present report that the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between le Gouvernement du Quebec and the Crees of Quebec and the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee will enhance Cree governance and administration. However, it is equally important for the Government of Canada and the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee to find expression in their new relationship by advancing and enhancing Cree (and Naskapi) local government through appropriate amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

Chapter 2:
Amendments to the Cree-Naskapi
(of Quebec) Act

INTRODUCTION

Pursuant to Section 9 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and Section 7 of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, respectively, the Government of Canada, undertook to recommend to Parliament “special legislation concerning local government for the James Bay Crees on Category IA Lands” and “suitable legislation… concerning local government for the Naskapis of Quebec on Category IA-N Lands”.

Consequently, from 1976 to 1984, the Governments of Canada and the Cree and later the Naskapi negotiated the terms and provisions of this “special and suitable legislation” as well as funding arrangements for its implementation. This special legislation – the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act – according to its preamble provides “for an orderly and efficient system of Cree and Naskapi local government, for the administration, management and control of Category IA and Category IA-N land by the Cree and Naskapi bands respectively… ”.

Except for the purposes of determining which of the Cree and Naskapi beneficiaries are “Indians” within the meaning of the Indian Act, the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act replaces the Indian Act which does not apply to the Cree and Naskapi First Nations, nor does the Indian Act apply on or in respect of Category IA or IA-N land.

Consequently, the Cree and Naskapi Nations do not and will not benefit from any legislative initiatives of the Government of Canada respecting the Indian Act.

The challenge and goal of the Cree and Naskapi First Nations are to achieve proper social and economic development and political self-empowerment in the exercise of their rights of selfdetermination and self-government while protecting their rights, basic freedoms and interests and preserving and maintaining their distinctiveness and cultural identity in accordance with their aspirations and needs.

In this regard, the implementation of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, in letter, intent and spirit, must enable and facilitate the development and evolution of Cree and Naskapi local government by

taking into account the social, economic and political realities and conditions prevailing from time to time of the Cree and Naskapi First Nations. Hence, the proper implementation of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act bears exceptional significance and tremendous consequences on the aspirations and goals of the Cree and Naskapi First Nations as self-governing peoples.

The proper implementation of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act was not anticipated to be an easy and simple process. In the first place, it was the Cree and Naskapi peoples who had the political will and vision to demand and initiate the change of local government from the restrictive legal regime of the Indian Act to that of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act as contemplated in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement. Therefore, the Cree and Naskapi peoples expect the Government of Canada to find the political will and provide legislative and administrative as well as financial measures necessary for the advancement and completion of this change.

Typically, the process of implementation, as in the case of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, has been that Parliament enacts legislation and its administration and implementation remains the responsibility of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. At best, there are a few questions of organization such as the present James Bay Implementation Office. Throughout this traditional form of implementation, the Cree and Naskapi peoples are denied a meaningful role in the decision-making process even though they (the Cree and Naskapi) are most impacted by the application, administration and implementation of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. The conventional style of implementation is frequently insensitive to the actual needs and aspirations of the Cree and Naskapi peoples and has resulted in symbolic implementation that amounts to no real change in how decisions are made and in how things are done.

The proper and successful implementation of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act is an integral part of the political process in which the duties and responsibilities of the federal, Cree and Naskapi (local) governments, as well the Cree Nation regional authorities, should be clarified and agreed upon by the parties.

In addition, the meaning and practice of local self-government has evolved and been redefined over the past twenty-four (24) years in a manner consistent with the aspirations, goals and political will of the Cree and Naskapi First Nations. The Cree and Naskapi people are using their governments to meet needs such as housing, economic development, traditional (hunting, fishing, and culture) pursuits, policing, administration of justice, education, health, delivery and administration of programs and services, community development, environmental protection, and political representation to conduct government-to-government relations.

In Chapter 8 (Revisions to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act) of the 1991 Report of the Cree- Naskapi Commission, the Commission discusses a proposal from the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec) for the Commission to conduct an investigation into the functioning of the Act with a view to recommending certain amendments to the Act to improve it. The federal government supported such a proposal and review and agreed to cooperate in it. But the review of the Act did not take place because of lack of resources.

In Chapter 2 (Self-Government and the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act of the 1996 Report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission, the Commission again discusses the possibility of reviewing the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act for possible amendments. In 1995, the Government of Canada began the process of amending the Indian Act and consulted First Nations about such possible amendments. The Commission recommended its involvement in the review of the Indian Act because its involvement could open up the possibility of proceeding to the review of the Cree- Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Department did not involve the Commission in this review of the Indian Act.

The Commission has discussed the review of and possible amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act in its other reports. Unfortunately, the recommendations of the Commission respecting the review and possible amendments to the Act have never resulted in such a review and consequent amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

Consequently, the full potential of local self-government, with its dynamic and evolving nature, has not yet been realized nor achieved by the Cree and Naskapi First Nations because, as one principal constraint, the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, after twenty-four (24) years, remains an inflexible, rigid instrument which has not yet been reviewed by Canada, the Cree and Naskapi for the purposes of determining appropriate amendments to enhance and improve Cree and Naskapi local government.

Furthermore, notwithstanding the terms and provisions of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, the Cree and Naskapi people are also applying their traditions, customs and practices in the exercise of local governance. These traditions, customs and practices constitute fundamental principles and rules of Cree and Naskapi law.

In light of this evolution of Cree and Naskapi Local government, the Cree and Naskapi people are exercising the right of self-government, in a manner, that extends beyond the scope of the Cree- Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

AGREEMENT CONCERNING A NEW RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND THE CREE OF EEYOU ISTCHEE

The Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee commits Canada to recommend to Parliament amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

This Agreement has a principal purpose “to provide the process for negotiating an agreement and related legislation concerning a Cree Nation Government with powers and authorities beyond the scope of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act and correlative amendments to the JBNQA and the CNQA.”¹

Under this Agreement, proposed amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act (CNQA) will achieve the following objectives:

In particular, the amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act will reflect the following understanding between the Cree and Canada:

The Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee lists other issues that the parties agree to address such as “a review of the role of the Cree-Naskapi Commission, and particularly having regard to avoiding duplication with processes or bodies provided for under this Agreement or the Governance Agreement.”⁴

Under paragraph 3.6 of the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee, Canada undertakes to consult with the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)/Cree Regional Authority during the drafting of the amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

In addition, the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)/Cree Regional Authority and Canada agree to consult, during the drafting of the amendments, with the Inuit of Fort George and the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach.⁵

Unless the GCC(EI)/CRA and Canada agree to a longer period, Canada will make the best efforts to recommend to Parliament the appropriate amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act within

eighteen (18) months of the coming into force of the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee.

However, the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee does not contemplate any specific amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act for the enhancement and improvement of the exercise of Cree and Naskapi local government.

CREE AND NASKAPI LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND THE CREE-NASKAPI (OF QUEBEC) ACT

It is clear from the introduction of this chapter that for the past twenty-four (24) years (since its enactment by Parliament), the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act has not maintained pace nor evolved with the exercise and practice of Cree and Naskapi local government. In fact, certain existing provisions and terms and the absence of essential provisions of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act constitute serious obstacles and constraints for Cree and Naskapi local government and administration.

The present and past reports, discussion papers and lessons learned from investigations of the Cree-Naskapi Commission result in conclusions, findings and recommendations respecting the review and revision of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act to achieve the following, amongst others, major purposes and objectives, in order to update the Act so that it reflects the present reality and evolving dynamics of Eeyou local government and the state of aboriginal and contemporary law:

As the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act evolved from federal obligations to the Cree and Naskapi Nations under their respective treaties, Section 9 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and Section 7 of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement and other pertinent sections of these Agreements should also be reviewed and amended accordingly.

CONCLUSION

The Commission recognizes that Cree Nation Governance will be advanced, in a positive manner, as the Cree Nation and Canada continue to work cooperatively towards an agreement and conforming legislation relating to a Cree Nation Government with jurisdictions and authorities, to be negotiated, beyond the scope of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

In addition, under the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee, the proposed amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, will enable the Cree Regional Authority to receive and carry out certain assumed federal responsibilities and equip the CRA with by-law-making authority similar to those of the Cree bands.

To this end, Canada and the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee will be discussing and determining the appropriate amendments to the CNQA. The Commission considers amendments to the Act for such purposes as a positive measure for Cree Nation Governance and administration of programs and services. However, the Cree-Naskapi Commission suggests that these discussions provide an opportune time to determine processes for the full and comprehensive review of the Cree-Naskapi

(of Quebec) Act with the objective of identifying and determining appropriate amendments for the advancement and benefit of Cree and Naskapi local government. This process must include a clear undertaking that the Government of Canada shall amend the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, in a manner, that recognizes, enhances and enables the present state and exercise and full potential of Cree and Naskapi local self-government.

The continuing trust and fiduciary responsibilities and obligations of the Government of Canada must be exercised, on a government-to-government basis, for enhancement of Cree (and Naskapi) local government.

Chapter 3:
The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the New Relationship Agreements Between Eeyou of Eeyou Istchee and the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec

INTRODUCTION

On February 7, 2002, in Waskaganish, Eeyou Istchee, the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)/Cree Regional Authority and the Government of Quebec executed the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between le Gouvernement du Quebec and the Crees of Quebec.

The parties enter into a nation-to-nation agreement which promises to strengthen the political, economic and social relations between Quebec and the Crees.

The Agreement marks an important stage in a new nation-to-nation relationship based on openness, mutual respect and a greater responsibility of the Cree Nation for its own development within the context of a greater autonomy.

“This Agreement has the following purposes:

The Agreement does not affect the obligations of Canada towards the Crees including those stipulated in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA).

The Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between le Gouvernement du Quebec and the Crees of Quebec came into force on the date of its signature by the Parties and shall end March 31, 2052. (The Agreement has a term of fifty (50) years.)

On February 21, 2008, in Mistissini, Eeyou Istchee, the representatives of the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)/Cree Regional Authority and the Government of Canada signed the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee.

The Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee came into force when Parliament appropriated the funding contemplated by the said Agreement. The Agreement has a term of twenty (20) years.

“This Agreement has the following principal purposes:

The Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee, the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec, through these Agreements, agree to resolve differences between them as to the implementation by Canada and Quebec of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and claims, grievances and other matters, including the resolution of litigation, so as to embark upon a new and positive relationship.

It is important to note that these Agreements purport to settle the differences, grievances and disputes between the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee and Canada and Quebec over the implementation of certain obligations and commitments of Canada and Quebec, in favour of the Crees, under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

In addition, the parties have agreed, through these Agreements, to establish new and positive relationships.

It appears that the previous relationship between the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee and the government of Canada and the government of Quebec was one of differences, grievances and disputes over the implementation of the JBNQA by Canada and Quebec.

Because of the relationship between the implementation of the JBNQA and the recent new relationship agreements, the present chapter is a brief and general history on the negotiations and implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

NEGOTIATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JAMES BAY AND NORTHERN QUEBEC AGREEMENT

On April 30, 1971, Mr. Robert Bourassa, Premier of Quebec, announced the James Bay Hydroelectric Development Project as the “project of the century” – a $6 billion hydroelectric power project in the James Bay region – the largest such development undertaken in North America. The Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee were surprised by the announcement as the Cree had not been

consulted by Quebec on this proposed mega project planned for construction and which planned to flood major Eeyou hunting territories within Eeyou Istchee. Furthermore, the Crees of Eeyou Istchee were alarmed by what they considered as an onslaught on their culture, homeland and rights.

In 1972, the Government of Quebec informed the Crees that the proposed hydroelectric project was not negotiable and that Native peoples had no aboriginal or special rights. The Government of Canada refused to intervene, meaningfully, on their behalf and clearly violated its fiduciary or trust responsibilities to protect the rights and interests of the Crees of Eeyou Istchee. The Crees resolved to stop the proposed project and initiated court proceedings.

On November 15, 1973, Justice Albert Malouf of the Superior Court of Quebec granted an interlocutory injunction in favour of the Crees (as well as the Inuit of Northern Quebec) and ordered that work on the hydroelectric project stop on the basis of existing Cree and Inuit rights.

On November 29, 1973, Premier Bourassa submitted an 11 point proposal of the Government of Quebec for a settlement to the Crees and Inuit of Northern Quebec. (This offer was announced publicly on January 15, 1974.)

The Cree leaders and Chiefs rejected the 11 point proposal of Quebec but agreed to enter into negotiations with the Government of Quebec, Government of Canada and certain crown corporations such as Hydro-Quebec.

For the Crees, the treaty process was the way chosen to secure Cree rights and redefine relationships with Canada and Quebec. In the early 1970s, the Crees had preferred the cancellation of the proposed mega-hydroelectric development project referred to as the James Bay Hydroelectric Project. But under duress, the treaty process was necessitated by the political and economic agenda of the state as the outright cancellation of the mega-hydroelectric development project planned for construction within Eeyou Istchee was never an option considered by the Government of Quebec and Hydro-Quebec.

The negotiations, from 1973 to 1975, that led to the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement were a rare opportunity for the Crees to achieve recognition of particular rights, guarantees and benefits for their distinct society and way of life based on their central and special relationship with their historical and traditional territories – Eeyou Istchee. The negotiations and the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement also provided a means for achieving, to some extent, their vision for the enhancement and advancement of Eeyou governance but constraint by the existing political and legal environment of the 1970s. (Before the Constitution Act, 1982, affirmed and recognized the aboriginal and treaty rights of Aboriginal people, the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec did not recognize aboriginal rights. Hence, Canada and Quebec did not recognize the inherent right of aboriginal self-government. Canada and Quebec held the view that aboriginal people had no rights of governance other than those the state unilaterally chose to legislate or impose upon Aboriginal people such as the restricted and supervised regime under the Indian Act.)

In August, 1974, the Cree leaders and Chiefs formed the ‘Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec)’ which was mandated to proceed with negotiations and consultations for a possible settlement of the rights, claims and interests of the Crees with the governments.

An Agreement-in-Principle is achieved and signed on November 15, 1974 by the Crees and Inuit, Government of Canada, Government of Quebec and certain crown corporations such as Hydro- Quebec. The Agreement-in-Principle provided for negotiations to continue for a Final Agreement.

From November, 1974 to November, 1975, negotiations proceeded between the parties to conclude the Final Agreement which became the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was concluded and signed by the parties on November 11, 1975.

The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is a modern day treaty that contains explicit provisions for the recognition, guarantees and protection of Cree rights (as well as Inuit rights). The Agreement has been approved, given effect, and declared valid by Acts of the Parliament of Canada and the National Assembly of Quebec. Furthermore, the rights of the Crees under the Agreement are “treaty rights” recognized, affirmed and protected by the Constitution Act, 1982.

For the Crees, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement contains terms and provisions on the following matters:

In addition, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is also an out-of-court settlement over the territorial claims of the Cree and Inuit and permits the construction, operation and maintenance of the La Grande Complexe (1975) – a modified James Bay Hydroelectric Project.

Mr. John Ciaccia, special representative of Premier Robert Bourassa in the James Bay negotiations, stated in his opening remarks to the standing Parliamentary Committee of the National Assembly of Quebec on Natural Resources and Lands and Forests, convened to examine the Agreement with the James Bay Crees and Inuit of Quebec, prior to its signature:

“This Agreement has enabled us to accomplish two great tasks to which the government committed itself. It enables us to fulfill our obligations to the Native peoples who inhabit our North, and to affirm finally Quebec’s presence throughout its entire territory.”³

Therefore, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement arose out what was, initially, opposition by the Cree of Eeyou Istchee to a major hydroelectric development project which was planned for construction within the traditional and historical territories of the Cree. This opposition was enhanced by the failure of the Government of Quebec to settle the rights, interests and claims of the Native peoples who inhabited the Territory when it was transferred to Quebec by Canada in 1898 and 1912.

However, the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement did not mark the end of conflicts, disputes and negotiations. Rather it signalled the beginning of continued interaction between the Cree of Eeyou Istchee and the Government of Quebec, Government of Canada and Hydro-Quebec over the implementation of the letter, intent and spirit of the terms and provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

This continued interaction between the Cree, Canada and Quebec often resulted to confrontations and conflicts over the failure of Canada and Quebec to honour and respect their commitments, responsibilities and obligations to the Crees under certain terms and provisions of the JBNQA.

From 1976 to 2006, a period of thirty (30) years, the Crees of Eeyou Istchee have engaged in numerous reviews and negotiations on the proper implementation of the terms and provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement with the Governments of Canada and Quebec.

The Crees of Eeyou Istchee have also resorted to litigation in defence of their rights as reviews of government obligations and negotiations to resolve the disputes over the letter, intent and spirit of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement have in most cases failed. As a matter of fact, Eeyou of Eeyou Istchee have initiated or joined in, about thirty legal proceedings respecting enforcement of Cree rights since 1972. Most of these court cases pertain to the failure and refusal of the Governments of Canada and Quebec to respect, honour and fulfill their obligations and commitments to the Crees of Eeyou Istchee under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. These court cases have been costly to the Crees.

Most of these disputes and conflicts over the proper implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement concern the following:

However, the implementation of certain terms and provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement has been beneficial, over the past three decades, in advancing Cree selfgovernment and in some aspects Cree social and community development. The institutions created pursuant to the Agreement are controlled by Eeyou and Eeyou are designing programs and services for their communities. Housing and community infrastructures while not completely adequate have advanced. Officials, agents and employees from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs are noticeably absent in Eeyou Istchee and Eeyou communities as the Crees are in substantial control of their affairs and lives.

In addition, certain rights (such as hunting, fishing and trapping) of the Crees are recognized and legislation has been enacted to provide recognition and protection of these rights.

It is clear that the implementation of certain terms and provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement has had positive implications when one considers the situation of the Crees thirty (30) years ago.

In 1971, when the Cree Chiefs held their first ever meeting to discuss the James Bay Hydroelectric Development Project, the following brief and general summary describes the socio-political situation and conditions of the Crees, their local government and administrations, and governmental relations:

NEW RELATIONSHIP AGREEMENTS

The Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee considers the negotiations, conclusion and signing of the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between le Gouvernement du Quebec and the Crees of Quebec and the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee as significant achievements in their struggle to have certain terms and provisions of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement honoured and respected by Canada and Quebec.

Under these Agreements, the Cree Nation, Canada and Quebec seek to improve the implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement by providing for the assumption by the Cree Nation of greater responsibility for Cree economic and community development with increased autonomy. Clearly these Agreements provide an innovative way of implementing certain provisions of the JBNQA. In addition, the assumption by the Cree Nation of greater responsibility for Cree economic and community development with increased autonomy will enhance Cree governance and administration.

The Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between le Gouvernement du Quebec and the Crees of Quebec and the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee are also out-of-court settlements over litigation respecting the certain alleged breaches of the JBNQA by Canada and Quebec.

However, these Agreements do not settle all the present outstanding disputes and issues relating to the implementation of the letter, spirit and intent of the terms and provisions of the JBNQA.

Nevertheless, the Crees of Eeyou Istchee have fought, persistently, through reviews, negotiations and litigation so that they can receive some of the benefits and guarantees under dispute, in an acceptable manner, and as promised by Canada and Quebec in the JBNQA… thirty-three (33) years ago.

Chapter 4:
Response of Canada (i.e. the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) to the Recommendations in the 2006 Report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission

FOLLOW UP TO THE 2006 REPORT OF THE CREE-NASKAPI COMMISSION

During the first ten years of the Commission’s existence (1986–1996) it was assumed that the recommendations contained in the biennial reports would be dealt with by the parties with a mandate to address the specific issues involved. Experience soon demonstrated that this was not the case. The result was that communities began to ask what was being done about their concerns that had formed the basis of Commission recommendations. Many began to wonder whether it was worthwhile to bring issues and concerns to the Commission at all.

In 1998 the Commissioners decided that they should vigorously follow up on their recommendations. The reasoning behind this was twofold. First of all the preparation of reports as well as their tabling in Parliament are a legal requirement pursuant to section 171.(1) of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. The requirement to report constitutes a duty not only to produce a thorough and accurate report but also to ensure that the issues it raises are considered seriously by those with the ability to address them. Secondly the elected Cree and Naskapi leaders as well as the Elders, Youth representatives, government officials and others generally prepare their presentations to the Commission carefully and focus only on what consider to be important issues. To allow their input to be filed in an archive or to collect dust on a library shelf would not be acceptable.

For these reasons, the Commissioners decided to actively follow up the biennial reports. This follow up has taken many forms including:

Each of these types of follow up can be important depending upon the types of issues involved however appearances before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development generally produce the most significant results. This is mainly because of the ability and willingness of the Committee to call government and other witnesses and to question them about specific matters raised in the reports.

The 2006 Report was submitted to the Minister and tabled in the House and Senate in September of 2006. It was then referred to the Standing Committees of each house. The Commission requested a meeting with the House Committee and made a presentation on February 1, 2007.

During our presentation to the Committee the Commission reviewed the recommendations of the Report stressing in particular, the recommendations dealing with the need to review and amend the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, the issue of housing needs in the communities and the concerns

of the Naskapi regarding the impacts on their rights of the establishment of the Nunavik regional government. A number of specific matters which were then under discussion in the Namagoose/ Chretien negotiations were not raised out of respect for the integrity of that process. (Most of those issues have subsequently been addressed by the New Relationship Agreement.)

On February 20, 2007 Michel Roy, Assistant Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs along with some of his senior staff appeared before the Committee to answer questions related to our report.

On the issue of housing, while Mr. Roy did not get into specifics, he said: “However, the simple answer is that these [Cree and Naskapi] communities have access to the department’s regular program.” (As noted later in this chapter, this answer addresses neither the specific needs of the Cree and Naskapi communities nor their rights under the JBNQA/NEQA.)

In response to a question from Jean Crowder MP, Mr. Roy said in relation to the mandate of the Cree-Naskapi Commission: “If I look at the mandate of the commission, for us the commission clearly has a mandate of what we can call dispute resolution or monitoring of the implementation of the James Bay treaty, or la convention, as they call it. They have a clear mandate to monitor that.” (This is a welcome reversal of the previous position of the Department that the Commission had no mandate in relation to matters arising out of the JBNQA or the NEQA.)

In relation to the concerns of the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach, Mr. Roy said: “The [Cree- Naskapi] commission, however made a recommendation on the creation and implementation of a quadripartite forum in which we can have the Quebec government, the federal government, the Inuit and the Naskapi participating in the committee to discuss overlapping issues, settlement issues, for the Inuit. We already talked to the Inuit about this, and they think it’s a great idea… . We think that the commission made a good proposal and we are following up on it.” Later he said: “It’s just at the stage of an agreement in principle. I don’t think it’s too late to amend, if necessary, the [Nunavik] agreement to accommodate the Naskapi concerns or input.”

Commissioners met with Jean Crowder MP, the NDP Aboriginal affairs critic to provide further details. Ms. Crowder offered to introduce a private member’s bill to address some of our recommendations. (The Namagoose/Chretien process has resulted in a agreement on addressing the specific recommendations and so Ms. Crowder’s offer is not being pursued at this time.) Ms. Crowder’s offer does however underline the extent to which MPs are interested in helping to address community concerns as reflected in Commission recommendations.

Some months after our presentation to the Committee and INAC’s appearance to reply to MP’s questions following up on the presentation, the Naskapi informed us that little or no progress was being made in addressing their concerns in a satisfactory way. The Commission then wrote to the Chair of the Standing Committee suggesting that they call the Naskapi and hear their concerns first hand. The Committee did so and the Naskapi made a presentation on December 11, 2007. We are still anticipating some results.

While one should not overestimate the importance the Commission’s follow up to its reports, it is clear that it helps to focus attention on many of the issues and in some cases results in positive change.

The 2006 Report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission was submitted to Minister Prentice and tabled in Parliament in October of 2006. It contained 16 specific recommendations. On February 5, 2008, Theresa Redmond, Director of the James Bay Implementation Office, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, responded to those recommendations on behalf of Canada. It should be noted that this represents a delay of more than 15 months between the time that the report was submitted to the minister and the time when his officials made a response. While the

Commissioners appreciate the response, we feel that a turnaround time of two or three months would be more reassuring to those communities and individuals upon whose presentations the recommendations were based.

RESPONSE OF CANADA TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 2006 REPORT OF THE CREE-NASKAPI COMMISSION

[Recommendations from the 2006 report are printed below in italics with a summary of the Department’s response immediately following in bold face. These responses are taken from both the transcripts of Ms. Redmond’s oral presentation at the Commission’s Special Implementation Hearings on February 5, 2008 in Montreal as well as from a written submission provided to the Commission late in January, 2008. The Commission’s comments, if any, follow.]

1. The Government of Canada and the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee must enter into a new relationship that reflects the implementation of the spirit, intent and letter of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. The present Chretien-Namagoose process should conclude with an agreement on a new relationship between Eeyou of Eeyou Istchee and the Government of Canada in a manner which sets out an acceptable way of implementing Canada’s obligations to the Crees under the JBNQA.

The Department responded by saying that it was pleased that the Agreement Concerning A New Relationship Between the Government Of Canada And The Cree Of Eeyou Istchee had been finalized and awaited only ratification and signing. (Subsequently the Agreement was signed at an historic ceremony in Mistissini on February 21, 2008.)

The Commission is gratified that this Agreement is in place. It represents a major step forward in that it resolves implementation issues that have been outstanding for many years. This clears the way for a greatly improved relationship between the Crees of Eeyou Istchee and the Government of Canada.

More importantly, over the longer term, the agreement is a key element in recognizing and affirming the exercise of Cree self-governance.

The Cree-Naskapi Commission congratulates the Cree and Canadian governments and their negotiators on this truly historic achievement. Everyone concerned will need to continue the positive momentum generated in order to ensure that there is the fullest implementation of the agreement and that the communities receive the full benefit of the opportunities it presents.

2. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should consider and support the Cree Housing Proposal submitted by the Crees to the government of Canada on November 3, 2005. Furthermore, Canada and the Crees should negotiate an agreement on Cree housing that respects existing agreements and understandings and is consistent with the spirit and intent of the present new relationship discussions.

The Department responded by saying that,

“… it is encouraging the development of private partnership[s] through additional investments, such as housing initiatives, but also [through] new ways of leveraging private resources, such as establishing a housing trust fund and [through] capacity development.”

“… the Cree capital grant has been adjusted to reflect the current regional housing formula.” (underlining added)

“There is also a housing program available to the Cree, as well as other First Nations in Canada, through normal departmental and government programming."

The Commission feels that the extent to which these approaches work in practice will need to be closely monitored to ensure that they in fact address the serious housing crisis which exists in the communities of Eeyou Istchee. We are also concerned that “the current regional housing formula” is an example of the shortcomings of using the “one size fits all” approach. It is a fact that the Cree communities, unlike most other First Nations, are retaining the overwhelming majority of their young people. This results in a much higher rate of formation of new families and exacerbates the on-going housing shortage. The Crees have always taken the position that the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement provides housing rights and benefits over and above the housing programs available to First Nations generally.

3. The Government of Canada and the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee should review and revise through discussions and agreement the amount and basis of the adjustment to the funding levels of the Operations and Maintenance Funding to ensure financial capacity to address new needs of the communities which were not contemplated in 1984 when the Cree- Naskapi (of Quebec) Act came into force.

The response of the Department was that: “The Cree Operations and Maintenance Funding… has been adjusted to reflect the physical growth in the communities. Funding was released in January 2008. As per the New Relationship Agreement, the Cree are responsible for most of the future additional requirements.

The Commission is pleased to learn a new, five year Operations and Maintenance Funding Agreement reflecting price and volume changes has been negotiated, signed and is in place. This is particularly gratifying because in previous years, O & M funding was frequently a source of major difficulties in the relationship. The current situation is a most welcome improvement.

4. The Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) in collaboration with the local governments of the Eeyou communities should develop an implementation mechanism for the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the biennial reports of the Cree-Naskapi Commission.

The response of the Department was that it would be happy to assist in such a process.

The Commission feels that, since the negotiation of the New Relationship Agreement is now complete, this may be an appropriate time to consider the recommendation again. The New Relationship Agreement, section 3.11.z, provides for a review of the Cree-Naskapi Commission. This review would be an excellent opportunity to consider how outstanding and future recommendations of the Commission could be addressed. This would be one of the ways in which to make the Commission a more effective tool for addressing issues raised in the communities and forming the basis of its reports.

5. As the rule of law and the efficient administration of justice are essential for the social wellbeing of the Cree communities, the Eeyou, Canada and Quebec parties to the JBNQA should review section 18, in particular the implementation of paragraph 18.0.37, of the JBNQA in order to address the present problems and issues in the administration of justice within the Cree communities.

The Department reported that a letter of intent of January, 2007 had provided for the resolution of section 18 issues and, in addition, section 4.4 of the New Relationship Agreement also addressed the issues.

The Commission is optimistic that sections 4.4 (in conjunction with 4.3 a) provide clarity regarding the issues to be addressed as well as clearly indicating the areas of continuing federal responsibility. We look forward to being able to report substantive progress by the time of our 2010 Report.

6. The federal and Eeyou authorities should establish a table of discussions on the process for the implementation of and amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

The Department reported that, “The New Relationship Agreement provides for amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. The Naskapi and the Inuit were consulted under the Chretien/Namagoose process and amendments are being contemplated.”

The Commission is gratified that the issue will be addressed. We would point out however that while the amendments necessitated by the provisions of the New Relationship Agreement are a priority, there are many additional amendments that have been suggested for years by the communities and which have formed the basis of numerous recommendations in previous Commission reports. The Commission would be glad to assist in identifying and consolidating these proposed amendments for consideration in the New Relationship process. (See also Chapter 2 of this report for a detailed discussion of possible amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.)

7. The Government of Canada, Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) and the Washaw Sibi Eeyou should establish a formal table of discussions on the following:
a) recognition of the Washaw Sibi Eeyou as the tenth Cree First Nation within the framework of the JBNQA, and
b) full enjoyment of the benefit and rights under the JBNQA for the Washaw Sibi Eeyou, and
c) federal assistance for the establishment of a new village for the Washaw Sibi Eeyou.

The Department responded with the following: “Through the New Relationship Agreement, the Cree have agreed to take on the issue of whether or not a new community is created, and the cost of creating any new community would be covered through the New Relationship Agreement. Canada would participate, if asked, in any of the mechanisms of setting up the community, but the Cree have taken on the role establishing a community, if that is what they decide to do.

The Commission sees in the agreement as well as in the Department’s response, a clear intention of addressing the longstanding issue of the creation of a distinct Washaw Sibi Eeyou. We shall continue to monitor developments and to listen to feedback from the community. Chapter 5 discusses this issue in more detail.

8. Through the current Chretien-Namagoose process, Canada, the Cree Nation of Ouje- Bougoumou should discuss and settle the following issues and concerns of the Ouje- Bougoumou Crees:
a) claim for reimbursement of $1.7 million that had been transferred to Ouje-Bougoumou for capital projects since 1994–1995. (The DIAND maintains that it is not required to reimburse the Crees for funding received by Ouje-Bougoumou for capital projects since 1994–1995.)
b) claim for an amount of $2,952,000 which constitutes the loss of earnings emanating from the late payment of agreed upon amounts under the Ouje-Bougoumou/Canada Agreement and indirect costs.
c) Full and proper implementation of the Ouje-Bougoumou/Canada Agreement.

The Department responded by saying that the issue had been addressed in the New Relationship Agreement.

Section 5.6 of the Agreement reads as follows: “Contemporaneously or as soon as possible after the coming into force of this Agreement, the Parties to this Agreement will sign a Complementary Agreement regarding the establishment of the Ouje-Bougoumou Band and its Category 1A land through amendments to the JBNQA. The Parties agree that Quebec is a necessary party to the Complementary Agreement. Canada commits to recommend to Parliament amendments to the CNQA regarding the establishment of the Ouje-Bougoumou Band.

This is a welcome development and the Commission looks forward to its early finalization. It should be noted however that section 5.6 of the New Relationship Agreement does not appear to specifically address the Ouje-Bougoumou claims.

9. The Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) and the Cree Nation of Waswanipi should jointly formulate and submit a statement and/or claim to the Government of Canada on the following issues of Waswanipi:
a) state of the Waswanipi Indoho (Hunting) territories and the impacts of resource development,
b) displacement and relocation of the Waswanipi Crees from their original community – the old Waswanipi Post,
c) establishment of the Waswanipi Post as an official Heritage Place by the Government of Canada,
d) situation and needs of the Senneterre Crees,
e) education and training needs of the youth of Waswanipi for professional and career development, and
f) development of legislation respecting accountability of local governments.

The response of the Department was that: “Canada cannot comment on these recommendations as they weren’t put forward as of now. However concerning the education and training needs, Canada funds 75% of the program delivery of the Cree School Board to access pre-school, elementary, high school, postsecondary and adult education programs. Furthermore, the new Vocational Centre also funded via the MELSQ is located in Waswanipi which offers even more accessibility the local potential students.”

The Commission also reviewed relevant sections of the New Relationship Agreement. It would appear that our recommendation 9.b is substantially addressed by section 5.3. b of the Agreement which says: “The parties and the Cree bands agree that the claims and grievances against Canada relating to the following are hereby fully resolved between them: b) any past relocations of the Cree Nation of Nemaska and the Waswanipi Band.” Still to be addressed are recommendations 9.a, 9.c and 9.d. It would also appear that our recommendations 9.e and 9.f are addressed at least in part by the Agreement.

The Commission will monitor these items in consultation with the parties.

10. Through the current Chretien/Namagoose process, the Government of Canada, the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) and the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi should discuss and settle the needs of Waswanipi for economic development and capital projects.

The Department’s answer provided at the Commission hearings on February 5, 2008 reads as follows: “Canada is assisting the community of Waswanipi with their potable water emergency project at this time. As with all the other Cree communities, capital funding is available through the capital program, as well as a number of federal initiatives. The Cree/ INAC Technical Table has been monitoring capital projects requested and has maintained the dialogue with the community of Waswanipi throughout the fiscal year.

In relation to the economic development needs of the community, several federal programs are available for the planning and implementation of these projects, and it is suggested that the local Economic Development Officer have discussions on future projects with federal departments and agencies involved in economic development.”

The Commission feels that the essence of the recommendation has not been addressed. It is suggested that some follow up discussions between Waswanipi and the Department are needed. The leadership may need to intervene to get the process the degree of priority which it deserves. The Commission will welcome feedback from the community and the Department on the extent to which progress is being made.

11. The present and future housing and expansion needs of the Cree Nation of Chisasibi should be discussed and settled through the present Chretien/Namagoose process.

The Department’s response was: “The issue of the expansion of Cree communities is being addressed through the New Relationship Agreement in two parts. One, we are addressing, through [section] 5.5, land for Chisasibi for housing and the expansion of Block D for the community. As well, with respect to housing and O & M and capital, new agreements will be signed as of the first of the new fiscal year.

The Commission is concerned that the resolution of the Block D issue does not address the community’s need for expansion nor does it address the housing needs of the community.

12. As the airport building of the Chisasibi airstrip has been completed and is currently in operation, Block D should be designated forthwith as part of Category 1A land for the exclusive use and benefit of the Cree Nation of Chisasibi by the Government of Canada.

The Department reported, in essence, that section 5.5 of the New Relationship Agreement addressed the issue and that discussions between Chisasibi, Canada and Quebec to carry out 5.5 were ongoing.

The Commission is encouraged to see that there is a commitment to resolve this longstanding issue, and looks forward to being able to report that it is finally resolved in our 2010 Report. For reference section 5.5 of the Agreement reads as follows:

“Canada agrees, in principle, to accept the transfer of the lands known as Block “D” in the community of Chisasibi, subject to certain issues related to the restoration of these lands. These issues are currently being addressed between the Cree Nation of Chisasibi, the GCC(EI), the CRA, Quebec and Canada. The parties agree that Canada shall not be responsible for any costs associated with the land transfer of Block “D”, save and except land survey costs.”

13. Canada and the Whapmagoostui First Nation should determine the issues and needs of the Whapmagoostui Crees respecting the expansion of their community.

The Department said: “The Cree are taking over several of the federal obligations as part of the New Relationship Agreement. These matters are, therefore, addressed in this agreement. In addition… they will still continue to have access to programs and services that are provided to communities across the country….”

Once again, the Commission hopes to be in a position to report that substantive progress is being made by the time of our 2010 Report.

14. The Government of Canada, Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach and other parties concerned should forthwith settle the mandate of the Naskapi-Inuit-Canada-Quebec Working Group which should commence to address the concerns of the Naskapi Nation respecting the current negotiations on the establishment of the Nunavik Government.

The Department provided the following response: “As you probably know, a meeting between Makivik, Canada, Quebec and the Naskapi has been proposed for late November. It is my understanding that Kawawachikamach hasn’t confirmed its participation at that meeting, but we are hopeful that the discussions between the parties can begin then, and [that] as final agreement negotiations proceed, consultations with the Naskapi will continue and be expanded as issues become more firm.”

The Commission is not satisfied that anyone is seriously trying to address the fundamental concerns of the Naskapi about the potential impacts of the establishment of the Nunavik Government on their Aboriginal rights as well as their rights under the Northeastern Quebec Agreement. This current Report addresses the matter further in Chapter 5.

15. The Government of Canada should settle its cost-sharing dispute with Quebec over the costs of providing policing services to the Naskapi of Kawawachikamach.”

The Department’s response was: “Public Safety Canada has requested the cooperation of the Ministere de la Securite Publique in fulfilling the two governments’ obligations for funding policing services for the Naskapi. Quebec has accepted to enter into a tripartite agreement with Canada and the Naskapi…. Also, the Naskapi have started discussions with the Quebec Secretariat aux Affaires Autochtones, with a view of signing a Naskapi paix de braves. It is important to point out that the paix des braves with the Crees set out the formula for policing at a 52:48 formula also.”

The Commission waits hopefully for results to emerge from these discussions.

16. The Government of Canada and the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach should settle the issue of the housing allocation process of the CMHC and determine the present and future housing needs of the Naskapi.

The Department responsed by saying: “In response, Canada says that CMHC currently offers assistance to address the assessment of housing training needs via Aboriginal Capacity Development Funding….” “ The one-time additional funding of $295 million will expire at the end of the fiscal year [2007–2008] and has not been extended. The Naskapi, like other First Nations, will be considered for future reallocations if and when they are available.”

The Commission feels that the response provides little reason for optimism that the housing needs of the Naskapi and the housing allocation processes applicable to the Naskapi are any nearer to being addressed in a timely or even a serious manner. This problem is discussed in more detail in Chapter 5 of the present report.

Chapter 5:
Concerns and Issues of the Eeyou
(Cree) Nation and Naskapi
Nation of Kawawachikamach

On February 5, 6 and 7, 2008, the Cree-Naskapi Commission held Special Implementation Hearings in Montreal, Quebec in order to permit the representatives of the Cree, Naskapi and Federal governments to make presentations to the Commission in preparation for its present report.

1. GRAND COUNCIL OF THE CREES (EEYOU ISTCHEE)

The Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) (GCC(EI)), in a submission dated April, 2008 discussed the contents and significance of the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee (hereafter referred to as the New Canada/Cree Agreement in the present chapter). The New Canada/Cree Agreement was signed by the representatives of the federal and Cree governments on February 21, 2008 in Mistissini, Eeyou Istchee. The Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee came into force when Parliament appropriated the funding contemplated by the said Agreement.

The Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) considers the signing of the New Canada/Cree Agreement a historic moment in the history of the Cree Nation. According to the Grand Council, the New Canada/Cree Agreement resolves certain important long-standing issues that arose from the past federal implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA). The Grand Council of the Crees states that the New Canada/Cree Agreement provides for the following:

PHASE I: AMENDMENTS OF THE CREE-NASKAPI (OF QUEBEC) ACT TO STRENGTHEN CREE GOVERNANCE AND THE ASSUMPTION OF FEDERAL OBLIGATIONS BY THE CREES

The object of the proposed amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act as contemplated by the New Canada/Cree Agreement are discussed in Chapter 2 (of the present report) respecting the amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. The Cree-Naskapi Commission will review the proposed amendments that will be developed in consultation with the Crees and other affected parties.²

Obligations of Canada Assumed by the Crees

The New Canada/Cree Agreement sets out in detail which of the federal obligations under the JBNQA the Crees assume to implement for the 20 year term of the agreement, with the funding provided. According to the Grand Council of the Crees, “what is not indicated as “assumed”, will not be implemented by the Grand Council of the Crees/Cree Regional Authority. Hence, the determination of what is or is not assumed is an important aspect of evaluating this agreement. The continuation of the annual amounts of funding received from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs for “A base” capital funding and the continuation of the Operation and Maintenance funding

in force on the signing of the New Agreement are essential to the Crees being able to provide the services assumed under this agreement. In addition, the regular program arrangements for Cree Human Resources Development and for the funding of the various associations provided for in Chapter 28 are to be continued as a condition of the assumptions.”³

Furthermore, the Grand Council of the Crees states that the New Canada/Cree Agreement brings a new level of security to its financial relationship with Canada but it also requires vigilance and thoroughness in how the Crees implement the obligations of Canada that are assumed by the Crees under the Agreement so as to protect the rights on which these obligations are based. In parallel with the signing of the New Canada/Cree Agreement, the five-year capital and operations and maintenance agreements have been renewed by the Cree and federal parties.⁴

PHASE II: THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE CREE NATION GOVERNMENT

While the adoption of the amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act is being completed and while the negotiations regarding the other delegations of authority from Canada are being completed, the Grand Council/Cree Regional Authority will begin a process of discussion, internally among the Crees communities and also with the governments of Canada and of Quebec in respect to Phase II: The Development of the Cree Nation Government. These discussions will cover areas of jurisdiction and authority and the basic principles of this new form of government. In parallel, the Cree Constitution which will set out the basic principles of this new form of government shall be developed by the Crees. The Agreement with Canada on the Cree Nation Government will come into force at the same time as the new Cree Constitution comes into effect as these two must be consistent with one another.⁵

It is intended that the Cree Nation Constitution include as a minimum the following matters:

With respect to the form of the Cree Nation Government, the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) states that “it is intended that we develop our new form of government on the foundation of the present Cree government, as we want to retain the lessons from the recent past, while bringing new elements that will provide for the future of the Cree Nation.”⁷

The New Canada/Cree Agreement sets out the following list of other issues that the federal and Cree parties agree to address during the negotiations process leading to the Governance Agreement:

As for the time frame concerning the negotiations process leading to the Governance Agreement, paragraph 3.14 of the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee states as follows:

“3.14 Time Frame

With the participation of Quebec, the Parties are committed to making their best efforts to conclude negotiations of a governance agreement-in-principle within three (3) years of the coming into force of this Agreement and a Governance Agreement within five (5) years of the coming into force of this Agreement, or within such longer period as the GCC(EI)/CRA, Canada and Quebec may agree to in writing.”⁹

In addition, the Grand Council of the Crees states that “the geographic scope of powers is one of the subjects for discussion. On the one hand, we want to develop a form of Cree Nation and/or regional governance that will fit the present structure of power and authority in Canada and in Quebec. On the other hand, the parties must take into account their treaty commitments and the reality that the Crees are not “Indians on Reserve” set up by the colonial regimes put in place by Canada in the 1800s largely by the Department of the Interior. The Crees are citizens of Quebec and Canada recognized by a treaty signed by both of those levels of government. We want participation in Quebec and in Canada via the development of our traditional lands. One might say that we want to become part of Quebec and Canada not just as individuals but as the Cree Nation still living on our ancestral lands. Needless to say these discussions will be complex.”¹⁰

Payments by Canada

Chapter 6 of the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee provides for payments by Canada to the Cree as follows:

As the New Canada/Cree Agreement came into force when Parliament appropriated funds, the First Payment of an amount of one billion and fifty million dollars ($1,050,000,000) has been made by Canada to the Cree. (The Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee is deemed to have come into force on March 13, 2008.)

The Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)/Cree Regional Authority have established a Cree Nation Trust that will ensure that the funding is properly invested and that it is used to implement the obligations assumed by the Cree from Canada under the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee.¹²

OTHER MATTERS

Community Specific Matters

The Agreement Regarding Certain Community Specific Issues provides an additional amount of fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) to resolve claims related to the Wemindji access road, the conversion of the electrical supply to the community of Waskaganish and the Bosum litigation concerning certain claims of the Oujé-Bougoumou Cree Nation. (This additional amount is part of the First Payment made by Canada under the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee.)

Washaw Sibi Eeyou

Under the New Canada/Cree Agreement, Canada confirms, and the GCC(EI)/CRA acknowledge, that no additional funding will be provided by Canada, for the term of this Agreement, with respect to additional costs which may be associated with the recognition and establishment of any new Cree band located in the Territory.

Immediately following the coming into force of this Agreement, the CRA undertakes to initiate exploratory discussions with the Washaw Sibi Eeyou in order to identify possible options for the Washaw Sibi Eeyou who want to be recognized as a separate new band. The CRA, and subsequently the Cree Nation Government, is responsible for any costs associated with implementing an option agreed on by the CRA and the Washaw Sibi Eeyou.

Dispute Resolution Processes

The New Canada/Cree Agreement establishes dispute resolution processes that allow for mediation or arbitration but reserves the right of the parties, after due process, to refer matters to the courts.

Standing Liaison Committee

The New Canada/Cree Agreement establishes a Cree-Canada Liaison Committee that will strengthen relations between Canada and the Crees and attempt to resolve disputes and resolve

problems as they arise relating to the implementation of the New Canada/Cree Agreement and the JBNQA. The appointees from each side will be high ranking officials of their respective administrations.

Releases and Indemnification

The New Canada/Cree Agreement releases Canada from all of the legal actions and claims made in them taken out by the Crees against Canada except the Vanadium Proceedings and the MoCreebec Proceedings. It also indemnifies Canada for any claims made against it in respect to its past implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, up to the date of the coming into force of the New Canada/Cree Agreement.

Conclusion

The Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee was submitted to a referendum organized by the GCC(EI) and the CRA, which referendum was conducted in accordance with the procedures agreed to by the parties. In this referendum, the vote resulted in a 53.6% turn-out of the Cree voters of which 90.17% voted in favour of signing the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee.¹³

The Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) concludes that Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee have embarked on the journey of Nation-building and the exercise of the right of self-governance through the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and related Agreements such the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between le Gouvernement du Quebec and the Crees of Quebec and the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee.

According to the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) the “resources provided to the Crees in this New Agreement give us the financial means to take an important step in improving Cree control over the development of our communities and they are an opportunity to increase our participation in the governance of the lands around us.”¹⁴

2. CREE NATION OF CHISASIBI

Violet Pachanos, representative, Edith Sam, Elder and Kevin House, youth representative, of the Cree Nation of Chisasibi raised the following issues and concerns:

A. Amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act

Violet Pachanos stated that the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee contemplates certain amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. However, these amendments contemplated by the said Agreement are meant to strengthen the Cree Regional Authority so that the CRA can assume certain obligations of Canada and exercise authority as envisaged in the New Canada/Cree Agreement. Ms. Pachanos noted that any amendments to the Act as requested by the Cree communities over the past years are not dealt with in the New Canada/Cree Agreement. She mentions the quorum provisions of the Act need to be amended as the local populations including the electors in the Cree communities are increasing. The present quorum provisions of the Act are detrimental to the decision-making process of local government. As an example, the present quorums on conducting referenda for borrowing bylaws are a serious problem. She suggests that local authorities should be enabled to establish quorums, as required, in a more realistic manner.¹⁵

B.     Local Elections

The Supreme Court of Canada decision in the case of John Corbiere et al. v. the Batchewana Indian Band and Her Majesty the Queen ruled that the words, found in section 77 (1) of the Indian Act, “and is ordinarily resident on the reserve,” violated the Charter rights of off-reserve members of First Nations that hold their elections under the Indian Act. This decision, known as the Corbiere decision, provides for First Nations holding elections or referendums under the Indian Act to permit members, living off reserve, to vote.

If the Corbiere decision affects the Cree beneficiaries holding elections or referenda under the Cree- Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, then new election bylaws are required to comply with it. In addition, the extra costs incurred will have to be considered and factored into the funding arrangements with Canada.¹⁶

C.     Right of Way for Public Access

The present road along the Community of Chisasibi has a corridor of five hundred (500) feet on each side of it. This corridor is not considered part of the Category IA land of the Cree Nation of Chisasibi. This corridor is part of the Category II land of Chisasibi. The present status of the corridor constitutes a barrier for the expansion of the community of Chisasibi.¹⁷

D.     Chisasibi Block D

With respect to the Chisasibi Block D, paragraph 5.5 of Chapter 5 of the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee states as follows:

“Canada agrees, in principle, to accept the transfer of the lands known as Block “D” in the community of Chisasibi, subject to certain issues related to the restoration of these lands. These

issues are currently being addressed between the Cree Nation of Chisasibi, the GCC(EI), the CRA, Québec and Canada. The Parties agree that Canada shall not be responsible for any costs associated with the land transfer of Block “D”, save and except land survey costs.”¹⁸

Ms. Pachanos states that the Chisasibi Block “D” has been an outstanding issue for a long time and wondered when this issue will be finally resolved.

E.     Housing

In its 2006 Report, the Cree-Naskapi Commission reported on the serious problems concerning the state of housing in Chisasibi. Ms. Pachanos states that the serious housing problems in Chisasibi remain unresolved. These housing problems include the need to replace deteriorating and unhealthy houses. As the government of Canada has not come forth with funding required to assist Chisasibi with its present housing problems, the Cree Nation of Chisasibi is still using its community funds for the housing situation. The position of the Cree Nation of Chisasibi is that the Department of Indian Affairs should reimburse Chisasibi for the use of its community funds from the JBNQA and related Agreements to finance its housing projects and programs.¹⁹

F.     Policing

The community of Chisasibi is experiencing some constraints on law enforcement as the local police should take into account traditional practices respecting restorative justice for young and chronic offenders.

Furthermore, community members are also concerned that local police refuse to get involved in domestic disputes.

In addition, the by-laws of the community respecting curfew, public nuisances, consumption of alcohol in public, prohibition on sale of drugs and alcohol are not being enforced.

Ms. Pachanos stated that fines for local traffic offenses should be collected by the community and spent on the local policing operations.

G.     Administration of Justice

Ms. Pachanos states that Section 18 regarding Administration of Justice (Crees) of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement has not yet been successfully implemented by Canada and Quebec. Under the New Canada/Cree Agreement, the Cree Regional Authority, and subsequently the Cree Nation Government shall assume some of the responsibilities of Canada to the Crees under the provisions of Section 18 of the JBNQA. Since Canada retains some responsibilities to the Crees, one wonders how and when Section 18 of the JBNQA will be fully and successfully implemented.

H.     Leases

The provisions of Section 132 (3) of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act prescribe the quorum required for band electors to approve the granting of a lease to third parties with respect to its Category IA land. These quorum provisions are difficult to attain in such circumstances.

I.     Role of the Cree-Naskapi Commission

Ms. Pachanos asks what the role of the Cree-Naskapi Commission would be with the Cree Constitution and the Cree Nation Government as contemplated in the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee.

In addition, Ms. Pachanos raises the question of whether the Government of Canada “is going to act on the past concerns and recommendations that the Commission has made to it.”²⁰

3. CREE FIRST NATION OF WASWANIPI

Chief John Kitchen and other representatives from the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi spoke to the Cree-Naskapi Commission on February 6, 2008, and raised the following issues and concerns:

A.     Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act and Self-Government

The Council of the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi considers the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act as “an undisguised embodiment of federal power over the Cree Nation… a mere facsimile of the old Indian Act, a means by which the Federal Government severely controls the limits of our governance.”²¹

However, the Council of the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi commented on the necessity to amend the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act and made recommendations on such amendments for the following matters:

Chief Kitchen states that the referendum or quorum requirements of the Act for decision-making by the band electors on matters relating to by-laws for long-term borrowing, waiver of exemption from seizure and granting of non-residential right of superficie have become costly and are serious obstacles to the decision-making process of local government.

A. (i) Referendum Requirement for Long-term Borrowing

Under section 97 (2) of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, a by-law “authorizing long-term borrowing must be approved by the electors of the band at a special band meeting or referendum at which at least twenty percent of the electors voted on the matter.”²²

According to the Council of the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi, the twenty percent requirement under this section of the Act is unreasonable, difficult to achieve and time consuming with costly consequences.

Therefore, the Council of the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi urges the Commission to recommend amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act that either:

A. (ii) Referendum Requirement for Waiver of Exemption from Seizure

The Council of the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi does not object to the basic principle respecting the exemption from seizure of property as provided for in section 190 of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

However, the exemption from seizure of band property becomes problematic in the framework of a short-term or long-term borrowing by-law. Financial institutions expect waivers of exemption from

seizure of certain properties of the band for short-term or long-term borrowing by the band. The waiver of this particular exemption must be approved by the electors of the band at a special band meeting or referendum at which at least twenty-five per cent of the electors voted on the matter.²⁴

This particular and difficult-to-achieve requirement of having at least twenty five per cent of the electors vote on approving the waiver of exemption from seizures of band property is a serious detriment to the economic and community development of Waswanipi.

Therefore, the Council of the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi suggests that the Commission recommend amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act “in such a way it preserves the general principle surrounding exemption from seizure when applied to individuals, but eases the restrictions concerning the waiving of the immunity when requested by Council in a borrowing by-law, when such a waiver is expected from a lending agency in certain categories of situations involving the financing of mobile homes and other movables.”²⁵

The Council recommends “that a referendum on the waiving of the exemption of seizure in matters related to borrowing by-laws – for the purpose of financing mobile homes and other movables following a request to that effect by the lending agency – should involve no more than fifteen per cent of the electors.”²⁶

A. (iii) Referendum Requirement Respecting the Right of Superficie

Under section 132 (1), (2) and (3) of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, a band may grant with respect to its Category IA land, a lease, usufruct, servitude, superficie or other right of use or occupation for a term not exceeding seventy-five years. However, a “grant for a term of ten years or more for non-residential purpose has no effect unless approved by the electors of the band at a special band meeting or referendum at which:

The Council of the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi finds the latter requirement (for at least twenty-five per cent of the electors of the band voting on the matter, in the case of a grant for a term of twentyfive years or more) unreasonable.

The Council considers that a requirement of having at least fifteen per cent of the electors of the band voting on the matter, in the case of a grant for a term of twenty-five years or more, would be reasonable and manageable.

A. (iv) Ethics

According to the Council of the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi, the present terms and provisions of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act are insufficient and lacking on matters relating to ethics at Council meetings, conduct of elected officials and band elections.

According to Chief Kitchen, the Council has adopted a by-law concerning the awarding of public contracts.²⁸

Nevertheless, the Council urges the Commission “to rethink the issue of ethics with respect to (the conduct of) elected officials, awarding of public contracts, as well as to electoral practices. A complete review of the Act… is needed to deal with ethics and ethical conduct.”²⁹

B.     Housing

Joey Blacksmith, Youth Chief of Waswanipi and a member of the Council of the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi, spoke about the shortage and present over-crowding of houses in the community.

C.     Education

Joey Blacksmith spoke also about problems respecting access to the programs and funding for post-secondary from the Cree School Board. In particular, Mr. Blacksmith spoke about denials of such access by the Cree School Board when living in the south (presumably outside of the territorial application of the JBNQA).

4. CREE NATION OF EASTMAIN

On February 7, 2008, Daniel-Mark Stewart and Johnny Tomatuk, both members of the Council of the Cree Nation of Eastmain spoke to the Cree-Naskapi Commission and raised the following issues and concerns:

A.     Cree History

Daniel-Mark Stewart spoke about the need to have Cree history written down and taught to the present and future generations of Eeyou people. He stated that there was and is a need to know more about Cree history before and after the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Mr. Stewart also wanted more information about the role and work of the Cree-Naskapi Commission.

B.     Climate Change

In addition, Daniel-Mark Stewart spoke about the change in the climate in Eeyou Istchee (and in other parts of the World) and its impacts on the environment and way of life of Eeyou hunters and trappers. Mr. Stewart stated that Canada and Quebec should contribute appropriate resources in dealing with this important issue.

5. CREE NATION OF WASHAW SIBI

On February 7, 2008, Chief Billy Katapatuk, Billy Katapatuk, Youth representative, and George Mowatt appeared before the Cree-Naskapi Commission and spoke about the following issues and concerns:

A.     Relocation of Washaw Sibi Eeyou and Obligations of Canada

Chief Billy Katapatuk spoke about the “coerced” relocation of the Washaw Sibi Eeyou from their traditional lands and the resulting injustice of having to live elsewhere in a minority situation where they are last to receive benefits. In addition, Washaw Sibi Eeyou, in their present situation, risk losing their language and culture. Moreover, they neither have the full benefits of membership in the Abitibiwinni First Nation nor the full range of benefits to which beneficiaries of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement are entitled. As far as Washaw Sibi Eeyou is concerned, the Government of Canada has so far failed to fulfill its obligations to protect the interests and welfare of Washaw Sibi Eeyou.³⁰

B. Washaw Sibi Eeyou and the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement

The Washaw Sibi Eeyou consider the resolution of their present situation a fundament issue respecting the full and proper implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. The core of the matter is that the Washaw Sibi Eeyou are beneficiaries of the JBNQA but are not presently receiving many of the important benefits of the Agreement. They consider the establishment of a new village for Washaw Sibi Eeyou a fundamental implementation issue.

C. Washaw Sibi Eeyou and the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee

With respect to the Washaw Sibi Eeyou, paragraph 5.4 of Chapter 5 of the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee states as follows:

“The Cree beneficiaries of the JBNQA who have identified themselves as the Washaw Sibi Eeyou, some of whom are now residing in or around Pikogan, have expressed a desire to be recognized as a separate Cree band. The Parties agree that this matter is fully resolved as between them by the following. Immediately following the coming into force of this Agreement, the CRA undertakes to initiate exploratory discussions with the Washaw Sibi Eeyou in order to identify possible options for the Washaw Sibi Eeyou. The CRA, and subsequently the Cree Nation Government, is responsible for any costs associated with implementing an option agreed on by the CRA and the Washaw Sibi Eeyou. If the CRA and the Washaw Sibi Eeyou decide to proceed with negotiations regarding recognition of the Washaw Sibi Eeyou as a separate Cree band, Canada and Québec will be invited to participate, subject to Section 2.8 of this Agreement.”³¹

Chief Billy Katapatuk expresses hope and confidence that the aspirations and goals of Washaw Sibi Eeyou will be realized through the implementation of the New Canada/Cree Agreement.

With the Cree Nation or the Cree Nation Government, the Washaw Sibi Eeyou hope to establish their new village and “look forward to receiving the full range of powers, rights, services and benefits which are available to the other Cree Nations flowing from the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and subsequent legislation and agreements.”³²

However, even with the transfer of responsibilities from the federal government to the Cree Regional Authority or subsequent Cree Nation Government under the New Canada/Cree Agreement, the Washaw Sibi Eeyou considers that the Government of Canada still has important duties and responsibilities for the development of Washaw Sibi Eeyou and incorporation of the Washaw Sibi Eeyou into the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

NASKAPI NATION OF KAWAWACHIKAMACH

The Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach raises the following issues and concerns in their brief dated April 11, 2008:

A. Regional Self-Government

The Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach summarizes their experience and efforts to protect their rights and interests in the negotiations between Quebec, Canada and Makivik Corporation in relation to the regional self-government aspirations of the Inuit of Nunavik. The following are the principal issues and concerns of the Naskapi Nation:

On December 5, 2007, the government of Canada, the government of Quebec and Makivik Corporation signed the Agreement-in-Principle on the creation of the Nunavik Regional Government.

On February 25, 2008, Makivik Corporation, Canada, Quebec and the Naskapi Nation agreed to activate the Joint Working Committee provided for at paragraph 6.5.8 of the Agreement-in-Principle of December 5, 2007.

B. Housing

Housing has always been and continues to be a major issue for the Naskapi Nation. The Naskapi Nation has benefitted from Canada’s three-year New Housing Initiative, which ended March 31, 2007. The fate of this initiative is presently unknown and efforts by the Naskapi to determine Canada’s intentions with respect to funding levels for house construction have not been successful.

Chapter 6:
Role and Importance of the
Cree Trappers’ Association

INTRODUCTION

Subsection 28.5 of Section 28 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement describes the Cree Trappers’ Association in the following manner:

“28.5 Cree Trappers’ Association

28.5.1 As soon as possible, following the execution of the Agreement, feasibility studies respecting the formation of a Cree Trappers’ Association shall be undertaken jointly by Canada, Québec and the Cree Regional Authority.

28.5.2 The parties referred to at paragraph 28.5.1 shall examine the possibility of the formation of a Joint Founding Committee involving representation from the Cree communities to assist and participate in the feasibility studies.

28.5.3 The feasibility studies shall involve consultation with individual Cree trappers or groups of trappers within each community.

28.5.4 The feasibility studies shall, if possible, be completed by July 1, 1976.

28.5.5 The feasibility studies respecting the Cree Trappers’ Association shall consider and contain recommendations respecting the following matters:

28.5.6 Subject to the results of the feasibility studies and in the event that a Cree Trappers’ Association is established, Canada, Québec and the Cree Regional Authority, in a proportion to be mutually agreed upon, shall assist the Association to the extent possible with funding with respect to its objects including:

The feasibility studies concluded that the Cree Trappers’ Association should be established. Consequently, by virtue of the Canada Corporations Act, the Cree Trappers’ Association was incorporated by Letters Patent dated March 10, 1978.

Under the said Letters Patent, the objects of the Cree Trappers’ Association are:

Canada, Quebec and the Cree Regional Authority, in a proportion mutually agreed upon, provided funding to the Cree Trappers’ Association with respect to its objects.

On February 5, 2008, Isaac Masty, President of the Cree Trappers’ Association and Thomas Coon, Vice-President of the Cree Trappers’ Association submitted a presentation to the Cree-Naskapi Commission at its Special Implementation Hearings.

In summary, Mr. Masty expressed the following concerns and issues respecting the Cree Trappers’ Association (CTA):

EVOLUTION OF THE IMPORTANCE AND ROLE OF THE CREE TRAPPERS' ASSOCIATION

In a manner similar to the roles of trappers’ associations of the 1970s, the Cree Trappers’ Association was originally conceived to primarily protect and promote trapping and its related activities as an economical activity for Cree trappers.

The Cree Trappers’ Association has been in operation for thirty (30) years since its incorporation.

Thirty (30) years ago, trapping was an important and essential activity in the economy and culture of Cree society.

However, the political, economic and social landscape of Eeyou Istchee has changed drastically over the past thirty (30) years mainly as a result of developmental activities in the North.²

Nevertheless, trapping is still an important source of income for Cree trappers. In addition, trapping continues to constitute an essential component of Cree culture and Cree life.

However, trapping and its related activities cannot be divorced from the existence, exercise and pursuit of the Cree traditional way of life.

As a principal component of Cree culture and society, the Cree traditional way of life is based on the following fundamental activities and principles:

In the Cree language, the term “Indoho-suu” is used to define and identify the Cree person who continues the exercise and pursuit of the Cree traditional way of life in a manner described above.

Consequently, the “Indoho-suu” is far more than a trapper or the occasional hunter. In addition, the term “Indoho-suu” is used to refer to the Cree Trappers’ Association as the CTA is seen as a body or group of “Indoho-suu” by the Cree people.³ The gatherings, meetings and assemblies of the CTA are attended by the “Indoho-suu” of Cree society. The programs and services of the CTA primarily assist and benefit the “Indoho-suu” of Cree society.

Consequently, in practice, the Cree Trappers’ Association is actually an organization which protects the rights and interests of the “Indoho-suu” and promotes the welfare of the “Indoho-suu” of Cree society. This is an essential role and a necessity for the maintenance and continuance of Cree culture and the Cree traditional way of life.

Furthermore, amongst other provisions, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) provides for the recognition, guarantees and protection of rights for the Cree to pursue the traditional way of life. Therefore, as one of its principal objects, the JBNQA was intended to maintain, strengthen and provide for the continuance of the Cree traditional way of life. To this end, the JBNQA provides for the following:

Consequently, the establishment and continuance of the Cree Trappers’ Association are a principal means of implementing the JBNQA to ensure the maintenance and continuance of the Cree traditional way of life.

The Cree of Eeyou Istchee still depend on their hunting territories, wildlife and natural resources which provide for their spiritual and physical well-being in the pursuit of their traditional way of life. “For many reasons, the continuing involvement of the Cree in hunting, and the social activities which accompany hunting, is seen as an important aspect of the continuing health of the Cree people.”⁴ Consequently, the Cree traditional way of life is as important and essential today as it was thirty years ago.

“The CTA considers that it has an essential role to play in supporting the values of the Cree hunters and their families and in maintaining their close ties to the land”⁵ – Eeyou Istchee which is essential and central to the ‘miyupimaatisiiwin’ – or holistic well-being of the individual, and forms the foundation of Cree governance, culture, identity, history, spirituality and traditional way of life.

Over the past years, the Cree Trappers’ Association, in representing the “Indoho-suu” of Cree society, actually assume a fundamental role and exercise an essential duty for the maintenance and continuance of Cree culture and the Cree traditional way of life.

According to Mr. Masty, the Cree Trappers Association has “been engaged in a long struggle to seek a clear recognition for the role that the Cree hunters wish it to play.”⁶ Furthermore, the President of the CTA states that the CTA “still maintains its core role in relation to commercial trapping and the marketing of furs, but this is really part of the story. The CTA is also struggling to provide a wide range of other services in support of the Cree hunting economy. I say ‘struggling’ because it lacks many of the resources that it needs to do this job effectively.”⁷

THE CREE TRAPPERS' ASSOCIATOIN AND THE NEW RELATIONSHIP AGREEMENTS

Under paragraph 28.5.6 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, Canada, Quebec and the Cree Regional Authority, in a proportion to be mutually agreed upon, assists the Cree Trappers’ Association to the extent possible with funding with respect to its objects. However, the parties focused this funding on support for the CTA’s activities relating to the commercial trapping industry. This limited view of the actual role of the CTA is detrimental in getting funds to support and assist the “Indoho-suu” of Cree society.

Consequently, the CTA finds itself “caught in an annual cycle of seeking and defending budget allocations which makes it very difficult... to plan in advance, and in particular to address problems which require work over a period of several years, if not longer. It is a situation which also makes it difficult to plan from season to season, and to respond to the needs expressed by our political leaders.”⁸

Therefore, the CTA believes that a thorough review of the financial basis for their operations should be conducted and this review should reflect an enlightened view of the mandate and role of the CTA in supporting and assisting the “Indoho-suu” of Cree society.

Under the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between le Gouvernement du Quebec and the Crees of Quebec, for the period of 50 years commencing from April 1, 2002, the Crees assume the obligations of Quebec, Hydro-Quebec and the James Bay Energy Corporation concerning Economic and Community Development under the provisions of the JBNQA.

The assumption by the Crees of these obligations is made in consideration of the funding commitments of Quebec under Chapter 7 of the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between le Gouvernement du Quebec and the Crees of Quebec.

Consequently, for a period of 50 years commencing on April 1, 2002, Quebec shall pay to the Crees or Recipient of Funding an annual amount so that the Crees may assume the obligations of Quebec, Hydro-Quebec and the James Bay Energy Corporation under certain provisions of the JBNQA including economic and community development.

Pursuant to Sections 6.2 and 6.3 of Chapter 6 of the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between le Gouvernement du Quebec and the Crees of Quebec, the Cree assume the funding obligations of Quebec for the Cree Trappers’ Association.

Furthermore, pursuant to Section 4.1 of Chapter 4 of the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee, for the twenty-year term of this Agreement, the Cree Regional Authority, and subsequently, the Cree Nation Government, shall assume the responsibilities of Canada to the Cree Nation and the Crees under the provisions of the JBNQA as set forth in Section 4.3 of this Agreement.

Under Section 4.3 of the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee, the Cree Regional Authority, and subsequently, the Cree Nation Government, assumes the federal share of capital costs, operations and maintenance (including insurance), and programs and services, as applicable, for the term of this Agreement respecting, amongst other items and provisions of the JBNQA, Sub-section 28.5 regarding the Cree Trappers’ Association.

However, the assumptions in relation to the provisions of the JBNQA regarding the Cree Trappers Association (CTA), Cree Outfitting and Tourism Association (COTA) and Cree Native Arts & Crafts Association (CNACA) are premised on continued annual funding from Canada to the said associations for the Term of this Agreement.

Consequently, the Cree Trappers’ Associations must obtain their funding from the Cree Regional Authority, and subsequently, the Cree Nation Government.

Chapter 7:
Recommendations of the
Cree-Naskapi Commission

After a review and analysis of the presentations, submissions and comments of the representatives of the Cree, Naskapi and federal authorities and a review of certain past reports of the Commission, the Cree-Naskapi Commission submits the following comments and recommendations:

Amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act

The representatives of the Cree and Naskapi local government have repeatedly and persistently suggested amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act and within a period exceeding twenty (20) years, the Commission has repeatedly responded with certain recommendations in its past reports for a full and comprehensive review of the Act with the objective of identifying and determining appropriate amendments to the Act for the advancement and benefit of Cree and Naskapi local government. Indeed, the Cree and Naskapi authorities have asked and wondered when Canada would act, in an appropriate manner, to these past recommendations of the Commission.

1. The Cree and Naskapi authorities and the representatives of the government of Canada should determine a meaningful process for the full and comprehensive review of the Cree- Naskapi (of Quebec) Act with the objective of identifying and determining appropriate amendments to the Act for the advancement and benefit of Cree and Naskapi local government.

2. Within an eighteen (18) month period, the Cree and Naskapi authorities and the representatives of the government of Canada should determine, as a priority, appropriate and suggested amendments to the particular sections of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act that have been most detrimental to decision-making and good Cree and Naskapi local government. (Some of these detriments which should be resolved as a priority are identified and discussed in the present report of the Commission.)

Local Band Elections

The Corbiere decision, provide for First Nations holding elections or referendums under the Indian Act to permit members, living off reserve, to vote. If the Corbiere decision, provide for Cree and Naskapi First Nations holding elections or referendums under the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act to permit beneficiaries, living off Category 1A and Category 1A-N lands, to vote, then the Commission submits the following recommendations:

3. The Cree and Naskapi local governments should review their respective by-laws respecting band elections to ensure compliance with the requirement resulting from the Corbiere decision.

4. The Cree and Naskapi authorities and the representatives of the government of Canada should determine funding arrangements for compliance with the requirement under the Corbiere decision.

Status of Road Corridor

The present status of the corridor of a distance of five hundred (500) feet on each side of the road along the community of Chisasibi constitutes a barrier for the expansion of the community of Chisasibi.

5. The local and regional Cree authorities and representatives of Canada and Quebec should review this situation and determine appropriate solutions that would permit the expansion of the community of Chisasibi.

Chisasibi Block D

With respect to the Chisasibi Block D, paragraph 5.5 of Chapter 5 of the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee states as follows:

“Canada agrees, in principle, to accept the transfer of the lands known as Block “D” in the community of Chisasibi, subject to certain issues related to the restoration of these lands. These issues are currently being addressed between the Cree Nation of Chisasibi, the GCC (EI), the CRA, Québec and Canada. The Parties agree that Canada shall not be responsible for any costs associated with the land transfer of Block “D”, save and except land survey costs.”

6. The “certain issues related to the restoration of these lands” should be resolved by the parties in an expedient and efficient manner so that the transfer of Block “D” can proceed in the manner contemplated and agreed upon by the Cree Nation of Chisasibi, the GCC (EI), the CRA, Québec and Canada.

Housing

Housing has always been an outstanding issue for the Cree and Naskapi communities. Some of the issues on housing concern the following:

7. The Cree and Naskapi authorities and the representatives of the government of Canada should review the present housing situation of the Cree and Naskapi communities and resolve the present and outstanding issues for housing in the communities.

Policing

Improvements on enforcement of local by-laws are required in some of the Cree communities.

8. The Cree authorities, Canada and Quebec should establish a table for discussions on ways and means for improvements on enforcement of law in the communities.

9. The Cree authorities, Canada and Quebec should discuss funding arrangements (in addition to the existing ones) such as enabling collection of fines by local authorities for local infractions of law and transferring these funds to the local governments for local policing operations.

Code of Ethics

According to the Council of the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi, the present terms and provisions of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act are insufficient and lacking on matters relating to ethics at Council meetings, conduct of elected officials and band elections.

10. The Cree and Naskapi local government adopt a by-law respecting the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct of Elected and Administrative Officials for their respective members and communities. (This recommendation is submitted to the Cree and Naskapi local governments that presently do not have such a by-law.)

WASHAW SIBI EEYOU

Chief Billy Katapatuk spoke on the past and present situation of the Washaw Sibi Eeyou concerning their relocation and its consequent impacts as beneficiaries of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and its related agreements. Because of their particular situation, the Washaw Sibi Eeyou are not presently receiving many of the important benefits of the agreements.

With respect to the Washaw Sibi Eeyou, paragraph 5.4 of Chapter 5 of the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee states as follows:

“The Cree beneficiaries of the JBNQA who have identified themselves as the Washaw Sibi Eeyou, some of whom are now residing in or around Pikogan, have expressed a desire to be recognized as a separate Cree band. The Parties agree that this matter is fully resolved as between them by the following. Immediately following the coming into force of this Agreement, the CRA undertakes to initiate exploratory discussions with the Washaw Sibi Eeyou in order to identify possible options for the Washaw Sibi Eeyou. The CRA, and subsequently the Cree Nation Government, is responsible for any costs associated with implementing an option agreed on by the CRA and the Washaw Sibi Eeyou. If the CRA and the Washaw Sibi Eeyou decide to proceed with negotiations regarding recognition of the Washaw Sibi Eeyou as a separate Cree band, Canada and Québec will be invited to participate, subject to Section of this Agreement.”

11. The Cree Regional Authority should immediately “initiate exploratory discussions with the Washaw Sibi Eeyou in order to identify possible options for the Washaw Sibi Eeyou” respecting the aspirations of the Washaw Sibi Eeyou to be recognized as a separate Cree band.

12. The Government of Canada should exercise its continuing duties and responsibilities for the development of Washaw Sibi Eeyou and incorporation of the Washaw Sibi Eeyou into the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

IMPORTANCE AND ROLE OF THE CREE TRAPPERS' ASSOCIATION

In practice, the Cree Trappers’ Association is an organization which protects the rights and interests of the “Indoho-suu” and promotes the welfare of the “Indoho-suu” of Cree society. This is an essential role and a necessity for the maintenance and continuance of Cree culture and the Cree traditional way of life.

Under paragraph 28.5.6 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, Canada, Quebec and the Cree Regional Authority, in a proportion to be mutually agreed upon, assists the Cree Trappers’ Association to the extent possible with funding with respect to its objects. However, the parties focused this funding on support for the CTA’s activities relating to the commercial trapping industry. This limited view of the actual role of the CTA is detrimental in getting sufficient funds to support and assist the “Indoho-suu” of Cree society.

13. The Government of Canada, the Government of Quebec and the Cree Regional Authority should review Sub-Section 28.5 (Cree Trappers’ Association) of Section 28 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement with the objective of amending the said Sub-Section, in a manner, that recognizes the Cree Trappers’ Association as an organization which protects the rights and interests of the “Indoho-suu” and promotes the welfare of the “Indoho-suu” of Cree society.

14. The Cree Regional Authority, and subsequently, the Cree Nation Government should provide the support necessary to enable the Cree Trappers’ Association in continuing to provide assistance and support for the “Indoho-suu” of Cree society.

15. Eeyou of Eeyou Istchee, in its Constitution, should recognize and affirm the importance, role and necessity of the Cree Trappers’ Association, or its successor, in the maintenance and continuance of the Cree traditional way of life and hence Cree culture.

Chapter 8:
Conclusions

In the early relationships with non-Cree governments, the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee were mostly administrators and managers, running programs and services designed by outside governments. So this relationship was mostly about administration than governments. In this case, the Crees, like other First Nations across Canada, took over and managed federal programs from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and other federal departments.

However, the Eeyou of Eeyou Istchee changed this pattern through the implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. The Cree (and the Naskapi) Nations seized more authority. The Cree also exercised their form of Nation governance through the Grand Council of the

Crees (Eeyou Istchee). The Cree and Naskapi Nations governed, asserting the rights and capacities not only to mange service and program delivery but to build their nations according to their designs, to make and enforce laws, to develop and pursue long-term strategies of community development, to negotiate new relationships with other governments, and to exercise meaningful jurisdiction over lands and people within their territories. In taking this journey, the Cree and Naskapi Nations have marked out a path from self-administration to self-government. This shift from self-administration to self-government is a fundamental aspect of nation-building as the Cree and Naskapi Nations have reclaimed governance as an aboriginal right and activity.

But Nation-building and hence self-government are continuous activities which must develop and sustain societies that work – economically, socially, culturally and politically.

In this regard, the assumption by the Cree Nation of greater responsibility for Cree economic and community development with increased autonomy, in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between le Gouvernement du Quebec and the Crees of Quebec and the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee, will enhance Cree governance and administration.

Furthermore, the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee contemplates the establishment of a Cree Nation Government through negotiations between Canada and the Crees and subsequent federal legislation. These are positive and promising measures for the advancement and exercise of Cree governance.

However, it is equally important for the Government of Canada and the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee to find expression in their new relationship by advancing and enhancing Cree (and Naskapi) local government through appropriate amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.