CREDITS

Cover Art

Jackson Beardy
(July 24, 1944 – December 7, 1984)

“Communication”
A male and female loon communicate with their young, giving spiritual direction.The brown wings are supporting the family, and the blue tail depicts the four directions — north, east, south and west.

Jackson Beardy, Ojibway Artist, was born at Garden Hill Reserve, Island Lake, Manitoba in 1944. He was sent to a residential school when he was six years old, but he returned to the reserve after high school. Jackson was honoured with several awards and major commissions throughout his life, but his major legacy is his enduring work, and the style that became known as Woodland Indian Art. Jackson documented and revitalized the traditional world views and legends of his and other Aboriginal cultures.

Used with permission.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many individuals, governments and organizations have contributed to the preparation of this report. Special Implementation Hearings were held on February 9, 10 and 11, 2016, in Montreal where Elders, Chiefs and youth representatives from the Cree and Naskapi communities provided much valuable input for this report.Written presentations were also submitted.The Commissioners wish to thank all those who contributed their vision, ideas and concerns.This report would not be possible without them.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada also made oral and written presentations responding to the recommendations in the previous report which were directed to Canada.We thank the Department for this input.

Finally, the Commissioners wish to thank Brian Shawana, our Director General and Sandra Masson, Executive Assistant for the excellent work that they do every day as well as for their very important support in the development of this report.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

• Chapter 1: Introduction and Background 10
• Chapter 2: Governance Issues 16
• Chapter 3: Eeyou Nation Local Government Elections 26
• Chapter 4: Canada’s Response to the 2014 Recommendations of the Cree-Naskapi Commission 38
• Chapter 5: Concerns and Issues of the Eeyou (Cree) Nation and Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach 50
• Chapter 6: Recommendations of the Cree-Naskapi Commission 76
• Chapter 7: Conclusions 94

Message from the Chair

In the two years since our 2014 report a number of significant changes have taken place. These changes reflect the progress in governance made by the Cree and the Naskapi as well as some challenges and opportunities in terms of the relationship with the federal government particularly the potential impacts of changes in policy direction. Currently the Cree Nation Government reports that progress is being made in negotiations with Canada on a number of governance issues.

Governance

The Cree Nation Government is evolving into a stronger and more innovative system of governance for the entire Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee. Many of the initiatives are quite different from First Nation governance approaches undertaken elsewhere and will entail new opportunities and new challenges. At the same time the viability of Cree local governments has continued to develop. How these established local governments interact with the Cree Nation Government as its role evolves will be important for the success of both.

One of the most notable changes has been the increased exercise and recognition by Quebec of Cree jurisdiction over Category II lands and the enhanced Cree role in directing the future development of Category III lands. These changes provide a unique opportunity for the Crees to more fully benefit from the resources of their territory while enhancing their control over what takes place in that territory. It also enables the Cree to protect their way of life in accordance with their own values and priorities. The extent to which this jurisdiction is exercised in the immediate future will be precedent-setting and will greatly impact the long term future of the Cree Nation.

It will be essential in the coming months for the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach to consider and pursue a course of action which reflects its own vision for the future governance of its territories.

While much of the enhancement of Cree governance has occured in the context of the Cree- Quebec relationship, the federal government should support the Crees in every way possible as they take full advantage of the changes which are now being put in place. This support could include altering legislation, policy, resourcing and program delivery when defined as a necessary part of the process by the Crees. As noted, the current Cree-Canada negotiations are promising in this regard.

Promised New Approach by the Federal Government

For its part, the newly elected federal government has signalled that it intends to approach the Canada/First Nations relationship differently both in tone and in substance. The extent to which the Cree and Naskapi leadership ensure that all of these changes fully benefit their nations in the coming months will be critical. After a few years in office many governments lose some of their enthusiasm for change. How much of this government’s promised change is implemented and consolidated in the first year or so of its mandate will have a very significant long term impact on the Cree and the Naskapi.

While the current government’s commitments to First Nations all need to be followed up, a few examples underscore the need for direction from the Cree and the Naskapi in order to ensure that they are implemented in ways that maximize the benefit to the communities.

First of all, the actual commitments have been spelled out on several occasions. Most notable is the address by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau to the Assembly of First Nations Special Chiefs’ Assembly on December 8, 2015 in Gatineau, Quebec. Also important is the Prime Minister’s “Mandate Letter” to the Minister of Indigenous Affairs and Northern Development.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s speech to the Chiefs includes both commitments on the government’s changed attitude and tone and also a number of substantive promises.

Insofar as attitude and tone are concerned, the key points spelled out in the speech include:

“It is time for a renewed, nation-to-nation relationship with First Nations Peoples. One that understands that the constitutionally guaranteed rights of First Nations in Canada are not an inconvenience but rather a sacred obligation. One that is based on recognition of rights, respect, co-operation and partnership. One that is guided by the spirit and intent of the original treaty relationship; one that respects inherent rights, treaties and jurisdictions; and one that respects the decisions of our courts.”

“This is a responsibility I take seriously, and I have instructed my government to do the same.”¹

These are all reasonable and welcome improvements in attitude and tone. What will be critical is the extent to which it changes the approach of officials in practice. We have seen again and again Ministers expressing laudable attitudes to the leadership only to have the same old adversarial approach used at the negotiation table and in day-to-day interaction by officials.

In terms of specific commitments on substantive action, key points in the Prime Minister’s letter include:

“Among her [Minister Bennett’s] top priorities will be the creation of a national public inquiry into missing and murdered Indigenous women and girls in Canada.”

“A second priority will be to make significant investments in First Nations education.”

“Third… our government will immediately – as part of our first budget – lift the two per cent cap on funding for First Nations programs.”

“Fourth… we will fully implement the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, starting with the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

“And fifth, we will conduct a full review of the legislation unilaterally imposed on Indigenous peoples by the previous government.”

“There are many other actions we will undertake, from partnering with First Nations as we review and monitor major resource development projects to providing significant new funding to help promote, preserve, and protect Indigenous languages and cultures.”

“Working together as partners, I am confident that we can make meaningful and immediate progress on the issues that matter most to your communities - things like education, housing, employment, health and mental health care, community safety, child welfare and stewardship over our land, water and air.”²

Promises made to First Nations are not new. Specific promises made by a Prime Minister at a Chiefs’ assembly are almost unprecedented. It will be essential to monitor closely the realities of implementation and to ensure that results actually happen before the government loses its enthusiasm or the political will to make the necessary expenditures.

Another important element in the government’s announced plan is the Prime Minister’s mandate letter to Minister Bennett. That letter reinforces the points made in Trudeau’s speech quoted above. It also includes several extra responsibilities:

“… to ensure that the Crown is fully executing its consultation and accommodation obligations, in accordance with its constitutional and international human rights obligations, including Aboriginal and Treaty rights.”

“… ensure that environmental assessment legislation is amended to enhance the consultation, engagement and participatory capacity of Indigenous groups in reviewing and monitoring major resource development projects.”

“… to improve essential physical infrastructure for Indigenous communities including improving housing outcomes for Indigenous Peoples.”³

The Need for Follow-up

As for the commitments in the Trudeau speech, it will be important to ensure that these assurances actually occur. Follow up will be crucial.

While most of the government’s announcements are of signifance to all First Nations including the Cree and the Naskapi, some are especially relevant and full advantage should be taken of the opportunities presented. An obvious example is housing. In this case the Cree and the Naskapi have emphasized the acute housing needs in presentations to the Cree-Naskapi Commission year after year. These concerns have formed the basis of Commission recommendations over and over again. Previous Ministers have not seriously addressed the issue. The current Minister is well aware of the issue as she was a member of the Standing Committee at which the Commissioners repeatedly emphasized housing needs. More importantly her mandate letter specifically identifies “…improving housing outcomes… ” as one of her priorities.

Housing is only one example of an area in which the Cree and Naskapi can take advantage of the current government’s undertakings to First Nations. There are numerous other examples including environmental assessment, consultation and accommodation, language protection, education etc. to mention only a few. The Cree Nation Government and the Naskapi Nation will undoubtedly be reviewing and following up on these various commitments particularly as they affect their communities.

1986–2016: An Overview of the Cree-Naskapi Commission

A complete review of the past thirty years of the evolution which has taken place, of the experience gained and the lessons learned, would be a useful exercise, but that is for another time. What follows is a brief overview of a few of the highlights.

Following the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) in 1975 and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement (NEQA) in 1977, negotiations began on legislation to replace the Indian Act insofar as it applied to the Cree and Naskapi Nations covered by the Agreements.The result was the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act of 1984.This Act provided for many aspects of local government, a new land regime for the territory, provisions for certain individual and collective rights and numerous other matters.The new legislation also created the Cree-Naskapi Commission.

The legislated mandate of the Commission includes two major responsibilities; the preparation every two years of a report on the implementation of the Act which is submitted to the Minister and tabled in Parliament, and the investigation of “any representation submitted to it relating to the implementation of this Act, including representations relating to the exercise or non-exercise of a power under this Act and the performance or non-performance of a duty under this Act.”⁴

In the early years the federal government largely ignored the biennial reports of the Commission and disputed the Commission’s jurisdiction to consider issues involving the Agreements. Both of these problems are no longer major obstacles. Beginning in 1998, the Commission started making presentations to the Standing Committee on Indigenous (Indian/Aboriginal) and Northern Affairs. Since then Canada has responded regularly to every recommendation in the biennial reports which concerns the federal government. Insofar as jurisdiction is concerned, Canada’s position is now similar to that of the Commission.

The Commission prepares its biennial reports after holding Special Implementation Hearings at which Elders, leaders and youth representatives from each community, the federal government and any other interested parties make their views known.The Commission then also considers the issues raised in representations since the previous report and other inputs before completing and submitting its report.

Sometime after the report is tabled in the House of Commons and the Senate, the Commission requests an opportunity to appear before the Standing Committee to make a presentation on the major issues raised.These presentations have significantly improved the effectiveness of the reporting process.

It is also worth noting that the Act requires that the biennial reports be prepared in Cree and Naskapi as well as English and French.These are the only documents required by law to be tabled in Parliament in an Aboriginal language and offer important symbolic recognition of the place of Cree and Naskapi in Canada.

Representations filed with the Commission on a routine basis are usually handled by holding a Pre-Hearing to consider oral and written evidence concerning the matter being raised. If the Commission determines, based upon this, and pursuant to the provisions of the Act, to investigate the matter, a formal Hearing is held, questions are put to the parties and further documentation is sought as needed. At the end of the process, a report on the investigation is prepared, including findings, recommendations and conclusions.This report is submitted to the parties to the representation, anyone against whom a negative finding has been made, the Minister, and the Cree Nation Government if affected.

When the Act was passed, some felt that the Commission’s ability to make only “recommendations” along with its lack of subpoena powers would render it ineffective. In the thirty years
since then, there has been only one example of failure to attend and/or produce evidence in which a subpoena would have been useful. More importantly, in almost all cases, the recommendations contained in the Investigation Reports have been followed voluntarily.

Apart from the two major activities contemplated in the Act, the Commission has a number of informal roles.These have included:

• observing local elections at the request of a band,
• informal mediation of disputes outside of the Commission’s official jurisdiction at the request of the parties,
• meetings with the Minister when possible concerning biennial reports,
• presentations to House of Commons and Senate Standing Committees,
• orientation sessions for new Chiefs and Councils on the role of the Commission, the provisions of the Act etc.,
• the production of discussion papers on relevant issues,
• the sharing of the Commission experience with other First Nation groups upon request,
• regular attendance at professional development conferences on Aboriginal law etc.,
• attendance at Cree, Naskapi assemblies, meetings etc.,
• briefings of leadership as appropriate,
• other relevant activities.

The ongoing developments in the area of Cree governance, along with changes which the Naskapi will consider, will inevitably mean that the role and mandate of the Cree-Naskapi Commission will need to be reviewed.While it is the Cree and Naskapi Nations who will determine what that future role and mandate will be, the Commission is ready to share our perspectives on what works and what could be improved based upon the lessons learned since 1986.
Some of the more obvious strengths of the current legislation include:

• the statutory requirement to report to Parliament creates an official, permanent and “on the public record” method for ideas and concerns of community members to be known to senior decision-makers in government, which could not easily be achieved otherwise,
• the statutory requirement to report to Parliament provides a real capacity to spotlight issues and have them taken seriously,
• the Standing Order referring the reports to parliamentary committees strengthens the spotlighting capacity,
• the statutory requirement to table the reports in Cree and Naskapi is an important precedent,
• there is room for both formal and informal dispute resolution,

• there is an important and essential balance between independence and accountability of the Commission as presently constituted,
• the Commission’s limited power to make only “recommendations” allows for less formal, less legalistic and more reconciliatory (and less costly) approaches to resolving disputes.

These are just a few of the considerations to be looked at as the Cree and the Naskapi consider future options in the evolution of governance.

end notes

1. Government of Canada website, Prime Minister’s page: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2015/12/08/prime-minister-justin- trudeau-delivers-speech-assembly-first-nations-special-chiefs
2. Government of Canada website, Prime Minister’s page: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-indigenous-and-northern-affairs- mandate-letter
3. op. cit.
4. Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, S.C.1984, ch. 18, sec. 165. (1) (b).

However, the Cree leadership, in the negotiations leading to the final agreement, which is the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, rejected the restrictive and supervised regime of local government imposed on the Cree bands by the Indian Act.
On November 11, 1975, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was signed by the Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), Northern Quebec Inuit Association, Government of Canada, Government of Quebec and certain crown corporations such as Hydro-Quebec.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in a decision rendered on May 14, 2010, states:

“The Agreement, which is both an Aboriginal rights agreement and an intergovernmental agreement, establishes a comprehensive and elaborate regime for the administration of the James Bay territory…This Agreement, which was clearly intended to have force of law, has supra-legislative status. It came into force and bound the parties only after both provincial and federal legislation approving and giving it effect was in force, and includes a clause which clearly indicates that, in the event of a conflict, the Agreement is to be paramount over other federal and provincial laws of general application. Both provincial and federal authorizing legislation confirm the Agreement’s paramountcy. The Agreement has also constitutional status as it qualifies as a modern treaty for the purposes of s. 35(3) of the Constitution Act, 1982.”¹

The Supreme Court clearly states that the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement has “constitutional status as it qualifies as a modern treaty for the purposes of s. 35(3) of the Constitution Act, 1982.”

The Northeastern Quebec Agreement was signed on January 31, 1978, by the Naskapis de Schefferville Band, Grand Council of the Crees (of Quebec), Northern Quebec Inuit Association, Government of Canada, Government of Quebec and certain crown corporations such as Hydro-Quebec.

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.”²

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

Consequently, pursuant to section 9 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and section 7 of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, the Cree and Naskapi First Nations and the Government of Canada discussed the terms and provisions of the special legislation concerning local government for the James Bay Crees and the Naskapis of Quebec.This special legislation – the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act – was enacted by Parliament and assented to on June 14, 1984.

The representatives of the Cree and Naskapi parties and the Government of Canada arrived at an understanding as to the implications and impact of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, in the Statement of Understanding of Principal Points Agreed to by the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act Implementation Working Group, August 9, 1984.This Statement of Understanding states
as follows:

“The Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act is the cornerstone of the achievement of the full potential of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and Northeastern Quebec Agreement. The new structures which were created by the Agreements were meant to interface with properly constituted local governments.The Cree- Naskapi (of Quebec) Act is also the basis upon which the relationship with the Federal Government will be redefined. By way of the new Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, the Cree and Naskapi will be able to go beyond the restrictions inherent in the Indian Act and thereby assume full control in the administration of their communities and management of Category IA and IA-N Lands.”³

Thus, the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act provides “for an orderly and efficient system of Cree and Naskapi local government, for the administration, management and control of Category 1A and Category 1A-N Land by the Cree and Naskapi bands respectively, and for the protection of certain individual and collective rights under the said Agreements.”⁴

Consequently, the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, 1984, is the first legislation in Canada to provide some recognition of Aboriginal self-government. It redefines the relationship between the Government of Canada and the Cree and Naskapi peoples.

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 of the Cree bands and Naskapi band respectively.

Bill C-28, An Act to Amend the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, was introduced in the House of Commons on April 27, 2009.The legislation aims to implement Canada’s undertakings under agreements seeking to resolve long-standing issues under the 1975 James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA). In particular, the legislation amends the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, in respect of Cree bands and Category IA land,

1. 1. to provide the Cree Regional Authority with additional responsibilities and powers, including bylaw making powers; and
   2. to recognize the Cree of Oujé-Bougoumou as a separate band and a local government under the Act.

In subsection 2.(1) of the amended Act,“Cree Regional Authority” means the Cree Regional Authority established by the Act respecting the Cree Regional Authority (Quebec).⁵

On June 13, 2013, the Government of Quebec enacted and adopted Bill 42 – An Act establishing the Eeyou Istchee James Bay Regional Government and introducing certain legislative amendments concerning the Cree Nation Government.

The Act respecting the Cree Regional Authority is amended by Bill 42 so that the Cree Regional Authority is known, as of January 1, 2014, as the Cree Nation Government. In addition, the title of the Act respecting the Cree Regional Authority is amended to become the Act respecting the Cree Nation Government.The Act is further amended by replacing “Cree Regional Authority” wherever it appears in the Act by “Cree Nation Government.”

Consequently, any references to the Cree Regional Authority in the amended Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act must be interpreted to mean the Cree Nation Government.

With the exception of Part XII (provisions respecting the establishment, duties and operations of the Cree-Naskapi Commission) of the Act, the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act came into force on July 3, 1984.

Part XII of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act respecting the establishment, duties and operations of the Cree-Naskapi Commission came into effect on December 1, 1984.

In addition, the setting aside of Category IA land for the benefit of the Cree Nation of Oujé-Bougoumou triggered the coming into force of the particular amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act which incorporated the Cree Nation of Oujé-Bougoumou into the Act.This historic milestone was reached on May 15, 2014.⁶

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”⁷ to the Minister who “shall cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament.”⁸

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 by 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.”⁹

The Commission conducted Special Implementation Hearings in order to prepare for its present report.These hearings, conducted in Montreal on February 9–11, 2016, and in Ottawa on May 13, 2016, 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 of the issues and concerns raised in these hearings.

The present report constitutes the fifteenth (15th) 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.

Chapter 2 of the present report gives a brief account of the increasing resumption of governance powers by First Nations across Canada, especially by the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee in recent times.

Chapter 3 of the present report describes, in a general manner, the issues, concerns, findings and recommendations from the investigations conducted by the Cree-Naskapi Commission on the representations submitted by persons concerning band elections or Eeyou Nation Local

Government Elections since its inception and pursuant to section 165. (1) (b) of the Cree- Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

Since its response to the 2002 Report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada 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.These responses of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada are useful as the responsibility of the Minster to report on the implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement expired in 1999. (Under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Settlement Act, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development had the responsibility, between the years 1978 and 1998, to submit to the House of Commons a report on the implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement.) 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 Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada to the recommendations of the Commission outlined in its 2014 report. In this manner, the Cree and Naskapi Nations are aware of the Department’s responses to their particular issues and concerns.

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 at the Special Implementation Hearings of the Commission.

Chapters 6 and 7 of the present report describe the recommendations and conclusions of the Commission respectively.The recommendations and conclusions of the Commission in the present report derive from its review and analysis of the issues and concerns raised at its Special Implementation Hearings and briefs submitted.

end notes

1. Quebec (Attorney General) v. Moses, 2010 SCC 17, [2010] 1 S.C.C. 557
2. James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement – 2006 Edition, les Publications du Quebec, Section 9 (Local Government over Category IA Lands), paragraph 9.0.1, p. 172
3. Statement of Understanding of Principal Points Agreed to by the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act Implementation Working Group, August 9, 1984, p.1
4. Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, S.C. 1984. c. 18, Preamble
5. Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, S.C. 1984. c. 18, Interpretation
6. Oujé-Bougoumou Cree Nation: Presentation to the Commissioners of the Cree-Naskapi Commission – Special Implementation Hearings – Montreal, February 9, 2016. Page 3
7. Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, S.C. 1984. C. 18, section 165 (1) (a)
8. Ibid, section 171 (1)
9. Ibid, section 21 (j)

same period, the Calder decision in 1970 forced the government to abandon its unilateral land claims policy and begin a process of negotiation of land rights and related issues.

With the evolution of negotiations to resolve land disputes and the formal withdrawal of the 1969 White Paper, one might assume that assimilationist and paternalistic attitudes would have disappeared. Regrettably, this has not been the case. The denial of rights in practice and the regular exclusion of Aboriginal peoples from Aboriginal policy-making continues to this day.

Intense lobbying by First Nations and other Aboriginal peoples convinced government to “recognize and affirm” existing Aboriginal and treaty rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Within a short time, at the insistence of the late Chief Billy Diamond, section 35 (3) was added, which explicitly stated “For greater certainty, in subsection (1) ‘treaty rights’ includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired.”⁴ These were the most positive legal developments in terms of the recognition and protection of Aboriginal and treaty rights since 1763.

In 1985, the Mulroney government announced its intention of including the right to selfgovernment in the Constitution5. While the government failed to achieve that, it nevertheless adopted the inherent right to self-government as a policy. Subsequent governments have confirmed this policy. However, policy is not law, is not enforceable and is subject to both interpretation and change at the discretion of the government of the day.

While the Cree-Naskapi Commission (and many others) believe that the inherent right to self-government is already an element of Aboriginal rights as guaranteed in the Constitution, the question has yet to be decided by the Supreme Court.

The issue has also been considered internationally. On September 13, 2007, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.⁶ This declaration included, in Article 3, the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination. After initially voting against the declaration, Canada finally announced on November 12, 2010 that it “supported” the declaration.

Given the legal and political developments that have occurred in the past thirty years, it’s safe to say that progress towards the resumption of self-government is irreversible.

Quite apart from the inherent right, many First Nations have negotiated the acceptance of specific governance powers by way of land claims settlements, self-governance agreements and other modern-day treaties. In cases where these agreements have section 35 protection, the powers negotiated have full constitutional status.

The Cree rights in their traditional territory have only been recognized by governments as a result judicial decisions.When Quebec launched its massive hydroelectric project in 1971 without any regard for Cree land rights, the Cree responded with a lawsuit which resulted

in Justice Malouf of the Quebec Superior Court granting an interim injunction to stop the project. Subsequent negotiations led to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.This approach of seeking judicial enforcement of the rights of First Nations was new at the time and became increasingly effective, especially after Aboriginal and treaty rights were recognized and affirmed in the Constitution Act, 1982. As the Supreme Court of Canada observed in its Sparrow decision of 1990:

“In the same general period, the James Bay development by Quebec Hydro was originally initiated without regard to the right of the Indians who lived there, even though these were expressly protected by a constitutional instrument; see the Quebec Boundary Extension Act, 1912, S.C. 1912, c. 45. It took a number of judicial decisions and notably the Calder case in this Court (1973) to prompt a reassessment of the position being taken by government.”⁷

In the case of the Cree of Eeyou Istchee and the Naskapi of Kawawachikamach, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement each enumerate certain defined self-government powers which have section 35 protection.These specifically listed powers must be seen alongside other inherent rights powers which are not mentioned. Finally, the Cree and Naskapi rejected the very limited self-governance under the Indian

Act, and negotiated the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, which also contains a list of many self- government powers. It is virtually certain that this Act, since it was explicitly required by the Agreements, can only be amended or repealed with the consent of the parties.Today, the Cree and the Naskapi are exercising an ever-increasing range of governance powers.The Crees are also in the process of negotiating certain additional governance-enhancing amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. Unfortunately, until recently, federal negotiators refused to deal with a range of governance issues because they limited themselves to their own unilaterally developed self-government policy. It now appears that Canada has accepted the Cree position on negotiations within the context of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement signed in 1975 and the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Crees of Eeyou Istchee signed in 2008 and not in accordance with Canada’s internally developed Self-Government Policy.This is a positive development.

Possible Areas for the Enhancement of Cree Self-Government

The Cree-Naskapi Commission, created by the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, has been in operation since 1986.This report is the fifteenth (15th) to be submitted to the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee, the Naskapi Nation, the Minister and Parliament. Each of these reports has contained numerous recommendations based upon submissions coming from the communities as well as from thirty years of individual representations. Over that period of time, many of the recommendations have addressed issues that are fundamental to governance. Also, the representations filed by individuals are frequently focused on governance issues.

Based upon that background, what follows is an outline of ideas which the Commission believes the Cree Nation may wish to consider as it contemplates the development of additional governance structures and processes.

1. Community-Based Member Visioning as a Basis for Change
2. Cree Legislative Oversight (Weesouweyhtahmoun) of Cree Regional Governance Bodies
3. Expansion of Cree “Own-Source Revenues”
4. Legislative and Constitutional Recognition of the Inherent Right to Self-Government of the Cree Nation and of Cree Traditional and Customary Law
5. Cree Constitutions
6. Internal Dispute Resolution Structures and Processes
7. Reduction in Ministerial Discretion to Intervene in Cree Governance
8. Review and Update a Basic Set of Cree Governance Bylaws
9. Orientation and Training Plan

What follows is a more detailed look at each of these ideas as well as some possible options for addressing them.

1. Community-Based Member Visioning as a Basis for Change

When making representations, the members of communities (adults, Elders, youth) frequently express views which suggest their vision of how the governance of their community could be improved.The Cree Nation has held a number of gatherings which provided ideas from the grassroots on a variety of matters. Cree governments are frequently engaged in processes of internal consultation.These are real examples of genuine public participation which other governments would do well to emulate.This process should become a formally-mandated regular part of governance.

2. Cree Legislative Oversight (Weesouweyhtahmoun) of Cree Regional Governance Bodies

As the Cree Nation increasingly resumes the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction and powers, consideration should be given to explicit recognition of the Cree Nation Government’s legislative authority (Weesouweyhtahmoun) over all major region-wide Cree governance functions and structures such as education, health, social services, economic development, etc. Cree entities such as the Cree School Board, the Cree Board of Health and Social Services, etc. could have operational independence but the Cree Nation Government would have the ultimate legislative oversight (Weysouweyhtahmoun) over all Cree governmental bodies that operate throughout Eeyou Istchee. A change such as this would of course require a Complementary Agreement under the JBNQA and an amendment to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

3. Expansion of Cree “Own-Source Revenues”

The concept of “own-source revenues” has often involved proposals that First Nations develop and use community-generated revenues to replace federal funding for certain programs and services.This has raised questions about the capacity of most communities to raise sufficient revenues to meet their program costs, not to mention the presently unmet expectation that programs and services should be equivalent to those available to all other Canadians. In relation to a number of specific services, the obligations contained in Treaties come into play. In the case of Treaty obligations, these cannot be eliminated or reduced, both because of constitutional guarantees and because the Treaty benefits which Canada receives under the Treaties far more than offset the compensatory Treaty entitlements of First Nations.

Insofar as programs and services unrelated to Treaty obligations are concerned, governments tend to regard these as based upon legislation or policy which can be changed based upon whatever political or fiscal considerations they choose to guide their decision-making at any particular time.

Frequently, when discussing the concept of “own-source revenue,” federal officials feel that any improvement in the economic capacity of a First Nation should result in a corresponding reduction in federal funding of programs and services. If this view were limited to such things as anti-poverty spending in lock-step with reductions in poverty, few would argue.When it is simply a way to reduce already inadequate funding or to preclude the achievement of equivalency with what all Canadians receive, it becomes unacceptable.

Having considered the issues involved, there are some obvious benefits to all concerned of having much greater “own-source revenues” available to First Nations. Any autonomous government needs to be as fiscally independent from other governments as possible. It is also important to be able to fund programs which are community priorities but which are seen as fully discretionary or not priorities at all by other governments. Finally, financial accountability to members, rather than to outside bodies, is enhanced. However, it is important to keep in mind that “own-source revenues” can never be allowed to excuse the federal or provincial governments from carrying out their responsibilities under the Constitution, the Agreements or to all citizens including First Nations.The only way to determine whether any “own-source revenue” arrangement can be used to reduce federal or provincial funding, is through free negotiation processes.

Much of the current discussion regards the difficulty with “own-source revenue” as being the limitations of current revenue-generating capacity of most First Nations.This approach fails to appreciate both the justice and the necessity of a much-expanded resource revenue-sharing model as the major potential core of “own-source revenues.”

Those Treaties that dealt with land issues were, for the most part, based upon negotiations and a common understanding that First Nations would share their lands and resources in exchange for specific benefits.The comparatively limited benefits were acceptable to the Chiefs and leaders of the time only because the agreement was to share and not surrender the lands and resources.

In the specific case of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the Cree view is that all that was provided to government was the actual lands used for the hydroelectric development project.The remaining lands which had sustained the Crees for thousands of years were to be shared. Some of the elements of that sharing are reflected in the creation of Category II and III lands within Cree traditional territories.The revenues derived from the exploitation of the lands and resources of these territories were intended to be shared fairly.The part of these revenues owing to the Cree under a fair, negotiated and agreed upon formula must be considered Cree “own-source revenues” and not some sort of transfer payment. Serious negotiations are needed – negotiations based upon the linkage between fair resource revenue sharing arrangements and the increased use of “own source revenues.”

4. Legislative Recognition of the Inherent Right to Self-Government of the Cree Nation and Traditional and Customary Law

After the failure of the constitutional processes started in 1983 and 1985 to secure the explicit recognition of the inherent right to self-government in the Constitution, the federal government took the position that the Aboriginal rights recognized and affirmed in section 35 included the inherent right. Canada subsequently adopted that position as a matter of federal policy. It is important to keep in mind that the inherent right is exactly that – inherent. It is not derived from Canadian law or policy.The most that any law or policy can do is to recognize it and require governments to respect it. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court has not yet been asked to rule upon this matter and that, in the meantime, federal policy may be changed virtually at the whim of government, it might be worth considering having the right, insofar as the Cree and Naskapi are concerned, constitutionally and legislatively recognized in future amendments to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the Northeastern Quebec Agreement and to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. Such amendments could also explicitly acknowledge the legal effectiveness of traditional law and custom including the “Indoh-hoh Weesouwehwin.”

5. Cree Constitutions

Not surprisingly, there are occasional challenges by community members to decisions of local governments, including bylaws, Band Council Resolutions and administrative decisions. It may be worthwhile to consider having “constitutions” or other fundamental laws with which bylaws, BCRs, etc. would have to conform in order to be valid. Such constitutions and fundamental laws should be made by the Crees themselves without federal or provincial input. A similar basic law applicable at the Cree Nation Government level could be beneficial. Many of the challenges arise from members’ views that the action challenged does not conform to “the Cree way of doing things.”Therefore, specific provisions might include such things as a procedure under which members could trigger a band meeting, a special election or a referendum, as well as the effect of decisions taken at such band meetings or by referendum, etc. A constitution based upon traditional and customary law, i.e.“the Cree way of doing things,” in its present-day application and approved by the people, could go a long way to eliminating this type of problem.The role of traditional law and custom, including Indoh-hoh Weesouwehwin could also be recognized in such constitutions.

6. Internal Dispute Resolution Structures and Processes

Self-government includes the notion that internal disputes within a nation ought to be resolved internally to the greatest extent possible. At the same time, most people consider that disputes involving an elected body should not be resolved by that body itself unless through a negotiated solution. At the present time, this often means that the dispute will, even in its early stages, be taken outside the nation to be settled by the courts. It is suggested that consideration be given to creating a Cree Nation Review Tribunal, Cree Court or similar body deriving its jurisdiction, powers and duties from the members of the nation through a constitution.This arrangement could be recognized externally by amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, which could also recognize its power to hear a dispute (and hopefully resolve it) before the issue can be taken to outside courts. Some of the experience of the Cree-Naskapi Commission may be useful in considering this approach.

7. Reduction in Ministerial Discretion to Intervene in Cree Governance

Self-government is compromised when outside authorities have the power to intervene in the governance of a nation.The current Act significantly reduced the powers which the Minister had under the Indian Act to veto bylaws and to intervene in other ways. However, a few of these powers remain in the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.The ability to intervene in the financial affairs of a band is perhaps the most significant in practical terms. Of virtually equal importance, a Band Elections Bylaw does not come into force until it has ministerial approval. At a more symbolic level, a change of name by a band is not valid unless approved by the Governor in Council.There are a number of other similar examples.These vestiges of old bureaucratic control need to be reviewed and, where possible, eliminated.With the nation gradually empowering the Cree Nation Government, now may be a good time to give consideration to having the CNG take over some or all of the “intervention powers” currently carried out by the Minister and/or the Governor in Council. Such an approach provides for both increased Cree control of Cree governance and a degree of arms-length independence from individual Chiefs and Councils.

8. Review and Update a Set of Basic Governance Bylaws

Most, but not all, communities have a set of basic governance bylaws.These typically include: an election bylaw, a conflict of interest bylaw, a code of ethics, etc. Some of these are adapted from other communities or from outside jurisdictions and simply are not consistent with “the Cree way of doing things.” In one memorable incident, the Commission asked a senior band official why certain provisions of the election bylaw had not been followed and got the reply,“That’s not the way we do things around here!” Clearly a bylaw needs to reflect how the community or the nation wants to govern itself and not a set of rules adapted from some other jurisdiction.The basic governance bylaws in each community need to be reviewed with a view to ensuring that the desired bylaws are in place and that they reflect the communities’ preferred way of running their own affairs.

A set of basic governance bylaws could include:

• an election bylaw
• a conflict of interest bylaw
• a code of ethics for elected and appointed officials
• a contracting policy bylaw
• a employment policy bylaw
• a financial management bylaw

These could be ordinary bylaws, or special bylaws requiring approval by the membership. In any case, such bylaws should be drafted or reviewed with members’ input and should reflect members’ preferences as to how their government ought to operate.

9. Orientation and Training Plan

There should be an orientation and training plan under which newly elected Chiefs and Councillors, as well as senior employees, would attend sessions to learn the details of their responsibilities, powers and duties, etc. In the experience of the Commission, we have had examples of officials accused of violating a bylaw saying honestly that they were entirely unaware that the bylaw existed.

In order to minimize duplication and promote consistency, it might be worthwhile to consider having this orientation and training process made the responsibility of the Cree Nation Government. Apart from its own staff, the CNG could call upon Elders and experienced officials from the community concerned as well as any outside agencies (e.g. Cree-Naskapi Commission) who could explain their own role.The Cree Nation Government should determine the specific training needed for properly functioning local government along with the budget implications and other resourcing needs.

end notes

1. RoyalProclamation of 1763, R.S.C. 1985, App. II. 1.
2. See especially, Morris, Alexander, The Treaties of Canada with the Indians, 1880, (Reprinted by Prospero, 2000,Toronto.) 3 Canada, Statement of the Government of Canada on Indian Policy 1969, Ottawa, Queen’s Printer, 1969, Ottawa.
3. Canada, Constitution Act, 1982, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No.44.
4. Canada, First Ministers Conference:The Rights of Aboriginal Peoples, (Notes for an Opening Statement by the Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney) April 2–3, 1985.
5. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 61/295 (Annex), UN GAOR, 61st Sess., Supp. No. 49,Vol. III, UN Doc. A/61/49 (2008) 15.
6. Supreme Court of Canada, R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 1075 [Sparrow]

With the exception of Part XII (provisions respecting the establishment, duties and operations of the Cree-Naskapi Commission) of the Act, the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act came into force on July 3, 1984.

Part XII of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act respecting the establishment, duties and operations of the Cree-Naskapi Commission came into effect on December 1, 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 to the Minister who “shall cause the report to be laid before each House of Parliament.”³

In addition, pursuant to section 165. (1) (b) of the Act, the Commission shall “except as provided by subsections (2) and (3), investigate any representation submitted to it relating to the implementation of this Act, including representations relating to the exercise or non-exercise of a power under this Act and the performance or non-performance of a duty under this Act.”⁴

Since its inception and pursuant to section 165. (1) (b) of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, the Commission has formally investigated and reported on eleven (11) representations submitted to it. Over half of these representations concern band elections or Eeyou Nation Local Government Elections. Furthermore, the Commission has prepared a discussion paper entitled “Local Government Elections and the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.”This discussion paper was revised by the Commission on September 9, 1999.These concerns and issues respecting band elections remain outstanding.

The present chapter reports, in a general manner, on the investigations done by the Commission on the representations concerning band elections and Eeyou Nation Local Government Elections.

Band Elections under the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act ⁵

Each elector of a band is entitled to vote in any election of council members held by that band. However, an elector who is appointed a Returning Officer or Assistant Returning Officer in respect of an election is not entitled to vote in that election.

Subject to the provisions of the Act, the band may make bylaws respecting the election and term of office of its council members.

A band election bylaw must include provision for:

1. the calling of elections and notices of elections;
2. the number of positions of council members;
3. the length of the term of office of council members;
4. the method of electing council members;
5. the basis on which one of the council members shall hold the office of chief;
6. the basis on which one of the council members shall hold the office of deputy chief;
7. nomination procedures;
8. election method and procedure; and
9. the recording and certification of election results.

A band election bylaw does not come into force until it has been approved by the band electors and the Minister of Indian Affairs in accordance with the provisions of the Act. (All the Eeyou local governments have enacted their respective band election bylaws which are currently in force and provide for matters, process and procedures for local government elections.)

The federal cabinet may make regulations respecting band elections. (On June 9, 1988, the Governor General in Council, on the recommendation of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, pursuant to section 67, subsection 78(3) and section 198 of the Cree- Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, made the Regulations respecting the election of council members for the Cree Bands and the Naskapi Band.) These regulations apply only if a band election bylaw is not in force.

Any elector of a band is eligible to be elected as council member unless he

1. has been convicted of violating a band election regulation under the Act;
2. has been appointed a Returning Officer, Deputy or Assistant Returning Officer;
3. is the band secretary or band treasurer;
4. is a judge or Crown prosecutor of a court of law;
5. is undergoing a term of imprisonment for an indictable offence; or
6. in the case of a Naskapi beneficiary, resides on the Matimekosh Reserve.

Apart from general band elections, an office of council member becomes vacant if

1. the election of the office-holder is declared invalid by a court of law pursuant to the Act;
2. the office-holder
   1. dies or resigns;
   2. is convicted of violating a band election regulation under the Act;
   3. is appointed band secretary or treasurer;
   4. is appointed a judge or Crown prosecutor;
   5. commences a term of imprisonment for an indictable offence, or
   6. is declared mentally incompetent;
3. the term of the office-holder expires;
4. in the case of a Naskapi beneficiary, the office-holder resides on the Matimekosh Reserve; or
5. the office is declared vacant pursuant to the Act.

A council member can be removed as a member of the council for unjustified absenteeism in the manner set out in the Act.

Each band must appoint a person who is not a council member of that band as Returning Officer and must fix his tenure and term of office.

The Returning Officer must appoint a Deputy Returning Officer and may appoint such Assistant Returning Officers as are necessary.

If the Returning Officer is absent or the office of Returning Officer is vacant, the Deputy Returning Officer has and may exercise all the powers and duties of the Returning Officer.

If the Returning Officer and the Deputy Returning Officer are both absent or if such offices are vacant, the band secretary has and may exercise all the powers and duties of the Returning Officer.

A person is not eligible to be appointed a Returning Officer, Deputy or Assistant Returning Officer if he

1. is not of the age of majority;
2. is undergoing a term of imprisonment for an indictable offence; or
3. has, at any time, been convicted of violating a band election regulation under the Act.

A Returning Officer, Deputy or Assistant Returning Officer ceases to hold office if he

1. is convicted of violating a band election regulation under the Act;
2. commences a term of imprisonment for an indictable offence; or
3. is declared mentally incompetent.

The term of office of every council member expires on the day that a general election is held.

The band may hold a general election at any time.

Any ten (10) electors may file a petition with the band secretary requesting a special band meeting be convened for the purpose of deciding whether a general election of the band should be held.

This petition should not be filed within one year after the previous general election or within one year after the filing of the most recent valid petition.

Within ten (10) days after the filing of a valid petition, the band secretary must call a special band meeting for the purpose of deciding whether a general election of the band should be held.The band must hold a general election, if at that special band meeting,

1. at least fifty percent of the band electors vote on the question;
2. the majority (consisting of at least one-third of the total number of band electors) of those voting vote in favour of holding a general election.

In the manner prescribed by the Act and for the purpose (i.e. no quorum) and circumstances (more or less than six months before the expiration of the term of office), a band shall hold an election or appoint by a general band meeting a council member forthwith after the expiration of the term of office of a council member or when a position of council member becomes vacant.

Any candidate for election as council member of a band or any fifteen (15) band electors may, within five (5) days of the day of any election held by that band, contest the election of any council member(s) by submitting a written notice to the band’s Returning Officer.

The election of a council member may be contested on the grounds that

1. a band election regulation was violated in respect to the election of that council member;
2. there was non-compliance with this Act, a band election bylaw or regulation made under this Act; or
3. the person elected was ineligible.

Within two (2) weeks of receiving a written notice contesting an election, the Returning Officer must prepare and submit a petition (as prescribed in the Act) to a judge of the Provincial Court or Superior Court of Quebec.

After hearing the petition, the judge may declare the election of one or more council members whose election has been contested invalid.

Representations and Findings Concerning Band Elections

Since its inception and pursuant to section 165. (1) (b) of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, the Commission has formally investigated and reported on six (6) representations concerning band elections or Eeyou Nation Local Government Elections.The individuals in making these representations expressed the following main issues and concerns respecting band elections:

1. The candidate elected as Chief did not have a clear majority of the votes cast.
2. The candidate elected as Chief was ineligible because the candidate was a senior administrative official of the band.
3. The contestation of an election was declined because the process prescribed by section 78.1 of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act was not respected.
4. Concerns and questions were raised about the legality and appropriateness of residency requirements under a certain band election bylaw.
5. A question was raised about the eligibility of a Cree resident who is not a member of the band in which the Cree resident was elected as a member of the Band Council.
6. Concerns and questions were raised about the denial of the right to vote for a person who is a status Indian under the Indian Act and is a member of a Cree band but is not a beneficiary of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.
7. Certain electors were denied their right to vote because they were advised by band officials that the “ten-year clause” of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement applied in their case. (Paragraph 3.2.7 of section 3 (Eligibility) of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) states as follows:

   “In the event a person mentioned in paragraphs 3.2.1 to 3.2.6 inclusive of this Sub-Section is absent from the Territory during ten continuous years and is domiciled outside the Territory, such person shall not be entitled to exercise his rights or receive benefits under the Agreement. Upon such person re-establishing his domicile in the Territory, the right of such person to exercise his rights or to receive benefits under the Agreement shall revive.”)

8. Polling stations for elections were not set up in the urban centres located outside of the Cree community. Subsequently, Cree electors residing outside of the Cree community could not vote.
9. Questions were raised about the possible legal ramifications that the Corbière decision of the Supreme Court of Canada may have in not allowing non-resident Crees to vote in local band elections. (In the Corbière decision, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the residency requirement of the Indian Act for band members to vote for council was unconstitutional because it discriminated against non-resident members by prohibiting them from participating in elections for band government.)

In the investigations of the issues and concerns raised by the representations, the Commission submitted the following main findings:

1. The Cree community must decide on the appropriate process for electing a Chief.
2. The understanding of electoral officers of band election bylaws is not consistent with the provisions of the pertinent sections of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act respecting band elections.
3. The electoral officials of the band are not adequately familiar with the provisions of band election bylaws and pertinent sections of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act respecting band elections.
4. Based upon the representations made to the Commission, there appears to be no training provided to band electoral officials on election information and procedures as prescribed by band election bylaws and pertinent sections of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.
5. Band election bylaws are not consistent with Eeyou/Eenou will, customary laws and practices.
6. Band officials and members of the Cree communities are confused by the present regulatory regime respecting band elections.
7. There is an essential need for a full and comprehensive review of the provisions of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act and band bylaws respecting band elections.
8. The procedure for contestation of elections as prescribed by section 78 of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act is not fully understood by electors and band officials.

9. Under the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, the process for contestation of election results is a judicial process which could be a long and expensive one. Cree electors and band electoral officials lack the financial resources to engage legal counsel, to assume travel expenses and to follow through the process.
10. Errors were made by Returning Officers. However, these Officers acted in good faith and the Commission found no evidence of wrongdoing.
11. The enactment of a band election bylaw which encompasses a residence requirement for candidacy as a member of the Band Council raises certain questions relating to the exercise by a Cree First Nation of its powers of self-government and protection of treaty rights of individual Cree beneficiaries under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.
12. A band election bylaw which encompasses a residence requirement for candidacy as a member of the Band Council should be reviewed in order to ensure:
    1. respect for the constitutionally-entrenched treaty rights of individual Cree beneficiaries of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and non-resident members of the Cree Nation; and
    2. compliance with the eligibility requirements of section 68 of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.
13. The issue of eligibility to vote raises questions concerning the preparation and updating of electoral lists and review of band election bylaws.
14. The process for transfer of individuals from one band to another is tedious and cumbersome. Clearly, there is a need for Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee to review the present process and determine a more efficient and effective process with the Cree Nation assuming more responsibilities for the determination and maintenance of band membership.
15. Electoral officials need to be properly informed on the rights of individuals to vote, particularly those individuals who are not beneficiaries of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement but are members of a Cree band.
16. The application of section 18 of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act – a special provision for Indians who are not beneficiaries of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement – creates a category of second class electors amongst the members of the Cree Nation. Indians who are considered as electors under this section can vote only on certain matters prescribed in this provision and cannot be eligible to be elected chief of a Cree band.
17. Clearly, there is a need for the federal and Cree parties to review the application and implications of section 18 of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act – a special provision for Indians who are not beneficiaries of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement – to ensure conformity and compatibility with the human rights of members of the Cree Nation and Eeyou/Eenou customary law.

18. In addition, there is a need for the federal and Cree parties to review the application and implications of paragraph 3.2.7 (respecting the ten-year clause) of section 3 (Eligibility) of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement in order to ensure respect for the constitutionally-entrenched treaty and human rights of members of the Cree Nation for matters respecting band elections.
19. Corbière et al versus the Queen and the Batchewana band was argued exclusively as an “Indian Act” issue. Consequently, the ruling impacts band elections under the Indian Act that are not governed by band custom laws. 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 Nations, nor does the Indian Act apply on or in respect of Category IA or IA-N land. Consequently, the Corbière decision of the Supreme Court of Canada does not apply to the Cree and Naskapi Nations of Quebec and band elections under the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.
    
    However, it is likely that a Court would make a similar finding if a non-resident member of a Cree (or Naskapi) Nation brought a similar claim on the denial of the right to vote due to residency outside of Category IA or IA-N lands. (Corbière was a Charter case brought under the equality provision (s.15) of the Canadian Charter.)
20. Consequently, band election bylaws should be reviewed so that appropriate measures are provided to ensure that non-resident electors can exercise their right to vote in elections for local band government.

Recommendations of the Commission Respecting Band Elections

In its investigations of the representations submitted to it, the Commission submitted the following main recommendations on band elections, which remain presently pertinent, and in some cases summarized and updated the recommendations of the Commission in its 2000 report:

1. The band election bylaws should be reviewed by the members and local governments of the Eeyou communities to ensure compliance and/or conformity with the following:
   1. will, needs and aspirations of the people;
   2. customary law and practices of Eeyou;
   3. Eeyou principles and values;
   4. requirements of Part II - Band Elections – of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act;
   5. current state of Aboriginal law;
   6. human rights of individuals; and
   7. treaty rights of individual Cree beneficiaries of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

In particular, the criteria in the present band election bylaws for eligibility of electors to vote and eligibility to be elected and to serve as council members should be reviewed for the purposes specified herein.

2. The band election bylaws should be reviewed by the members and local governments of the Eeyou communities to ensure that these bylaws meet emerging needs and changing circumstances respecting band elections.
3. For all matters relating to band elections, section 9 (Local Government over Category IA Lands) of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and Part II - Band Elections – of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act should be reviewed by the Government of Canada and Cree Nation Government for the following purposes:
   1. recognition of Eeyou customary law and practices;
   2. provide for needs and aspirations of Cree individuals and communities; and
   3. conformity with the human and treaty rights of individuals.
4. The Cree Regional Authority (now the Cree Nation Government) and the Eeyou local governments, in collaboration with the Cree School Board, should develop a training program for all local electoral officials to promote awareness and education on all legislative and administrative matters pertaining to band elections.
5. The Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada should negotiate with the Cree and Naskapi an Electoral Process Funding Agreement, which would provide a process and funds for:
   1. the review and revision of relevant provisions of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement;
   2. the development and revision of community-specific Election Bylaws, as well as pre- election information workshops;

6. 3. legal advice to bands, and (independently) to Returning Officers;
   4. access to the process for election result contestation;
   5. ongoing training for electoral officers; and
   6. the establishment, administration and maintenance of a local process for the updating of the community beneficiary and elector lists.
7. New funding sources and arrangements should be determined by the Government of Canada and the Cree Nation Government for the process respecting the contestation of election results contemplated by Section 78 of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. In particular, funding resources should be made available for individuals contesting election results, public officials and elected officials so that they may have access to the appropriate authorities for the administration of justice.
8. Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee should review the present tedious process respecting the transfer of individuals from one band to another and determine a more efficient and effective process with the Cree Nation assuming more responsibilities for the determination and maintenance of band membership.
9. The Government of Canada and the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)/ Cree Nation Government should review the application and implications of section 18 of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act – a special provision for Indians who are not beneficiaries of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement to ensure conformity and compatibility with the human rights of members of the Cree Nation and Eeyou/ Eenou customary law.
10. The Government of Canada and the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)/ Cree Nation Government should review the application and implications of paragraph 3.2.7 (respecting the ten-year clause) of section 3 (Eligibility) of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement in order to ensure respect for the constitutionally entrenched treaty and human rights of members of the Cree Nation for matters respecting band elections.
11. The Government of Canada should initiate discussions with the Cree Nation Government on the question of whether the Corbière decision of the Supreme Court applies or does not apply to the Cree bands. If the Corbière decision applies to the Cree Bands, then Canada and the Crees must discuss any subsequent amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act and its proper and effective implementation.

end notes

1. James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement – 2006 Edition, les Publications du Quebec, Section 9 (Local Government over Category IA Lands), paragraph 9.0.1, p. 172
2. Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, S.C. 1984. c. 18, section 165. (1) (a)
3. Ibid., section 171. (1)
4. Ibid., section 165. (1) (b)
5. Ibid., Part II – Band Elections – section 63–78

Canada’s Response (2016)

In 2008, Canada and the Cree signed the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee. This Agreement settled past grievances and established a new footing for relations between them. It also called for subsequent negotiations towards a Cree Nation Governance Agreement, building on the current Cree governanve regime established pursuant to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

The Cree and Canada agree on many aspects of the draft Cree Nation Governance Agreement in Principle. While some issues remain to be resolved, discussions are progressing very well.

Discussions are ongoing. Canada remains hopeful that an agreement that meets the interests of all parties if possible.

Commission Comment

This process has taken an undue amount of time. Being “hopeful” is good but achieving “meaningful and immediate progress”, as the Prime Minister has called it, implies the need for timeliness in getting beyond obstacles and success in securing agreements. The Cree Nation Government reports that negotiations are currently making progress. The Commission looks forward to a positive outcome.

RECOMMENDATION 2 (2014)

This recommendation was addressed to the Cree Nation Government and no response from Canada was required.

RECOMMENDATION 3 (2014)

The Government of Canada should fulfill its funding obligations to the Cree so that the Cree Nation Government may assume the responsibilities of Canada for certain matters (described herein) under the JBNQA to the James Bay Cree in a manner acceptable to the Cree Nation Government and compatible with the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee.

Canada’s Response (2016)

Canada will continue to fulfill its funding obligations pursuant to the JBNQA and the New Relationship Agreement in accordance with the negotiated terms and conditions within the funding agreements. As you know, in 2012 Canada renewed the Operations and Maintenance Grant Agreement, the Capital Grant Agreement for five years in accordance with the federal Policy on Transfer Payments. Furthermore, Canada was able to secure a five year grant agreement for the CTA, COTA and CNACA that will greatly reduce the administrative burden of the Associations and the Cree Regional Authority.

We disagree with the last sentence of the second paragraph. In fact Canada had submitted a 15 year draft proposal that would have been in compliance with Canada’s treaty obligations and would not have decreased funding for Operations and Maintenance, Capital projects and the Cree Associations in any way. In the end, the Cree Regional Authority opted to renew the agreements on a 5 year basis only, instead of the 15 year basis that Canada was offering.

Finally, the GCC and ESDC are making progress on the renewal of a funding agreement for training and Cree human resources development.

Commission Comment

Currently progress is being reported in this area. The Commission will continue to monitor this issue.

RECOMMENDATION 4 (2014)

The Government of Canada should provide its representatives with a suitable and appropriate mandate in the current Cree-Canada governance negotiations for a full and thorough review and revision of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act to provide for, as originally intended,“an orderly and efficient system of Cree and Naskapi local government, for the administration, management and control of Category IA and Category IA-N by the Cree and Naskapi Bands respectively....” (Preamble to the Act)

Canada’s Response (2016)

The mandate for the Cree-Canada governance negotiations was agreed to by both Canada and the Cree in the 2008 New Relationship Agreement. It established a separate process

to negotiate a Governance Agreement, Governance legislation and possible amendments to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act (CNQA) concerning a Cree Nation Government with powers and authorities beyond the scope of the CNQA.

The Naskapi are not part of the Governance table. As well, one of the proposed amendments concerns the Inuit of Chisasibi whose approval will be required to amend those paragraphs that apply to them.

Canada is of the opinion that it can address the concerns of the Cree and the Naskapi leadership regarding amendments they wish to make to the CNQA at the Cree-Naskapi Canada working group that was established in 2009. The working group has been making progress on the proposed amendments. The amendments will include adjustments to some of the quorums in the CNQA, a long term concern of the Naskapi as they have been a hindrance to the decision-making progress of local Band Councils. For example, current by- laws that require quorums for long-term borrowing, zoning, hunting, fishing, trapping and wildlife protection, as well as land cession could be reduced or eliminated. It is expected that the working group will meet in early 2016 with a goal of finalizing the list of amendments. The main issues remaining to be worked out are ticketing, land cession and Cree pensions.

Once the list of amendments is approved by the working group, Canada’s goal will be to seek authority to draft legislation to amend the CNQA in the 2016-2017 fiscal year.

Commission Comment

The Commission looks forward to hearing of agreement on specifics on this issue.

RECOMMENDATION 5 (2014)

The Government of Canada, the Cree Nation Government and the Naskapi Nation should forthwith establish a table of negotiations for the full and thorough review and revision of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act for the reasons and purposes described herein.

Canada’s Response (2016)

A working group has been established with Canada, the Naskapi and the Cree to make further amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act (CNQA). The working group has conducted a thorough review of the CNQA and has prepared a joint list of proposed amendments.

The working group has taken into consideration the recommendations that the Cree-Naskapi Commission proposed in past reports, from 1991 to 2012 as listed in Chapter 6 of the 2014 report, and compared them with the current list of proposed amendments. For example, the parties have examined amending the CNQA to reduce or eliminate some of the quorums currently required for the approval of by-laws at the community level under the CNQA.

Canada has analysed the feasibility of these proposed amendments and further discussions are required within the working group before Canada can seek authority to amend the CNQA. Ticketing, land cession, and Cree pensions are the remaining issues to be finalized.

Commission Comment

The Commission is pleased to learn of the progress being made and looks forward to the finalization of amendments addressing the community concerns that have been expressed at our hearings over a number of years.

RECOMMENDATION 6 (2014)

The Government of Canada and the Cree Nation Government, first, should review and determine the present and future housing needs of the Cree communities and secondly discuss the Housing Action Plan of the Cree Nation Government to effectively address these housing needs and situation in the Cree communities of Eeyou Istchee.

Canada’s Response (2016)

The Assembly of First Nations of Quebec-Labrador officially presented, in August 2014, their report on housing needs. This report, initiated in 2000 and updated in 2006 and 2014, captures and updates the needs of all Quebec First Nations including the Cree and Naskapi Nations. The data collected originates from each individual First Nation through a rigorous process and phone interviews. The 2014 report also includes strategic information as to how housing needs could be addressed through continued support and involvement from all stakeholders. As you know, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada allocates funding for housing to the Cree and Naskapi through their respective Capital Grant Agreements. This Department

does not cover the full cost of housing in First Nations as housing is a shared responsibility. In addition to government funding, First Nations and their residents are expected to secure funding from other sources for their housing needs, including shelter charges and increased access to private sector financing.

A summary of the report was presented to the Standing Senate Committee in November of 2015 as well as to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s Senior management in February of 2015. Another meeting is to be scheduled in the beginning of 2016 between the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec-Labrador and Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada to explore ways in which to address Quebec First Nations housing needs.

Commission Comment

On November 3, 2005 the Cree Housing Proposal was presented to the Government of Canada. In 2016, we are now being told that:“a meeting is to be scheduled in the beginning of 2016... to explore ways in which to address Quebec First Nation housing needs.”This comes just two months afer Prime Minister Trudeau addressed a special Chiefs Assembly in Gatineau on December 8, 2015. Among other things, the Prime Minister said:“... I am confident that we can make meaningful and immediate progress on the issues that matter most to your communities – things like education, housing....”1 The Prime Minister said the same thing in his mandate letter to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs.2 Yet more than a decade after the Cree put forward a comprehensive housing proposal, we are still scheduling meetings,“to explore ways in which to address Quebec First Nations housing needs.” It is no surprise that we encounter incredulity, frustration and anger from community representatives appearing at Commission hearings to repeat their concerns about the housing crisis year after year.

RECOMMENDATION 7 (2014)

The government of Canada should take immediate and sustained action to increase funding to Section 95 housing to address the current housing shortage in Kawawachikamach.

Canada’s Response (2016)

Through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Canada allocates an estimated $292 million annually to support the housing needs of First Nations across the country.

This funding supports the construction of new social housing, the renovation of existing homes, ongoing subsidies for existing social housing and capacity building to assist First Nations in managing their housing portfolio.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s On-reserve Non-Profit Housing Program (Section 95) assists First Nations in the construction, purchase and rehabilitation and administration of suitable, adequate and affordable rental housing on-reserve. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation provides First Nations access to financing and a subsidy to assist with the operation of housing projects over a period of 15 to 25 years.

The number of units that can be delivered under the program each year is determined primarily by the current and forecasted interest rates, as well as construction costs (labour, material and transportation costs) and the level of equity contributed by First Nations.

From fiscal years 2010-2011 to 2014-2015 through Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s Section 95 housing program, the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach have delivered 11 units.We would like to note that of the 11 units, two were delivered in 2014-2015 but these were not referenced in the Cree-Naskapi Commission’s 2014 report.

Commission Comment

Canada’s response describes briefly the general First Nations housing programs of the Canada Mortgage Housing Corporation as well as of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada. In the current context of the federal priority on Indigenous needs as well as the Prime Minister’s commitment to “meaningful and immediate progress”3 on First Nations housing, it is time to seek approvals and resources to directly address the increasing housing shortfalls of the Cree and Naskapi Nations.

Insofar as the Commission’s not having referenced in its 2014 report units delivered in 2014-2015, since the report was prepared in the first few months of 2014, it would have been somewhat difficult to consider two units delivered later in 2014 or 2015.

RECOMMENDATION 8 (2014)

The Cree Nation Government, Cree Local Governments and the Government of Canada should forthwith finalize discussions and negotiations on a Complementary Agreement to the JBNQA to incorporate therein the final territorial descriptions of the Cree Category IA lands. These discussions should take into account a revised land selection for the Cree Bands of Waskaganish,Waswanipi and Nemaska due to the abandonment of the N.B.R. Complex. The Government of Quebec should be a party in these discussions.

Canada’s Response (2016)

Discussions between Canada and the Cree are ongoing and we have been able to make progress in certain communities. However, there remains the obstacle of the threshold for Category IA land cessions which is 65% of members who vote in favour of the land cession. According to the Cree communities, it is extremely difficult to attain the 65% threshold and thus amendments to the CNQA are needed to address this issue. Implementation Branch is currently working on an amendment that would reduce the vote threshold from 65% to 50% plus one.

In Waswanipi, the community has accepted the federal approach and discussions are ongoing. However, in other Cree communities the issue of threshold is problematic, and could be even more problematic if it is reduced to 50% plus one.

Commission Comment

If there has been agreement in only one community so far, why is Implementation Branch working on an amendment to the Act?

RECOMMENDATION 9 (2014)

The Commission recommends that the discussions contemplated in recommendation 1 take into account the elimination of the corridors of two hundred (200) feet and five hundred (500) feet described in subsection 5.1.5 of Section 5 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

Canada’s Response (2016)

Canada is fully commited to the implementation of subsection 5.1.5 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Discussions between Quebec and the Crees are ongoing and we are supportive of this land description modification.

Commission Comment

Canada’s support is helpful and will facilitate the necessary changes.

RECOMMENDATION 10 (2014)

The Cree Nation Government, Government of Canada and Government of Quebec should establish a working group to produce an interpretation document on the clarification, interpretation and application of the terms and provisions of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

Canada’s Response (2016)

Canada is aware that the Cree-Naskapi Commission has made a similar recommendation in previous reports. However, Canada is of the opinion that several documents already prepared by the Cree-Naskapi Commission adequately explain the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

However, Canada is willing to participate in a working group if the Cree Nation Government indicates that it too is interested in producing an interpretive document as recommended by the Cree-Naskapi Commission.

The Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act is federal statute applying to Category I lands. Therefore, if a working group is established, the participation of the Government of Quebec will not be required.

Commission Comment

The Commission will be interested to hear of developments in this area.

RECOMMENDATIONS 11, 12, 13, 14 AND 15 (2014)

These recommendations were addressed to the Cree Nation Government and the Cree local governments and require no response from Canada.

RECOMMENDATION 16 (2014)

The Government of Canada should fulfill its obligations and responsibilities and settle the rights and claims of the Cree Nation of Mistissini to their traditional and historical territories (Mistissini hunting territories) located east of the height of land (southeastern border of the JBNQA Territory) through negotiations in good faith.

Canada’s Response (2016)

The territory claimed by the Cree Nation of Mistissini is situated outside of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement boundaries and all rights, claims, titles and interests outside of those boundaries have been extinguished since the coming into force of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement through the ratification of the 1977 James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Settlement Act. We thus encourage all First Nations parties to discuss amongst each other to find mutually acceptable solutions.

Commission Comment

The James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Settlement Act in section 3. (3) explicitly extinguishes claims, rights, title and interests “in and to the territory” other than rights under the Agreement. It does not extinguish claims, rights, title and interest outside the territory. If necessary the provisions of this Act may need to be enforced by the courts.

RECOMMENDATION 17 (2014)

The Government of Canada and Government of Quebec should forthwith proceed with the finalization of Phase 1 and 2 of the transfer of Block D to the Cree Nation of Chisasibi.

Canada’s Response (2016)

INAC is pleased to report that the federal Order in Council transferring the administration, management and control of lots 10 282 and 10 283 known as Phase 1 of the “Block D” lands, was signed on December 12, 2014.

Pursuant to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, an order by the Governor in Council is required to set aside the two lots as Chisasibi Category I lands enabling Chisasibi to exercise full use and benefit of the lands. Through the Phase 1 land transfer to Chisasibi, Canada is fulfilling in part its obligations under section 5.5 of the Canada-Cree New Relationship Agreement (2008) where Canada agreed, in principle, to transfer the “Block D” lands to Chisasibi, subject to environmental remediation of the lands.

The Phase 1 lands, of approximately 443.01 hectares, represents the larger part of the “Block D”. There were no major environmental concerns on this area for Chisasibi’s intended use of “Block D” lands, the residential and recreational usage and the continuation of its activities relate (sic) to the airstrip.

The remaining Phase 2 lands is a small area of approximately 27.81 hectares that has been used as a fuel park and requires remediation by Hydro-Quebec. Discussions on the Phase 2 lands remediation are ongoing between the Cree Nation of Chisasibi, the Cree Nation Government, Quebec and Canada to address this issue and finalize the “Block D” land transfer.

Commission Comment

The Commission is glad to learn that after many years of effort, most of the lands in question have been transferred. We look forward to hearing that the 27.81 hectares have also been environmentally remediated and transferred.

RECOMMENDATION 18 (2014)

The Government of Canada, Cree Nation Government and the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach should determine an effective process or mechanism to ensure proper and effecient follow-up and implementation of the recommendations of the Cree-Naskapi Commission.

Canada’s Response (2016)

In 2008, the New Relationship Agreement established the Cree-Canada Standing Liaison Committee.This Committee is made up of representatives of Canada, the Cree Regional Authority and the Cree Nation Government. In addition to the Cree-Canada Standing Liaison Committee, there is the Cree-Canada Operational Table. The objective of the Table is to act as a forum between the Cree Nations and Canada to strive for mutually acceptable solutions to any matters brought forward in relation to the interpretation or implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA). In the past five years, the Table has proven to be a very productive forum for discussions and for finding viable solutions.

It is thus recommended that the Cree communities bring their issues to the Cree Nation Government so that they can be discussed at the Operational Table. As for the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach, Canada offers various venues for representatives to bring forward their issues and/or questions, such as the Naskapi Operational Table. Over the past year, Canada and the representatives of the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach have been in negotiations around the Budgetary Rules and renewal of funding agreements. This has proven to be a good forum for discussions on various issues and questions relating to the implementation of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement.

As appropriate, meetings with the Cree-Naskapi Commission can be called to have more in-depth discussions.

Commission Comment

The Commission will monitor progress in this area and remains available to the parties as required.

RECOMMENDATION 19 (2014)

This recommendation is directed to the Cree Nation Government and the Cree Nation Youth Council and requires no response from Canada.

RECOMMENDATION 20 (2014)

The Government of Canada and the Cree Nation Government should conduct negotiations and discussions to address the needs of the Eeyou youth for programs and services, with adequate funding, in the Eeyou communities.

Canada’s Response (2016)

Canada provides funding to the Cree Nation Government for youth programming and services through the Operations and Maintenance Agreement and the Capital Agreement.

Part of the funding for the signing of the New Relationship Agreement in 2008 is for youth- related services. Canada also provides program funding for youth within Cree communities. For example, Health Canada and INAC provide program funding aimed at youth by way of the Brighter Futures and the New Paths for Education programs. Canada is open to dialogue with the GCC/CNG to ensure the effectiveness of funding and programs for youth within Eeyou communities.

Commission Comment

Youth representatives making presentations at the Commission’s Special Implementation Hearings have acknowleged much of what is being done. They continue to stress the need for more resources. Clearly further work on this is required.

end notes

1. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Speech to Special Chiefs Assembly, Gatineau, Quebec, December 8, 2015. The text of this speech is on the Government of Canada’s website, Prime Minister’s page at; http://pm.gc.ca/eng/news/2015/12/08/ prime-minister-justin-trudeau-delivers-speech-assembly-first-nations-special-chiefs.
2. Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Mandate Letter.The text of this letter can also be found on the Government of Canada’s website, Prime Minister’s page, at: http://pm.gc.ca/eng/minister-indigenous-and-northern-affairs-mandate-letter.
3. op.cit, p. 6.

In June 2014, the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) and Cree Nation Government reported to the Commission that these governance negotiations with Canada had reached an impasse, due in large part to Canada’s insistence on the application of its Self-Government Policy.²

In September 2014, the Cree leadership took the measures necessary in order to protect Cree rights vis-à-vis Canada regarding the implementation of the Federal New Relationship Agreement, and in particular, the negotiation of a Governance Agreement with Canada.

After high level correspondence and subsequent discussions with senior federal representatives, a small group of Cree and federal representatives was formed to pursue “accelerated discussions to resolve outstanding issues with a view to finalizing a Governance Agreement in a short timeframe.

Since December 2014, this small group of Cree and federal representatives has held a number of meetings to address key issues and to explore concrete and mutually acceptable solutions. These small group discussions have been constructive, and there are now indications of a positive outcome.”³

1.2 Cree-Quebec Governance

On July 24, 2012, Eeyou of Eeyou Istchee and the Government of Quebec signed the Agreement on Governance in the Eeyou Istchee James Bay Territory between the Crees of Eeyou Istchee and the Gouvernement du Quebec.

“The Governance Agreement expressly preserves Cree rights under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the Paix des Braves and other agreements, including with respect to Category III lands. In addition to expanding Cree governance on Category II lands through the Cree Nation Government, the Governance Agreement provides, for the first time, for Cree participation in the governance of Category III lands through the Eeyou Istchee James Bay Regional Government. This is a significant gain in Cree governance on Category III lands.”⁴

Under the Governance Agreement, the Cree Nation Government is vested with new powers and functions on Category II lands with respect to land use planning, land and resource planning and management, economic and regional development and municipal management.

Consequently, the Act respecting the Cree Regional Authority is amended so that the Cree Regional Authority will be known, as of January 1, 2014, as the Cree Nation Government. Certain powers with respect to Category II lands are assigned to the Cree Nation Government.

The Cree Nation Government is proceeding with the exercise of these new powers and functions on Category II lands.

On June 13, 2013, the Assemblée nationale enacted and adopted Bill 42 – An Act establishing the Eeyou Istchee James Bay Regional Government and introducing certain legislative amendments concerning the Cree Nation Government.

Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come of the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee), in his statement to the Committee on Planning and the Public Domain of the National Assembly of Quebec on Bill 42, stated:

“Bill 42 is the legislation that will implement the Agreement on Governance in the Eeyou Istchee James Bay Territory. Bill 42 is therefore legislation of fundamental importance, for it will define a new partnership in governance between the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee, our neighbours, the Jamésiens, the Gouvernement du Québec and all Québeckers.” ⁵

This bill establishes the Eeyou Istchee James Bay Regional Government in the stead of the Municipalité de Baie-James, as of January 1, 2014. It provides that the Eeyou Istchee James Bay Regional Government is a municipal body governed by the Cities and Towns Act, subject to the special provisions it sets out, and that the Regional Government has jurisdiction over Category III lands, that is, the territory of Municipalité de Baie-James as it existed on December 31, 2013, except for the Category II lands.

The new Eeyou Istchee James Bay Regional Government has equal representation from the Cree and other residents of the Territory.The Eeyou Istchee James Bay Regional Government

is moving toward becoming an effective partnership in governance between the Crees and the Jamésiens in the governance of Category III lands.

1.3 Cree First Nations – Financial Administration By-Law

Following the adoption by Parliament of the First Nations Financial Transparency Act in 2013, the Cree Nation Government developed a model financial administration by-law to be offered as a tool to all the Cree First Nations.This particular Act does not apply to the Cree First Nations who are governed by the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. A majority of the Cree First Nations have adopted the proposed model by-law on financial administration, as adapted to their specific circumstances, and they are using this by-law to promote accountability, transparency and effective financial management and control of their band funds.

1.4 Federal New Relationship Agreement – Assumption of Federal Responsibilities

On February 21, 2008, in Mistissini, Eeyou Istchee, 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.

This Agreement provides for the assumption by the Cree Regional Authority, and subsequently by the Cree Nation Government, of certain responsibilities of Canada under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, including certain aspects of community and economic development, the administration of justice and the development of human resources with federal funding for the 20-year term of this Agreement. In other cases, federal responsibilities remain with Canada.

The federal New Relationship Agreement states that the provisions of all existing agreements and existing financial arrangements between Canada and the Crees will continue to apply. Consequently, in March 2013, the Operations and Maintenance Funding Transfer Payment Agreement and the Agreement regarding Annual Capital Grants to the Quebec Cree Communities were both renewed for a five-year period from April 1, 2013 to March 31, 2018.

The federal New Relationship Agreement stipulates that the assumption by the Cree Nation Government of Canada’s responsibilities regarding the Cree Trappers’ Association, the Cree Outfitting and Tourism Association and the Cree Native Arts and Crafts Association is based on Canada’s continuing obligation to fund these Associations for the term of the Federal New Relationship Agreement. Since April 1, 2013, and until March 31, 2018, this federal fundingis provided through an annual grant agreement for the Associations between Canada and the Cree Nation Government.

The federal New Relationship Agreement stipulates that Canada’s responsibilities regarding training courses, job recruitment and placement is based on Canada’s obligations to maintain its additional funding for training programs and facilities and job recruitment and placement services in the Territory, on terms reasonably comparable to the funding provided to the Cree Regional Authority in the 2008-2009 fiscal year. Consequently, the Cree representatives are pursuing

discussions with Canada to ensure the renewal of Canada’s funding for training and Cree human
resource development. The current funding is provided through a 2007 funding agreement
between Canada and the Cree Nation Government, This agreement has been extended several
times and most recently until March 31, 2017. The lack of indexation of federal funding under
the 2007 funding agreement remains an outstanding issue which has been referred to dispute
resolution under the provisions of the federal New Relationship Agreement.

1.5 Cree Nation Government By-Laws – Category IA Lands

Under the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, the Council of the Cree Nation Government has the power to make bylaws respecting:

1. the regulation of buildings used for housing or for regional governance;
2. essential sanitation services;
3. the establishment, maintenance and operation of fire departments; and
4. the protection of the environment, including natural resources, and the prevention of pollution.

On December 18, 2014, the Council of the Cree Nation Government adopted a new regional By-law concerning the Regulation of Certain Buildings for the Protection of Public Health and Safety (CNG Buildings bylaw).The Cree Nation Government is currently implementing this bylaw in collaboration with the Cree First Nations.

The Cree Nation Government is in the process of developing other regional bylaws, including with respect to essential sanitation services.

1.6 The Cree Nation Government and the Cree Trappers’ Association: Emerging Challenges and Opportunities for Collaboration ⁶

The Cree Nation Government shares responsibilities with the nine (9) Cree communities pursuant to the 2009 amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. In addition, the Cree Nation Government has evolving responsibilities in the course of implementing the 2014 Cree-Quebec Governance Agreement. In particular, this involves responsibilities for the management and administration of Cree Category II lands, and participation in the work of the Eeyou Istchee James Bay Regional Government for Category III lands.

Furthermore, the Cree Nation Government is facing the implementation of the Eeyou Marine Region Land Claim Agreement (EMRLCA).The islands adjacent to the Quebec shore of James Bay and southeastern Hudson Bay, and the waters surrounding them, are now subject to a complex administrative regime which reports to the Nunavut Government. Both the Cree Nation Government and the Cree Trappers’ Association play key and inter-related roles in the implementation of the EMRLCA.

Consequently, the implementation of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act will need to take into account the roles of the nine Cree communities and their local governments in this complex and evolving political and cultural landscape. (The nine Cree communities with their local governments and the Cree Nation Government with its own responsibilities and obligations under the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act are now part of a larger regional government structure.)

Over the past forty (40) years, the role of the Cree Trappers’ Association has changed and will continue to change and many of the Cree local and regional administrative bodies need to reassess and redefine their working relationship with the Cree Trappers’ Association.

One of the major questions which will need to be addressed is the monitoring and evaluation of the Cree hunting economy.This will require a careful re-examination of the working relationship between the Cree Trappers’ Association and the Cree Nation Government and recognition of the importance of the technical support of the Cree Nation Government in the operations of the Cree Trappers’ Association.

Implementing the EMRLCA will require considerable information of Cree activities and their knowledge of ecosystems, wildlife and wildlife use by the Crees.The EMRLCA defines the role of the Cree Trappers’ Association in this process and the responsibilities are substantial. Collaboration with the Cree communities and the Cree Nation Government are essential.These developing roles involve important institutional changes and they require the development of a close and supportive working relationship between the Cree Trappers’ Association and the local and regional governments including in particular the Cree Nation Government.

The overall pattern of Cree land use, and the context in which both land and wildlife resources are used by the Cree has continued to evolve since the signature of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. One of the major challenges facing the Cree local governments, the Cree Nation Government and the Cree Trappers’ Association and the Eeyou Istchee – James Bay

Regional Government involves developing ways of generating the necessary information on Cree land use and resource use. Constructive work on this matter will require close and careful collaboration between the Cree Nation Government and the Cree Trappers’ Association.

It is recommended that the Cree-Naskapi Commission allocate time and resources to the further study of the institutional and planning issues raised herein.

2. Cree Nation of Oujé-Bougoumou

The Cree Nation of Oujé-Bougoumou, the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec have signed Complementary Agreement No. 22 on November 7, 2012.This Complementary Agreement finally incorporates the Cree Nation of Oujé-Bougoumou into the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and its related legislation including the Cree- Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.⁷

In addition, Complementary Agreement No. 25 was signed by the parties concerned through which the Cree Nation of Mistissini ‘transferred’ portions of its Category I and II lands as part of the process of establishing the land regime of the Cree Nation of Oujé-Bougoumou. It was the setting aside of these lands for the benefit of the Cree Nation of Oujé-Bougoumou which triggered the coming into force of the particular amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act which incorporated the Cree Nation of Oujé-Bougoumou into the Act.This historic milestone was reached on May 15, 2014.⁸

The incorporation of the Cree Nation of Oujé-Bougoumou into the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act has been more than the enactment of legislation and the signing of agreements.

The Cree Nation of Oujé-Bougoumou has had to make the structural and administrative changes necessary so that the Oujé-Bougoumou Cree Nation would now be operating as a “band” pursuant to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act and as a full and equal community within the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee.⁹

In addition, the Cree Nation of Oujé-Bougoumou undertook a very significant initiative to review and amend its bylaws so that they are compatible and consistent with its new legal status as “band” under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.The new Oujé-Bougoumou band is facilitating effort with the Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada in ensuring compliance and approval of its bylaws. ¹⁰

In addition, the Cree Nation of Oujé-Bougoumou has focused effort in ensuring that its financial reporting is carried out in a manner that is compatible with the reporting framework adopted by the other Cree communities.¹¹

In conclusion, the Cree Nation of Oujé-Bougoumou reports that it is well on its journey of reorganizing itself in a manner which is appropriate for its new status pursuant to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

3. Cree First Nation of Waswanipi

3.1 Protection of the Remaining Boreal Forest

For more than the past fifty (50) years, the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi has been seriously impacted by commercial forestry operations.They state that ninety (90) percent of their hunting has been impacted by commercial forestry operations. Consequently, the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi has made efforts to protect what they consider the last remaining boreal forest within their traditional and historic lands.They are aware that the Cree Nation Government has signed some agreements with Quebec.The Cree First Nation of Waswanipi will be impacted by these agreements. Consequently, they wish to be consulted and ensure that everyone involved be represented in the determination of these Agreements.¹²

3.2 Housing

With an increasing population, the community of the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi, like the other Cree communities, suffers from serious housing issues such as the following:

1. There are over two hundred (200) individuals on the waiting list for a house;
2. There are individuals in the community who are “homeless” as they move from house to house:
3. Some houses are overcrowded;
4. Many of the houses require renovations;
5. Because of mould in many of the houses, a serious health issue has developed.

The Cree First Nation of Waswanipi considers that the following measures could alleviate the serious housing issues of their community:

1. Increasing the financial incentives such as increasing the “A base” grant to promote construction of privately-owned houses;
2. Provision of adequate funds to renovate old houses;
3. Increasing the funding from the CMHC.

The Cree First Nation of Waswanipi requests the Cree-Naskapi Commission to intervene on their behalf so “that we all have fair and equitable distribution of housing.”¹³

3.3 Hunting Territories Dispute

Like the other Cree communities, the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi are faced with unresolved disputes between or amongst Cree hunters over the hunting territories (traplines). A mechanism to resolve these disputes by taking into account the traditional values and customary laws is needed.The Commission has been asked to “play a role in its realization by hosting a gathering to come to a common understanding.”¹⁴

The Cree hunters of Waswanipi have experienced hunting territory disputes with other hunters from other First Nations such as the Algonquin and Atikamekw.

3.4 Enforcement of Community Bylaws

The Cree First Nation of Waswanipi recommends that the Cree-Naskapi Commission and other interested parties hold a special conference on the enforcement of community bylaws.¹⁵

3.5 Economic Development

Starting a local business is a major challenge for individuals who cannot get the necessary financial means because of lack of equity or assets.The Cree First Nation of Waswanipi recommends that a revolving fund be established for these individuals through the Band Councils.¹⁶

Unemployment, like in the other Cree communities, is a major issue. Opportunities for economic development exist such fish, geese and farming, production and harvesting of wild rice and the sale of spring water.¹⁷

3.6 Indian Residential School Victims

The Cree First Nation of Waswanipi congratulates the Government of Canada for its efforts to deal with the victims of the Indian Residential Schools and for the establishment of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. However, some issues concerning the impacts on parents whose children were taken away without their consent remain to be resolved.These parents felt that they have lost their children and their stories have never been told. Furthermore, these parents must be recognized as victims also and compensated accordingly.There must be reconciliation on this matter for healing to take place.¹⁸

3.7 Elders

In some communities, Elders do not have adequate services and need elders home care centres.

The Cree First Nation of Waswanipi demands that governments concerned should address this issue.¹⁹

3.8 Access to Federal Funding

Under the present arrangements with governments, the Cree Nation Government is given funding for the Cree communities. However this arrangement should not prejudice the right of a Cree community to access additional funding that is required for specific projects from the governments.²⁰

3.9 Restoration of the Waswanipi Post

The Cree First Nation of Waswanipi seeks to restore the old Waswanipi Post and have it recognized as a Canadian historic site.The Cree Fist Nation of Waswanipi requests the Government of Canada provide financial assistance to make this particular project a reality.²¹

3.10 Environmental Issues

The Cree people of Waswanipi have always been very disturbed about environmental impacts and issues arising from mining, forestry and other development projects within their hunting territories.The Cree First Nation of Waswanipi requests that the government concerned respect their concerns and aspirations respecting these matters. ²²

3.11 Participation and Consultation

The Cree First Nation of Waswanipi wants full consultation and full participation on all matters that concern their lands.

In addition, the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi requests full consultation on the goals and objectives of the Cree Nation Government and expects “the Cree-Naskapi Commission to play an active role.”²³

3.12 Education

The Waswanipi schools do not have qualified teachers. Cree students leave school at the age of fifteen. Some of them become delinquent juveniles.24

4. Crees of Waskaganish First Nation

4.1 Cree Elders on Cultural and Traditional Way of Life

Cree values flow from harvesting (hunting, fishing and trapping) and related activities on the traditional hunting territories of the Crees of Waskaganish First Nation.The promotion, preservation and transfer of traditional knowledge and values are of utmost importance to the elders of Waskaganish.The elders are concerned that less number of youth are pursuing the Cree traditional way of life.25

4.2 Cree Values²⁶

The Crees consider that each season of the year is good and has its own attributes and values. Each Cree person including the youth must learn the way of life for each season.

Eeyou (Cree) achieve and maintain a strong bond with their hunting territories. Consequently, respect for the land and all creation is maintained and taught to present and future generations of Eeyou.

Care and safety in the conduct of harvesting (hunting, fishing and trapping) and related activities are also taught.

4.3 Health Concerning Cree Elders²⁷

The lifestyle of Crees has changed drastically over the past years as less people are actually hunting and fishing and living a traditional way of life. Consequently, people are eating more store-bought food and less wild meat.

The change in lifestyle results in serious health issues such as diabetes, cancer and other life- threatening diseases. Cree Elders face difficult challenges in such health issues and many are unable to pursue the Cree traditional way of life out on the land.

The Cree Board of Health and Social Services of James Bay has initiated programs and services for the Cree Elders such as the Multi-Service Day Centre.This program and service provides a way for elders to continue to enjoy Eeyou traditional food.

5. Cree Nation of Eastmain

5.1 Housing²⁸

Housing, particularly social housing, remains a critical matter and an issue of priority for the Cree Nation of Eastmain. Eastmain, like the other Cree communities, has a growing population with overcrowded houses and a backlog of many people needing housing. Housing also provides employment.

Eastmain has developed a five year program in housing that included a private home ownership plan. Eastmain presented its five-year program in housing to the federal government only to be told that housing would be discussed with the Cree Nation Government.

The Cree Nation of Eastmain continues to pursue social housing and a private home ownership plan, but support from the federal government is lacking.

The small annual number of units made available for social housing is insufficient to meet the needs of a growing population.

A subsidy would help Crees pursue the private home ownership plan. However, any subsidy would depend on the very insufficient level of funding made available by the federal government. Eastmain is also pursuing with financial institutions a means of securing financial arrangements or loans to accommodate the restrictions and limitations within the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act so that Cree people can pursue the private home ownership plan.

5.2 Youth Issues of Eastmain

Like the other Cree communities, the youth of Eastmain lack funding for programs and services including employment programs.

Youth are also suffering from bad parenting because parents who went to Indian residential schools do not know proper parenting. Present generations of youth cannot learn about proper parenting from these parents. Funding and programs are needed for proper healing.²⁹

The lack of understanding between peoples of different cultures leads to racism.This is quite evident in the relations or interactions between the Crees and non-Natives in the James Bay region.³⁰

However the Crees and non-Natives will have to understand and accept each other’s differences and co-exist together in the North.

5.3 Indian Residential School Issues

Survivors of the Indian Residential Schools have been compensated with funds. But programs with adequate funding for healing are needed.³¹

5.4 Elders and Traditional Knowledge

Cree Elders possess traditional knowledge that must be passed on to the present generation of people especially the youth. Funding is required for programs to promote and enable teachings on values and traditional knowledge.³²

5.5 Health Issues

The change in the lifestyle which results in the purchase and consumption of food from the store and less “bush” food has contributed to health issues and an unhealthy lifestyle in the community.³³

5.6 Education

The Cree School Board does not provide textbooks for the students in their schools. Students bring home photocopied pieces of paper and are expected to do their homework with it. Students need textbooks to learn.³⁴

Furthermore, the Cree students are not learning Cree history,The Cree School Board is simply applying the same school curriculum as the one used in the southern schools.³⁵

5.7 Presence of the Commission in the Cree Communities

The Cree Nation of Eastmain invites the members of the Cree-Naskapi Commission to come to the community of Eastmain and meet and hear the people of Eastmain.

6. Cree Nation of Washaw Sibi

In a letter from Chief Pauline Trapper-Hester of the Cree Nation of Washaw Sibi addressed to Mr. Brian Shawana, Director General of the Cree-Naskapi Commission and dated February 12, 2015 (sic), Chief Trapper-Hester states:

“Just to be brief, back in late spring of 2012, the Washaw Sibi people had accepted a recommendation from the Cree Nation Government to locate a site that is above 49 parallel. As we strive towards this recommendation, we are optimistic that the realization of our village is approaching. The Washaw Sibi’s primary preoccupation continues to be the establishment of a distinct Cree community within the Eeyou Istchee territory. We are pleased to inform the Cree-Naskapi Commission that progress is being made in which we are close to finalizing the location of the community. This is of great importance to us, the Washaw Sibi Eeyou.” ³⁶

7. Whapmagoostui First Nation³⁷

7.1 Housing

The shortage and subsequent need for housing is a major issue for the Whapmagoostui First Nation. However, construction of one house is a very costly undertaking because of the isolation factor of the community. For example, chartering a barge to transport material to the community costs about one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000).

In addition, the houses that were built from 1985 to 1991 were constructed to the standards in the south. In the past seven years, the Whapmagoostui First Nation has had to spend close to two million and nine hundred thousand dollars ($2,900,000) in repairs and renovations to resolve the mould issues with these units.

Furthermore, it would be very costly to expand into very limited areas for housing development in Whapmagoostui.

Whapmagoostui, like the other Cree communities, has a large backlog of needed housing.

7.2 Voting on Matters by the Council

On voting on any matter by the council, members of the council present make the decision and if any member of the council is absent then he/she should be considered as having abstained rather than consenting.

7.3 Enacting and Enforcing ByLaws

Many community members disagree with certain existing bylaws of the community.The local government needs a consensus approach on making bylaws. For now, a bylaw is approved through a referendum process. As an example, the bylaw respecting control of dogs has been amended twice. However, the Whapmagoostui First Nation faces a serious question as who should be enforcing their bylaws. Should the Eeyou Eenou Police Force or public safety or public health agents be enforcing the community bylaws?

7.4 Cree Nation Government and Local Government Operations

Jurisdictional issues between the Cree Nation Government and the local government of the Whapmagoostui First Nation need to be clarified. Some policies and bylaws of the Cree Nation Government are confusing to the local government of the community.The Cree Nation Government appears to be following a provincial procedure for tendering of contracts for projects with federal funds. Local people and local companies should have priority for these contracts, works and employment. Furthermore, the Cree Nation Government appears to duplicate certain services and has impacted the autonomy of the local government.

7.5 Cree and Inuit Comprehensive Land Use Plan

Since the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the Cree and Inuit of the region have not been given an opportunity to sit down together to discuss and develop a comprehensive land use plan for the region.The Cree hunters of Whapmagoostui want to get into commercial activities but are often told to approach the Makivik Corporation or the Kativik Regional Government.The Kativik Regional Government had developed a land use plan with protected areas and parks without the consultation and participation of the Whapmagoostui First Nation. Land use matters impact the hunting territories of the Cree hunters. Land use questions between the Cree and Inuit of Whapmagoostui cannot be resolved without a comprehensive land use plan developed jointly by the Cree and Inuit.

7.6 Third Party Land Rights within Cree Category IA Lands

The Catholic Church owns a church and two (2) apartment buildings and Transport Canada owns a weather station building. It is not certain whether the Catholic Church and Transport Canada have their respective buildings on Category IA land or Category III lands.Transport Canada has abandoned the weather station building.The Whapmagoostui First Nation needs these land lots for housing development.

7.7 Election Bylaws and Eligibility to be Elected Council Member

The Election Bylaw of the Whapmagoostui First Nation may need to be reviewed and amended to reflect the intentions and needs of the members. Furthermore, the criteria for eligibility to be elected to the office of council member may need to be reviewed or clarified for the members.

8. Cree Nation of Chisasibi³⁸

81. Governance and Bylaws

The Cree Nation of Chisasibi and the Cree Nation Government may enact bylaws that apply within Category IA lands. Conflicting bylaws exist and the enforcement and application of bylaws are a problem.Therefore, the local government and the Cree Nation Government must collaborate and cooperate in exercising their respective authority to enact and enforce their bylaws. As an example, the Cree governments need to clarify the bylaw enforcement responsibilities of the Cree policing agencies.

Furthermore, there should an orientation program on the powers and duties of a local government when a new Chief and Council are elected.

8.2 Quorums

Certain quorum provisions of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act continue to be detrimental to effective and efficient decision-making of the community and its members.

8.3 Block D

Pursuant to Schedule D of the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Quebec and the Crees of Quebec, Quebec shall transfer the administration, management and control of the lands designated as Block D, including the air strip, to the Government of Canada for the exclusive use and benefit of the Cree Nation of Chisasibi subject to certain terms and conditions. (Block D will become part of Category IA lands of Chisasibi.) The parties will use their best efforts to ensure that the final transfer by Quebec is completed no later than September 30, 2002.

As of February 11, 2016, the transfer of Block D has not been finalized. Phase 1 of the transfer has been finalized and a portion of Block D is ready for transfer. However Phase 2 involves further measures for its environmental clean-up. Quebec and Canada have to agree on the standards for the environmental clean-up.

The full transfer of Block D to the Cree Nation of Chisasibi remains outstanding as a major clean-up of a portion of Block D is still taking place due to a past spillage of oil on the site.

8.4 Five-hundred (500) Foot Corridor

Subsection 5.1.5 (Existing Third Party and Government Interests) of Section 5 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement states as follows:“Existing regional roads and provincial roads and main arteries within Category I lands shall be Category III lands….However, there shall be Category III lands for a distance of five hundred (500) feet on each of said roads.”

The five-hundred (500) foot road corridor that adjoins the community of Chisasibi is a barrier to the expansion for community development and expansion.

This issue was reported in the 2014 report of the Commission and the said road corridor remains a barrier to the Cree Nation of Chisasibi for its community development and expansion.

8.5 Programs for Youth

The youth of Chisasibi have carried out some activities with their limited budgets. However, needed programs with sufficient funds remain an outstanding annual issue.

8.6 Housing

The Cree Nation of Chisasibi, like the other Cree Nation communities, faces a serious shortage in housing due to overcrowding of existing houses, rising population, and inadequate housing programs and funding.

The Cree Nation of Chisasibi is presently promoting private home ownership as its members have expressed an interest in such a program. Private home ownership will lead to issues relating to property rights and matrimonial property.

9. Cree Nation of Mistissini³⁹

9.1 Past Issues and Concerns of Mistissini

The Cree Nation of Mistissini has serious concerns about the lack of a comprehensive response from Canada about the needs and concerns of Mistissini as raised in the previous reports of the Commission. According to the Cree Nation of Mistissini, the “Commission’s apparent lack of power to impress upon the federal government, in particular, its Ministers

and his officials, to fulfill its legal obligations as outlined in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, severely impairs the Commission’s effectiveness and legitimacy as a recommending body to oversee the implementation of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.”⁴⁰

The Cree Nation of Mistissini urges Canada to act honourably when dealing with Cree issues and concerns and to respect the rule of law.

9.2 Housing

Like the other Cree communities, housing is a major issue and a major source of social problems due to the following housing and political conditions:

1. enormous shortage in allocation of housing units;
2. overcrowding of existing houses;
3. inadequate funding for constructing new housing, repairing and renovating existing houses;
4. rapid growth in youth population needing shelter;
5. increasing backlogs of new and renovated housing needs;
6. failure of the government of Canada to fulfill its fiduciary and legal responsibilities to First Nations;
7. Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada priority matrix for funding has not set housing construction for growth as a high priority; and
8. Canada’s policy on housing support has failed the outstanding housing needs of First Nations.

The Cree Nation of Mistissini calls “upon Canada to develop with the Cree Nation leadership a comprehensive approach to housing and the full transition of housing programs, as part of Cree self-government responsibilities under an amended Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.”⁴¹

9.3 The Height of Land Issue

The negotiations and execution of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement (JBNQA) did not settle the rights and claims of the Cree nation and people for the entire Eeyou Istchee (historical and traditional territories). These rights and claims of the Cree respecting their territories outside of the JBNQA Territory were to be settled later. So far the Cree claims and rights to the offshore and intervening waters of James Bay and Hudson Bay have been settled through the 2010 Eeyou Marine Region Land Claims Agreement.

However the rights and claims of the Cree Nation of Mistissini to their traditional and historical territories (Mistissini hunting territories) located east of the height of land (southeastern border of the JBNQA Territory) still remains unresolved mainly because Canada denies any commitment to resolving this claim and instead has negotiated and signed an Agreement-in-Principle (AIP) with several Innu communities.This AIP includes the Mistissini

hunting territories east of the height of land within the territory of the Innu of Mashteuiatsh. Consequently, Canada has breached its fiduciary duty to the Cree Nation of Mistissini by entering into this AIP without the consultation, participation and consent of the Cree Nation of Mistissini.

In 2008, the Cree Nation of Mistissini filed an Application for Judicial Review in Federal Court regarding the decision of the Minister of Indian Affairs to conclude the Innu AIP without any consultation with the Cree Nation of Mistissini. Canada proposed that Mistissini participate in an Exploratory Process, which sought to identify all overlaps affecting the First Nations in the region.This process stagnated from the start did not result to any productive discussions or measures to resolve the rights and claims of the Cree Nation of Mistissini.

The Cree Nation of Mistissini remains committed to resolving this issue and would be willing to negotiate a settlement if the government of Canada exercised its responsibilities properly and demonstrated good faith in respecting its past commitment to participate in discussions with Mistissini.

In its 2014 report, the Cree-Naskapi Commission made as one of its recommendations the following:

“16.The Government of Canada should fulfill its obligations and responsibilities and settle the rights and claims of the Cree Nation of Mistissini to their traditional and historical territories (Mistissini hunting territories) located east of the height of land (southeastern border of the JBNQA Territory) through negotiations in good faith.”⁴²

The response of the Government of Canada to this particular recommendation of the Commission is as follows:

“The territory claimed by the Cree Nation of Mistissini is situated outside of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement boundaries and all rights, claims, titles and interests outside of those boundaries have been extinguished since the coming into force of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement through the ratification of the 1977 James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Act (sic). We thus encourage all First Nation parties to discuss amongst each other to find mutually acceptable solutions.”⁴³

With respect to the extinguishment of claims, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Settlement Act S.C. 1976-77, c.32 states as follows:

“(3) All native claims, rights, title and interests, whatever they may be, in and to the Territory, of all Indians and all Inuit, wherever they may be, are hereby extinguished, but nothing in this Act prejudices the rights of such persons as Canadian citizens and they shall continue to be entitled to all of the rights and benefits of all other citizens as well as to those resulting from the Indian Act, where applicable, and from other legislation applicable to them from time to time.”⁴⁴

Furthermore, in its interpretation and definitions section, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Settlement Act S.C. 1976-77, c.32, defines the “Territory” as follows:

“2 In this Act,

Territory has the meaning assigned to that word by subsection 1.16 of the Agreement, namely, the entire area of land contemplated by the 1912 Quebec Boundaries Extension Act, (an Act respecting the extension of the Province of Quebec by the annexation of Ungava, Que. 2 Geo. V, c. 7 and the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act, 1912, Can. 2 Geo.V, c. 45) and by the 1898 acts (an Act respecting the delimitation of the Northwestern, Northern and Northeastern boundaries of the Province of Quebec, Que. 61 Vict. c. 6 and an Act respecting the Northwestern, Northern and Northeastern boundaries of the Province of Quebec, Can. 61 Vict. c. 3). (Territoire).”⁴⁵

The response of Canada is erroneous in its interpretation of the territory in which the James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Settlement Act S.C. 1976-1977, c.32 purportedly extinguishes all native claims, rights, title and interests.

Consequently, the Cree Nation of Mistissini presently exercises and will continue to exercise their Aboriginal rights in and to their traditional and historical territory (Mistissini Hunting territory) located east of the height of land and outside of the Territory as defined by subsection 1.16 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

Subsequently as stated before in this section of the chapter of the present report of the Commission, the Cree Nation of Mistissini remains committed to resolving their outstanding claims, rights and interests and would be willing to negotiate a settlement if the Government of Canada exercised its responsibilities properly and demonstrated good faith in respecting its past commitment to participate in discussions with Mistissini.

9.4 Quorum Requirements of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act

Stringent quorum requirements of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act constitute a serious detriment to the effective and efficient decision-making for the exercise of self-government and legal responsibilities.The quorum requirements for the approval of bylaws for long-term borrowing, hunting, fishing, trapping and wildlife protection, and zoning are difficult to attain and too high for a community with an increasing and large number of electors. Furthermore, the quorums required for the approval of land use and resource use plans and for land cessions are also too high.

These quorum requirements are legislative requirements of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

Consequently, the Cree Nation of Mistissini recommends that the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act be amended “so as to allow each Cree local government to determine its own quorum requirements or to establish processes other than voting at community meetings for making major decisions for the benefit of the community of Mistissini and the well-being of its members.”⁴⁶

9.5 Jurisdiction of the Cree-Naskapi Commission

The Cree-Naskapi Commission established by section 158 of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Acthas a duty to “prepare biennial reports on the implementation of this Act”⁴⁷ to the Minister.

The Commission reports also on the implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement 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 by virtue of paragraph 21(j) of the Act which stipulates that the objects of a band are “to exercise thepowers and carry out the duties conferred or imposed on the band or its predecessor Indian Actband by any Act of Parliament or regulations made thereunder, and by the Agreements.”⁴⁸

The Cree Nation of Mistissini supports the Commission in its duties to report on the implementation of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act and the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. In particular, the Cree Nation of Mistissini considers that the James Bay and

Northern Quebec Agreement “establishes a framework for self-government which includes areas of jurisdiction of land regimes, powers of local government, powers of regional government, health and social services, education, administration, policing, environmental protection, hunting, fishing and trapping, financial administration, and economic development.”⁴⁹

10. Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach⁵⁰

10.1 Housing

The Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach is facing a serious housing crisis because of the following issues:

1. an increasing population with about 60% under the age of thirty (30) years;
2. backlog of members needing housing comprises one hundred and thirty (130) members;
3. only two (2) housing units per fiscal year were allocated to the Nation for the fiscal years of 2014-2015 and 2015-2016; and
4. present federal housing programs cannot meet the current or forecasted future demands for housing.

The Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach strongly urges the Federal Government to take immediate and sustained action to increase funding to Section 95 housing to address the shortage of the Nation.

10.2 Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act – Technical Amendments

The Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach is aware that discussions between the Cree Nation Government and Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada are ongoing on the amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

The Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach is seeking amendments to the Act respecting the following:

1. quorum requirements for the borrowing powers of the Nation;
2. enabling the Naskapi Police Force to issue tickets for the violations of Nation by-laws instead of having to proceed by way of summary conviction proceedings under the Criminal Code; and
3. addressing the inconsistencies between the French and English versions of the Act.

10.3 Police Funding

By virtue of Section 13 of the Northeastern Quebec Agreement, Canada and Quebec are responsible for the payment of the direct costs for police services (Naskapi Police Force) in Kawawachikamach.

Because of the social situation in Kawawachikamach, the Council decided in 2013 to implement 24-hour, seven-day per week (24/7) policing services.

Negotiations with Quebec and Canada have always been difficult because neither party covered all of the direct expenses of the Naskapi Police Force and the Nation was forced to cover the difference for services.

Funding negotiations between the parties failed to resolve the matter and the Naskapi Nation Council adopted a resolution to file legal proceedings against Canada and Quebec.

However legal proceedings were temporarily suspended in order for the parties to negotiate, and a three-year Agreement was signed as a status quo to provide a last chance to undertake meaningful negotiations.

As of April 2015, Quebec has agreed to compensate the Naskapis if Canada also agrees. Canada has yet to agree to provide its share of the costs of policing services in Kawawachikamach.

The Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach are presently exploring all avenues to raise this matter from a program-funding issue to a treaty-implementation issue in order to finally resolve this matter with Quebec and Canada.

10.4 Fibre Optic Project

The Kawawachikamach/Schefferville region relies on very expensive and unreliable satellite links to meet its telecommunications needs.

In an effort to overcome the region’s telecommunication limitations and to develop an important economic enterprise, the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach embarked to develop a project that would connect the region to southern telecommunications networks via a fibre optic link.

10.5 Mining – Status Report

Since the resurgence of mining development that started in the mid-2000s, two new iron ore mines have opened near Kawawachikamach.The Nation has signed Impact Benefit Agreements with both promoters. Due to the dramatic decline in iron ore prices, both mines are in difficult financial situations and cannot honour their commitments to the Nation.

While the situation is currently very difficult, many analysts believe that the iron ore prices have bottomed out and it is a question of time before prices rebound to a sustainable level.

In 2010, the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach created the Naskapi Mining Group to better orient its efforts to take full advantage of mining development and activities.

There are many other mining projects at various stages of advancement, including a rare earths project and another iron ore mine near Kawawachikamach.

10.6 Adult Education in Kawawachikamach

Mining development in the Kawawachikamach-Schefferville region has significantly increased employment opportunities for the Naskapis. In order to enable the Naskapis to access these job opportunities, the Naskapis have since 2011 maintained a temporary adult education center in Kawawachikamach and organized several vocational training programs in Kawawachikamach.

These adult education activities have been funded on a short term and temporary basis by various parties.

Considering the success of adult education in Kawawachikamach and the continuous need in this regard for Naskapi employment in the mining industry, as well as other sectors, the Naskapi Nation and the Naskapi Education Committee are seeking permanent funding for adult education in the school budget, which is allocated by Quebec and Canada.

The Cree and the Kativik School Boards receive block funding in their budgets allocated by Quebec and Canada, which allows these school boards to establish permanent facilities offering adult education in their territories.The Naskapis are seeking similar arrangements for maintaining in short-term current adult education services in Kawawachikamach and for establishing in mid-term a state-of-the-art Adult Professional Education and Training Complex in Kawawachikamach.

It is hoped that the said complex will be established in 2018-2019. Negotiations are ongoing with Quebec and Canada for funding regarding the school budget for 2015-2016, 2016-2017, and 2017-2018.

end notes

1. Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee, Chapter 3 (Cree Nation Governance), Paragraph 3.1 a) and b), page 13.
2. The Government of Canada’s Approach to Implementation of the Inherent Right and the Negotiation of Aboriginal Government.
3. Presentation to the Cree-Naskapi Commission for its Report in Accordance with Section 171 of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, June 3. 2016, page 3.
4. Ibid, pages 3-4.
5. Speaking Notes of Grand Chief Dr. Matthew Coon Come to the Committee on Planning and the Public Domain of the National Assembly of Quebec on Bill 42, Quebec City, May 29, 2013
6. The following section is based on the presentation prepared by Alan Penn – The 2016 Cree and Naskapi Commission Hearings - The Cree Nation Government and the Cree Trappers’ Association: Emerging Challenges and Opportunities for Collaboration
7. Oujé-Bougoumou Cree Nation: Presentation to the Commissioners of the Cree-Naskapi Commission – Special Implementation Hearings – Montreal, February 9, 2016. Page 2
8. Ibid, page 2 and 3
9. Ibid, page 4
10. Ibid, page 5 and 6
11. Ibid, page 6
12. Presentation of the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi – Cree-Naskapi Hearings – Delta Hotel – Montreal, Quebec – Feb 6-12, 2016. Page 2
13. Ibid, page 3
14. Ibid, page 4
15. Ibid
16. Ibid
17. Transcript of the Special Implementation Hearings of the Cree-Naskapi Commission on the Presentation of the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi – Cree-Naskapi Hearings – Delta Hotel – Montreal, Quebec – Feb 6-12, 2016. Page 10
18. Presentation of the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi – Cree-Naskapi Hearings – Delta Hotel – Montreal, Quebec – Feb 6-12, 2016. Page 5
19. Ibid, page 6
20. Ibid,
21. Ibid
22. Ibid, page 7
23. Ibid
24. Transcript of the Special Implementation Hearings of the Cree-Naskapi Commission on the Presentation of the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi – Delta Hotel – Montreal, Quebec – Feb 6-12, 2016. Page 9
25. Waskaganish Elders Council Presentation – dated February 9, 2016 and presented by Simeon Trappers for the Cree Elders Council of Waskaganish to the Cree Naskapi Commission at its Special Implementation Hearings – February 9, 2016 – Montreal. Page 1
26. Ibid, page 1 and 2
27. Ibid, page 2 and 3
28. Transcript of the Special Implementation Hearings of the Cree-Naskapi Commission on the presentation of the Cree Nation of Eastmain – Montreal, Quebec – February 10, 2016. Pages 2-6
29. Ibid, page 8
30. Ibid, page 9
31. Ibid, page 14
32. Ibid, page 25

33. Ibid, page 26
34. Ibid, pages 27 and 28
35. Ibid, page 33
36. Letter from Chief Pauline Trapper-Hester of the Cree Nation of Washaw Sibi addressed to Mr. Brian Shawana, Director General of the Cree-Naskapi Commission and dated February 12, 2015 (sic)
37. The issues and concerns of the Whapmagoostui First Nation described in this section are found in the transcript of the Special Implementation Hearings of the Cree-Naskapi Commission dated February 11, 2016
38. The issues and concerns of the Cree Nation of Chisasibi described in this section derive from the transcript of the Special Implementation Hearings of the Cree-Naskapi Commission dated February 11, 2016 and from the presentation of the Cree Nation of Chisasibi titled “Cree Naskapi Commission Hearings – Cree Nation of Chisasibi – February 11, 2016.”
39. The issues and concerns of the Cree Nation of Mistissini described in this section are found in the presentation titled “Presentation to the Cree-Naskapi Commission at its Biennial Hearings by the Cree Nation of Mistissini – March 2016.
40. Presentation to the Cree-Naskapi Commission at its Biennial Hearings by the Cree Nation of Mistissini – March 2016, page 3
41. Ibid, page 6
42. 2014 Report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission, Recommendation 16, page 106
43. Canada’s Response to the 2014 Cree-Naskapi Commission’s Recommendations (Chapter 6), page 17
44. Section 3 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Settlement Act S.C. 1976-77, c.32
45. Section 2 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Settlement Act S.C. 1976-77, c.32
46. Presentation to the Cree-Naskapi Commission at its Biennial Hearings by the Cree Nation of Mistissini – March 2016, page 9
47. Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, S.C. 1984. C. 18, section 165 (1) (a)
48. Ibid, section 21 (j)
49. Presentation to the Cree-Naskapi Commission at its Biennial Hearings by the Cree Nation of Mistissini – March 2016, page 9
50. The issues and concerns of the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach described in this section are found in the presentation titled “Brief Presented to the Cree-Naskapi Commission in Support of its 2016 Biennial report to Parliament by the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach February 10, 2016 and in the transcript of the Special Implementation Hearings of the Cree-Naskapi Commission dated February 10, 2016.

1. 1. Reduction in Ministerial Discretion to Intervene in Cree Governance
   2. Review and Update a Basic Set of Cree Governance By-laws
   3. Orientation and Training Plan

The above listed set of ideas are described in detail in Chapter 2 (Governance Issues) of the present report.

Eeyou Nation Local Government Elections

Since its inception, the Commission has formally investigated and reported on eleven (11) of the formal representations submitted to it pursuant to sub-section 165. (1) (b) of the Cree- Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. Over half of these representations concern band elections or Eeyou Nation Local Government elections. Furthermore, the Commission has prepared a discussion paper entitled “Local Government Elections and the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act”.This discussion paper was revised by the Commission on September 9, 1999.These concerns and issues respecting band elections remain outstanding.

In its investigations of the representations submitted to it, the Commission submitted recommendations on band elections, which remain presently pertinent, and in some cases summarized and updated the recommendations of the Commission in its 2000 report.

2. Therefore, the Commission hereby resubmits the following recommendations on band elections:
   1. The band election bylaws should be reviewed by the members and local governments of the Eeyou communities to ensure compliance and/or conformity with the following:
      1. will, needs and aspirations of the people;
      2. customary law and practices of Eeyou;
      3. Eeyou principles and values;
      4. requirements of Part II - Band Elections – of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act;
      5. current state of Aboriginal law;
      6. human rights of individuals; and
      7. treaty rights of individual Cree beneficiaries of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

In particular, the criteria in the present band election bylaws for eligibility of electors to vote and eligibility to be elected and to serve as council members should be reviewed for the purposes specified herein.

1. 2. The band election bylaws should be reviewed by the members and local governments of the Eeyou communities to ensure that these bylaws meet emerging needs and changing circumstances respecting band elections.
   3. For all matters relating to band elections, section 9 (Local Government over Category IA Lands) of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and Part II - Band Elections – of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act should be reviewed by the Government of Canada and Cree Nation Government for the following purposes:
      1. recognition of Eeyou customary law and practices;
      2. provide for needs and aspirations of Cree individuals and communities; and
      3. conformity with the human and treaty rights of individuals.
   4. The Cree Regional Authority (now the Cree Nation Government) and the Eeyou local governments in collaboration with the Cree School Board should develop a training program for all local electoral officials to promote awareness and education on all legislative and administrative matters pertaining to band elections.
   5. The Department of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada should negotiate with the Cree and Naskapi an Electoral Process Funding Agreement which would provide a process and funds for:
      1. the review and revision of relevant provisions of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Northeastern Quebec Agreement,
      2. the development and revision of community-specific Election By-laws, as well as pre- election information workshops,

1. 6. 3. legal advice to bands, and (independently) to Returning Officers,
      4. access to the process for election result contestation,
      5. ongoing training for electoral officers,
      6. the establishment, administration and maintenance of a local process for the updating of the community beneficiary and elector lists.
   7. New funding sources and arrangements should be determined by the Government of Canada and the Cree Nation Government for the process respecting the contestation of election results contemplated by Section 78 of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act. In particular, funding resources should be made available for individuals contesting election results, public officials and elected officials so that they may have access to the appropriate authorities for the administration of justice.
   8. Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada and the Cree Nation of Eeyou Istchee should review the present tedious process respecting the transfer of individuals from one band to another and determine a more efficient and effective process with the Cree Nation assuming more responsibilities for the determination and maintenance of band membership.
   9. The Government of Canada and the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)/ Cree Nation Government should review the application and implications of section 18 of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act – a special provision for Indians who are not beneficiaries of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement to ensure conformity and compatibility with the human rights of members of the Cree Nation and Eeyou/ Eenou customary law.
   10. The Government of Canada and the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)/ Cree Nation Government should review the application and implications of paragraph 3.2.7 (respecting the ten-year clause) of section 3 (Eligibility) of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement in order to ensure respect of the constitutionally entrenched treaty and human rights of members of the Cree Nation for matters respecting band elections.
   11. The Government of Canada should initiate discussions with the Cree Nation Government on the question of whether the Corbière decision of the Supreme Court applies or does not apply to the Cree bands. If the Corbière decision applies to the Cree Bands, then Canada and the Crees must discuss any subsequent amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act and its proper and effective implementation.

Cree Governance

The representatives of the Cree Nation Government and the Government of Canada are currently conducting negotiations to fulfill the following purpose of Chapter 3 of the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee.

The purpose of this Chapter is twofold:

1. As a first step, in Part 1, in order to better enable the CRA to receive and carry out the Assumed Federal JBNQA Responsibilities (as listed in Section 4.3 of this Agreement), to equip the CRA with by-law-making powers similar to those of the Cree bands under the CNQA, through proposed amendments to that Act;
2. As a second step, in Part 2, to set out a process for negotiations leading to a Governance Agreement, Governance Legislation and possible amendments to the JBNQA and to the CNQA concerning a Cree Nation Government with powers and authorities beyond the scope of the CNQA and its amendments in Part 1 of this Chapter. Such negotiations, if successful, would expand Cree Nation governance beyond the CNQA powers by establishing the structures and powers of a Cree Nation Government and the relationship of such Government with Cree bands and federal and provincial governments.”¹

In its 2014 report, the Commission recommended that the Government of Canada should proceed with the negotiations contemplated by paragraph 3.1 (b) of Chapter 3 of the said federal New Relationship Agreement in a manner compatible with the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the federal New Relationship Agreement.²

The response of the Government of Canada to this recommendation of the Commission is as follows:

“In 2008, Canada and the Cree signed the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee. This Agreement settled past grievances and established a new footing for relations between them. It also called for subsequent negotiations towards a Cree Nation Governance Agreement, building on the current Cree governance regime established pursuant to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

The Cree and Canada agree on many aspects of the draft Cree Nation Governance Agreement in Principle. While some issues remain to be resolved, discussions are progressing very well.

Discussions are ongoing. Canada remains hopeful that an agreement that meets the interests of all parties if possible.”³

As Canada states this Agreement was signed in 2008.This process has taken an undue amount of time. Being “hopeful” is good but achieving “meaningful and immediate progress”, as Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has called it, implies the need for timeliness in getting beyond obstacles and success in securing agreements.

Since December 2014, according to the Cree Nation Government and the Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee), the Cree and federal representatives have held a number of meetings to address key issues and to explore concrete and mutually acceptable solutions.These discussions have been constructive, and there are now indications of a positive outcome.

3. The Commission recommends that Canada endeavor to continue negotiations in good faith with the Cree Nation Government to achieve an agreement on fulfilling the purpose of Chapter 3 as contemplated by paragraph 3.1 (b) of the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee in a manner consistent with the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the said federal New Relationship Agreement.

The Cree Nation Government and the Cree Trappers’ Association

Over the past forty (40) years, the role of the Cree Trappers’ Association has changed and will continue to change and many of the Cree local and regional administrative bodies need to reassess and redefine their working relationship with the Cree Trappers’ Association.

One of the major questions which will need to be addressed is the monitoring and evaluation of the Cree hunting economy.This will require a careful re-examination of the working relationship between the Cree Trappers’ Association and the Cree Nation Government and recognition of the importance of the technical support of the Cree Nation Government in the operations of the Cree Trappers’ Association.

In addition, the Cree Nation Government and the Cree Trappers’Association play key and inter-related roles in the implementation of the Eeyou Marine Region Land Claim Agreement.

4. The Cree Nation Government and the Cree Trappers’ Association should re-examine and establish a positive and effective collaboration and working relationship in addressing major questions such as the monitoring and evaluation of the Cree hunting economy, implementation of the Eeyou Marine Region Land Claim Agreement and other pertinent matters.

Hunting Territory Dispute

Like the other Cree communities, the Cree First Nation of Waswanipi are faced with unresolved disputes between or amongst Cree hunters over the hunting territories (traplines). A mechanism to resolve these disputes by taking into account the traditional values and customary laws is needed.

5. The Cree Nation Government and the Cree local governments in collaboration with the Cree Trappers’ Association should determine, establish and implement an effective mechanism to resolve the following disputes respecting hunting territories by taking into account Cree traditional values, principles and customary laws and practices:
   1. disputes between or amongst Cree hunters; and
   2. disputes between Cree communities.
6. The Cree Nation Government/Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee) in collaboration with other First Nations concerned should determine, establish and implement an effective mechanism to resolve disputes respecting the territorial integrity of their respective traditional and historical hunting territories by taking into account First Nation traditional values, principles and customary laws and practices.

Enactment and Enforcement of Bylaws

Both the Cree Nation Government and the Cree local governments may, within their respective jurisdictions, enact bylaws that apply within Category IA lands. Certain bylaws of these Cree governments may conflict. Some Cree local governments have raised issues, concerns and questions on the enforcement of community bylaws. Should the Eeyou Eenou Police Force or public safety or public health agents be enforcing the community bylaws?

7. The Cree Nation Government and Cree local governments should, within their respective jurisdictions, collaborate and cooperate in the enactment and application of bylaws to avoid conflicts.
8. The Government of Canada and the Cree Nation Government in collaboration with Cree local governments should determine with the proper policing authority and adequate funding the effective enforcement of the bylaws of the Cree Nation Government and the Cree local governments.

Access to Federal Funding

Under the present arrangements with governments, the Cree Nation Government is given funding for the Cree communities. However this arrangement should not prejudice the right of a Cree community to access additional funding that is required for specific projects from the governments.

9. Canada (and Quebec) should respect the right of a Cree community to access programs and funding that is required for specific purposes or projects.

Programs for Cree Youth

Cree youth in the Cree communities need programs with appropriate and adequate funding. This matter is an outstanding issue which the Commission, in its past reports, has repeatedly reported and submitted recommendations.

10. The Commission reiterates its recommendation from its 2014 report that the Cree Nation Government and the Cree Nation Youth Council of Eeyou Istchee should produce a report on the situation and needs of the Eeyou youth in the communities of Eeyou Istchee.

In its 2014 report, the Commission recommended that the “Government of Canada and the Cree Nation Government should conduct negotiations and discussions to address the needs of the Eeyou youth for programs and services with adequate funding in the Eeyou communities.”⁴

Canada’s response to this particular recommendation of the Commission states as follows:

“Canada provides funding to the Cree Nation Government for youth programming and services through the Operations and Maintenance Agreement and the Capital Agreement.

Part of the funding for the signing of the New Relationship Agreement in 2008 is for youth-related services. Canada also provides program funding for youth within Cree communities. For example, Health Canada and INAC provide program funding aimed at youth by way of the Brighter Futures and the New Paths for Education program.

Canada is open to dialogue with the GCC/CNG to ensure the effectiveness of funding and programs for youth within Eeyou communities.”⁵

11. Canada and the Cree Nation Government should conduct negotiations and discussions to address the needs of the Eeyou youth for programs and services with adequate funding and to ensure the effectiveness of funding and programs for youth within the Eeyou communities.

The Height of Land Issue

In its 2014 report, the Cree-Naskapi Commission made as one of its recommendations the following:

“16.The Government of Canada should fulfill its obligations and responsibilities and settle the rights and claims of the Cree Nation of Mistissini to their traditional and historical territories (Mistissini hunting territories) located east of the height of land (southeastern border of the JBNQA Territory) through negotiations in good faith.”⁶

The response of the Government of Canada to this particular recommendation of the Commission is as follows:

“The territory claimed by the Cree Nation of Mistissini is situated outside of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement boundaries and all rights, claims, titles and interests outside of those boundaries have been extinguished since the coming into force of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement through the ratification of the 1977 James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Act (sic). We thus encourage all First Nation parties to discuss amongst each other to find mutually acceptable solutions.”⁷

With respect to the extinguishment of claims, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Settlement Act S.C. 1976-77, c.32 states as follows:

“(3) All native claims, rights, title and interests, whatever they may be, in and to the Territory, of all Indians and all Inuit, wherever they may be, are hereby extinguished, but nothing in this Act prejudices the rights of such persons as

Canadian citizens and they shall continue to be entitled to all of the rights and benefits of all other citizens as well as to those resulting from the Indian Act, where applicable, and from other legislation applicable to them from time to time.”⁸

Furthermore, in its interpretation and definitions section, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Settlement Act S.C. 1976-77, c.32, defines the “Territory” as follows:

“2 In this Act,

Territory has the meaning assigned to that word by subsection 1.16 of the Agreement, namely, the entire area of land contemplated by the 1912 Quebec boundaries extension acts (an Act respecting the extension of the Province of Quebec by the annexation of Ungava, Que. 2 Geo. V, c. 7 and the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act, 1912, Can. 2 Geo. V, c. 45) and by the 1898 acts (an Act respecting the delimitation of the Northwestern, Northern and Northeastern boundaries of the Province of Quebec, Que. 61 Vict. c. 6 and an Act respecting the Northwestern, Northern and Northeastern boundaries of the Province of Quebec, Can. 61 Vict. c. 3). (Territoire).”⁹

The response of Canada is erroneous in its interpretation of the territory in which the James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Settlement Act S.C. 1976-77, c.32 purportedly extinguishes all native claims, rights, title and interests.

Consequently, the Cree Nation of Mistissini presently exercises and will continue to exercise their Aboriginal rights in and to their traditional and historical territory (Mistissini Hunting territory) located east of the height of land and outside of the Territory as defined by subsection 1.16 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

In 2008, the Cree Nation of Mistissini filed an Application for Judicial Review in Federal Court regarding the decision of the Minister of Indian Affairs to conclude the Innu AIP without any consultation with the Cree Nation of Mistissini. Canada proposed that Mistissini participate in an Exploratory Process, which sought to identify all overlaps affecting the First Nations in the region.This process stagnated from the start and did not result in any productive discussions or measures to resolve the rights and claims of the Cree Nation of Mistissini.

Therefore, in some way, Canada’s encouragement that all First Nation parties discuss amongst each other to find mutually acceptable solutions was attempted in the said Exploratory Process.

Subsequently as stated before in chapter 5 of the present report of the Commission, the Cree Nation of Mistissini remains committed to resolving their outstanding claims, rights and interests and would be willing to negotiate a settlement if the Government of Canada exercised its responsibilities properly and demonstrated good faith in respecting its past commitment to participate in discussions and negotiations with Mistissini.

12. The Commission resubmits its previous recommendation that the Government of Canada should fulfill its obligations and responsibilities and settle the rights and claims of the Cree Nation of Mistissini to their traditional and historical territories (Mistissini hunting territories) located east of the height of land (southeastern border of the JBNQA Territory) through negotiations in good faith.

Housing

The provision of housing remains a critical matter and an issue of priority for the Cree communities. In fact, housing is a major issue and a major source of social problems due to the following housing, social and political conditions:

1. enormous shortage in allocation of housing units;
2. overcrowding of existing houses;
3. inadequate funding for constructing new housing, repairing and renovating existing houses;
4. rapid growth in youth population needing shelter;
5. increasing backlogs of new and renovated housing needs;

6. construction of houses in Whapmagoostui is a very expensive undertaking because of the isolation factor of the community;
7. failure of the government of Canada to fulfill its fiduciary and legal responsibilities to First Nations;
8. Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada priority matrix for funding has not set housing construction for growth as a high priority; and
9. Canada’s policy on housing support has failed to adequately address the outstanding housing needs of First Nations.

In its past reports, the Commission has repeatedly made recommendations for the Government of Canada to address the critical housing situation with the Cree Nation Government. But the Government of Canada has failed to address adequately the housing situation and needs of the Cree with the Cree Nation Government.

13. The Cree-Naskapi Commission repeats its 2014 recommendation that the Government of Canada and the Cree Nation Government, first, should review and determine the present and future housing needs of the Cree communities and secondly discuss the Housing Action Plan of the Cree Nation Government to effectively address these housing needs and situation in the Cree communities of Eeyou Istchee.

Some Cree communities are considering the development and application of a private home ownership plan, but support from the federal government is lacking.

A subsidy would help help Crees pursue the private home ownership plan. However, any subsidy would depend on the very insufficient level of funding made available by the federal government.

The community of Eastmain is pursuing with financial institutions a means of securing financial arrangements or loans to accommodate the restrictions and limitations within the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act so that Cree people can pursue the private home ownership plan.

14. The Cree Nation Government should initiate discussions with financial institutions to achieve an understanding on the interpretation and application of Part XV – Seizure Exemptions – of the Cree Naskapi (of Quebec) Act so as to facilitate financial arrangements to enable Cree individuals to construct and own homes within Category IA lands of the Cree communities.

The Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach is facing a serious housing crisis because of the following issues:

1. an increasing population with about 60% under the age of thirty (30) years;
2. backlog of members needing housing comprises one hundred and thirty (130) members;

3. only two (2) housing units per fiscal year were allocated to the Nation for the fiscal years of 2014-2015 and 2015-2016; and
4. present federal housing programs cannot meet the current or forecasted future demands for housing.

15. The Cree-Naskapi Commission recommends that the Government of Canada take immediate and sustained action to increase funding to Section 95 housing to address the shortage of the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach.

Governance and Bylaws

The Cree Local Governments and the Cree Nation Government may enact bylaws that apply within Category IA lands. Conflicting bylaws exist and the enforcement and application of bylaws are a problem.

16. The Cree Local Governments and the Cree Nation Government should collaborate and cooperate in exercising their respective authority to enact and enforce their bylaws. In particular, the Cree governments need to clarify the bylaw enforcement responsibilities of the Cree policing agencies.

Block D (Chisasibi)

Pursuant to Schedule D of the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Quebec and the Crees of Quebec, Quebec shall transfer the administration, management and control of the lands designated as Block D, including the air strip, to the Government of Canada for the exclusive use and benefit of the Cree Nation of Chisasibi subject to certain terms and conditions. (Block D will become part of Category 1A lands of Chisasibi.) The parties will use their best efforts to ensure that the final transfer by Quebec is completed no later than September 30, 2002.

As of February 11, 2016, the transfer of Block D has not been finalized. Phase 1 of the transfer has been finalized and a portion of Block D is ready for transfer. However Phase 2 involves further measures for its environmental clean-up. Quebec and Canada have to agree on the standards for the environmental clean-up.

The full transfer of Block D to the Cree Nation of Chisasibi remains outstanding as a major clean-up of a portion of Block D is still taking place due to a past spillage of oil on the site.

17. With Phase 1 finalized, the Government of Canada and Government of Quebec should forthwith proceed with the finalization of Phase 2 of the transfer of Block D to the Cree Nation of Chisasibi.

Five-hundred (500) Foot Corridor

Subsection 5.1.5 (Existing Third Party and Government Interests) of Section 5 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement states as follows:“Existing regional roads and provincial roads and main arteries within Category I lands shall be Category III lands….However, there shall be Category III lands for a distance of five hundred (500) feet on each of said roads.”¹⁰

The five-hundred (500) foot road corridor that adjoins the community of Chisasibi is a barrier to community development and expansion.

This issue was reported in the 2014 Report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission and the said road corridor remains a barrier to the Cree Nation of Chisasibi.

Canada has responded as follows:“Canada is fully committed to the implementation of subsection 5.1.5 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Discussions between Quebec and the Crees are ongoing and we are supportive of this land description modification.”¹¹

18. The Cree Nation Government should pursue and finalize these discussions with Quebec to amend subsection 5.1.5 (Existing Third Party and Government Interests) of Section 5 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement for the benefit of the Cree Nation and community of Chisasibi.

Amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act

In early 2016, certain amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act remain outstanding issues for the Cree and Naskapi local governments.

In its 2014 report, the Commission submitted the following recommendations:

(Recommendation 4) “The Government of Canada should provide its representatives with a suitable and appropriate mandate in the current Cree-Canada governance negotiations for a full and thorough review and revision of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act to provide for, as originally intended,“an orderly and efficient system of Cree and Naskapi local government, for the administration, management and control of Category IA and Category IA-N by the Cree and Naskapi Bands respectively....” (Preamble to the Act)¹²

(Recommendation 5 )“The Government of Canada, the Cree Nation Government and the Naskapi Nation should forthwith establish a table of negotiations for the full and thorough review and revision of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act for the reasons and purposes described herein.”¹³

The response of Canada to recommendation 4 of the Commission is as follows:

“The mandate for the Cree-Canada governance negotiations was agreed to by both Canada and the Cree in the 2008 New Relationship Agreement. It established a separate process to negotiate a Governance Agreement, Governance legislation and possible amendments to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement and the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act (CNQA) concerning a Cree Nation Government with powers and authorities beyond the scope of the CNQA.

The Naskapi are not part of the Governance table. Any amendments to the CNQA would require their consultation and participation in the amendment process, which cannot be done at the Governance table. As well, one of the proposed amendments concerns the Inuit of Chisasibi whose approval will be required to amend those paragraphs in the CNQA that apply to them.

Canada is of the opinion that it can address the concerns of the Cree and the Naskapi leadership regarding amendments they wish to make to the CNQA at the Cree-Naskapi Canada working group that was established in 2009. The working group has been making progress on the proposed amendments. The amendments will include adjustments to some of the quorums in the CNQA, a long term concern of the Naskapi as they have been a hindrance to the decision-making progress of local Band Councils. For example, current by- laws that require quorums for long-term borrowing, zoning, hunting, fishing, trapping and wildlife protection, as well as land cession could be reduced or eliminated. It is expected that the working group will meet in early 2016 with a goal of finalizing the list of amendments. The main issues remaining to be worked out are ticketing, land cession and Cree pensions.

Once the list of amendments is approved by the working group, Canada’s goal will be to seek authority to draft legislation to amend the CNQA in the 2016-2017 fiscal year.”¹⁴

The response of Canada to recommendation 5 of the Commission is as follows:

“A working group has been established with Canada, the Naskapi and the Cree to make further amendments to the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act (CNQA). The working group has conducted a thorough review of the CNQA and has prepared a joint list of proposed amendments.

The working group has taken into consideration the recommendations that the Cree-Naskapi Commission proposed in past reports, from 1991 to 2012 as listed in Chapter 6 of the 2014 report, and compared them with the current list of proposed amendments. For example, the parties have examined amending the CNQA to reduce or eliminate some of the quorums currently required for the approval of by-laws at the community level under the CNQA.

Canada has analyzed the feasibility of these proposed amendments and further discussions are required within the working group before Canada can seek authority to amend the CNQA. Ticketing, land cession, and Cree pensions are the remaining issues to be finalized.”¹⁵

19. The Government of Canada, the Cree Nation Government and the Naskapi Nation should finalize its thorough review of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act and determine the required amendments to the Act as desired by the Cree and Naskapi forthwith to provide for, as originally intended, “an orderly and efficient system of Cree and Naskapi local government, for the administration, management and control of Category IA and Category IA-N by the Cree and Naskapi Bands respectively… .” (Preamble to the Act)

Cree and Inuit Comprehensive Land Use Plan

Since the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, the Cree and Inuit of the region have not been given an opportunity to sit down together to discuss and develop a comprehensive land use plan for the region.The Cree hunters of Whapmagoostui want to get into commercial activities but are often told to approach the Makivik Corporation or the Kativik Regional Government.The Kativik Regional Government had developed a land use plan with protected areas and parks without the consultation and participation of the Whapmagoostui First Nation. Land use matters impact the hunting territories of the Cree hunters. Land use questions between the Cree and Inuit of Whapmagoostui cannot be resolved without a comprehensive land use plan developed jointly by the Cree and Inuit.

20. The Cree Nation Government and the Kativik Regional Government should develop a comprehensive land use plan for the region north of the 55th parallel in collaboration with the Eeyou of Whapmagoostui and the Inuit of Kuujjuarapik.

Third Party Land Rights Within Cree Category IA Lands

The Catholic Church owns a church and two (2) apartment buildings and Transport Canada owns a weather station building. It is not certain whether the Catholic Church and Transport Canada have their respective buildings on Category IA land or Category III lands.Transport Canada has abandoned the weather station building, and the Whapmagoostui First Nation needs these land lots for housing development.

21. Canada should commence discussions with the Cree Nation Government and the local government of the Whapmagoostui First Nation to clarify the status of the lands used by the Catholic Church and Transport Canada and to determine the possibility of transferring these lands to the Whapmagoostui First Nation for housing development.

Orientation and Training Program for Newly Elected Council members and for certain Band Officials

22. The Cree School Board and the Cree Nation Government in collaboration with the Cree-Naskapi Commission should develop an orientation and training program for newly elected members of the Council and for Band officials involved in the holding of local general elections on the terms and provisions of the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act and band by-laws respecting band elections.

end notes

1. Paragraph 3.1 of Chapter 3 of the Agreement Concerning a New Relationship Between the Government of Canada and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee – page 13
2. Chapter 6 – Recommendations of the Cree-Naskapi Commission – 2014 Report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission – page 94
3. Canada’s Response to the 2014 Cree-Naskapi Commission’s Recommendations (Chapter 6) – page 2
4. 2014 Report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission, Recommendation 20, page 107
5. Canada’s Response to the 2014 Cree-Naskapi Commission’s Recommendations (Chapter 6) – page 21
6. 2014 Report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission, Recommendation 16, page 106
7. Canada’s Response to the 2014 Cree-Naskapi Commission’s Recommendations (Chapter 6) – page 17
8. Section 3 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Settlement Act S.C. 1976-77, c.32
9. Section 2 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Settlement Act S.C. 1976-77, c.32
10. Subsection 5.1.5 (Existing Third Party and Government Interests) of Section 5 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement – 1991 Edition – Les Publications du Quebec – page 58
11. Canada’s Response to the 2014 Cree-Naskapi Commission’s Recommendations (Chapter 6) – page 10
12. 2014 Report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission, Recommendation 4, page 100
13. 2014 Report of the Cree-Naskapi Commission, Recommendation 5, page 100
14. Canada’s Response to the 2014 Cree-Naskapi Commission’s Recommendations (Chapter 6) – page 5
15. Canada’s Response to the 2014 Cree-Naskapi Commission’s Recommendations (Chapter 6) – page 6