Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 7 - Evidence - November 22, 2011
OTTAWA, Tuesday, November 22, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, to which was referred Bill C-22, An Act to give effect to the Agreement between the Crees of Eeyou Istchee and Her Majesty the Queen in right of Canada concerning the Eeyou Marine Region, met this day at 9:43 a.m. to give clause-by-clause consideration to the bill.
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. I would like to welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who happen to be here with us this morning.
I am Senator Gerry St. Germain, from British Columbia, and I have the honour and privilege of chairing this committee. The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada generally.
This morning we will consider Bill C-22, the Eeyou Marine Region Land Claims Agreement Act. To help us in better understanding the legislation, we have witnesses from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. We will also have witnesses from the Grand Council of the Crees.
[Translation]
Before hearing our witnesses, I would like to introduce the members of the committee who are here today.
[English]
Starting on my left we have Senator Nick Sibbeston, from the Northwest Territories; Senator Lovelace Nicholas, from New Brunswick; Senator Lillian Dyck from Saskatchewan, deputy chair of this committee; and Senator Campbell from British Columbia.
On my right is Senator Meredith from Ontario; next to him is Senator Ataullahjan, from Ontario; next to her is Senator Brazeau, from Quebec; next to him is Senator Patterson, from Nunavut; and last, but definitely not least, from the Province of British Columbia, Senator Nancy Greene Raine.
Members of the committee, please help me in welcoming our witnesses from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. We have with us this morning Mr. Patrick Borbey, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Treaties and Aboriginal Government; Michael Nadler, Director General, Negotiations East; and Guylaine Ross, Senior Negotiator, Quebec Negotiations; and with them from Department of Justice Canada is their counsel, Michael Delaney.
Welcome all of you to our committee. You have a presentation, I would presume. The floor is yours.
Patrick Borbey, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: Thank you for this opportunity to address the committee during its review of Bill C-22, the Eeyou Marine Region Land Claims Agreement Act. First, allow me to convey Minister Duncan's regrets. Unfortunately, he was unable to free himself this morning to appear before this committee.
This bill represents an important milestone, as it is the final step in the ratification by the Government of Canada of the Eeyou Marine Region Land Claims Agreement.
The Crees of Eeyou Istchee have occupied their traditional territory for centuries. In 1975, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement was reached. That agreement settled the Crees' claim to the mainland in Quebec.
At that time, the Crees of Quebec also claimed ownership of the islands long the eastern shores of James Bay and the southeastern Hudson Bay. However, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, now more than 35 years old, did not address the Crees' claim to the islands in the Eeyou Marine Region, as the islands were under the jurisdiction of the Northwest Territories government at that time.
This is an area of about 61,000 square kilometres off the Quebec shore of James Bay and southeastern Hudson Bay. Today it is entirely within the jurisdiction of Canada and Nunavut. The islands of this region have a total land mass of some 1,650 square kilometres.
Overlapping claims to the islands were settled directly between the Crees of Quebec and Nunavik Inuit a number of years ago. That overlapping agreement between the Crees and the Inuit became part of the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement Act, which was ratified by the Government of Canada in 2008.
[Translation]
So, with respect to land use, the Eeyou Marine Region Land Claims Agreement confirms what everyone in the region had already agreed to some time ago. What this agreement will do is formalize Cree ownership of a majority of the land on the islands in the southern part of the region — a total landmass of approximately 1,050 square kilometres — as well as their part in the joint ownership of land on the islands in the middle.
It also clarifies which portions are retained by Canada, including approximately 200 square kilometres of land mass, as well as all of the marine area and the seabed.
[English]
The certainty that will be provided by this agreement is important — to the Crees and to all of Canada. With the passage of this bill, and the implementation of the Eeyou Marine Region Land Claims Agreement, we will all know where we stand. The Crees will now have not only a traditional right but also a legal right to harvest any species of the wildlife in the Eeyou Marine Region, in the fulfillment of their economic, social and cultural needs.
As with the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement, this agreement states that this right to hunt, trap and fish can be restricted in exceptional circumstances, such as species conservation. In that regard, I would note that three co- management boards would be created under the Eeyou Marine Region Land Claims Agreement: the Eeyou Marine Region planning commission; the Eeyou Marine Region wildlife board; and the Eeyou Marine Region impact review board.
Canada, Nunavut and the Crees will be represented on each of these boards. I would make particular note of the fact that one half of the membership of each of the boards will be appointed by the Crees. The boards will have the authority to provide input with respect to environmental issues associated with any proposed development.
The Eeyou Marine Region Land Claims Agreement ensures that the Crees will have the right to be compensated for any losses that they may incur as a result of certain development activities in the region, including loss of property, loss of income and loss of wildlife. It will create new opportunities for growth for Crees — opportunities to be part of and to benefit from economic development in the region.
The Crees will own the rights to the islands' surface and subsurface resources. They will be part of any and all decisions regarding development of the islands as well as in the Eeyou Marine Region.
While the Government of Canada will retain its jurisdiction over the marine waters and the seabed, any development in the region would first require consulting the Crees. Further, any person or entity proposing a major project in the Eeyou Marine Region — and that includes the Government of Canada — will have to negotiate an impact and benefits agreement with the Crees.
[Translation]
The agreement will also ensure the Crees share in the benefits of any development that does occur in the region — 50 per cent of the first $2 million in resource royalties paid to governments will belong to the Crees, as well as 5 per cent of any additional royalties.
It will also provide the Crees with additional financial resources, creating new opportunities to launch their own business ventures, or to partner in other enterprises.
Upon the coming into force of the agreement, a one-time payment of approximately $5.7 million will be delivered to the Crees to support their implementation of the agreement. In addition, there will be a capital transfer of approximately $67.5 million to be delivered in instalments over a period of 10 years. The loans provided to the Crees during the negotiations of this agreement, totalling $2.7 million, will be deducted from the capital payments.
[English]
Bill C-22 will assure the creation of new economic opportunities for the Crees of Quebec — new opportunities to build strong, stable, healthy, sustainable communities and new opportunities to contribute to a vibrant and prosperous Canada.
The minister was particularly pleased with the speedy passage of this important implementing legislation in the House of Commons and he encourages members of this committee to support its speedy passage through the Senate.
[Translation]
Thank you. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
We will try to deal with the bill this morning in its entirety, providing it is the will of the committee. I see people nodding in the affirmative. Right after this panel, the Cree will be coming forward to make their presentation.
Senator Sibbeston: My first question relates to the rationale for the agreement at this stage. Is there any prospective development in that area? I say this because usually there is some incentive for the government to cooperate and have an agreement like this, just like when oil was discovered in the Northwest Territories in 1920, that led to the signing of Treaty 11.
What is it that at this stage in our history that this agreement is going forward? It seems like a desolate, remote area. It is offshore; it is a marine agreement.
My other question relates to implementation. There have been problems. Land claim organizations and native people come and sign agreements with a lot of hope, but the federal government invariably does not implement the agreement. There have been problems. The people that have made claims in the last decades have organized into a group dealing with this problem of implementation.
What is it this time that should give the Cree hope that what they are signing will, indeed, come to pass as they expect?
The Chair: On the first question, maybe we should wait until the TSX closes.
Mr. Borbey: Thank you for those questions.
I am not aware of any major projects or any prospective development in the area involved here. Maybe the grand chief knows something that I do not and he can talk about it later on. I do not think that is the impetus.
I think the government, the Cree, and the Inuit of Nunavut and Nunavik, all realize there was some unfinished business. In fact, I have to give credit to the Aboriginal groups because they are the ones who took the lead in negotiating their own overlap agreements in 2003. This is fulfilling the wish of the Aboriginal people of that region, basically, to bring some clarity and certainty to the rights and to the sharing of these rights in this region. This agreement was reached fairly quickly considering we only started in 2003. There was a lot of goodwill on the part of all parties.
That is the best answer I can give you to the first question.
On the second question, I acknowledge that you are right. There have been many challenges both in court and in this committee. For example, presentations were made in the past over implementation challenges that we have had and we have had to improve our performance in that area. I am pleased to note that the last report of the Auditor General has acknowledged that we have made significant improvements. We have put in place some structural changes to ensure that we have a whole-of-government approach to implementation and there are as few gaps as possible.
In terms of how we will hopefully learn our lessons in terms of the implementation of this agreement, maybe I can ask Ms. Ross to speak about implementation approaches.
Guylaine Ross, Senior Negotiator, Quebec Negotiations, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: Thank you for the question, Senator Sibbeston.
As Mr. Borbey explained, many changes have been put in place. We also negotiated an implementation agreement with the Cree during the negotiations of the agreement itself.
The implementation plan speaks fairly in detail to roles, responsibilities and committees that will be put in place to ensure the proper implementation and follow ups that will be required.
We believe the plan was developed to the satisfaction of both Canada and the Cree. There will be implementation committees that will see to the smooth transition and coming into effect of the agreement as well as follow up on all activities that will be required.
Senator Sibbeston: I know there is a 10-year review. Is that part of the process to ensure that implementation occurs and that the agreement is good? There is to be a review 10 years from that, which would be an opportunity for the claimants to give a report about how the land claims agreement has gone or whether it has been fulfilled.
Ms. Ross: That is exactly the intent, yes.
Senator Patterson: I want to voice my strong support for this bill and thank Senator Sibbeston for his support in principle for the bill expressed in the Senate the other day. This is a great story because we have guaranteed Aboriginal participation in resource development, decisions and a guaranteed piece of the action and a recognition of the primary Aboriginal right of hunting and traditional activities in the region.
It seems to be similar to the Inuit land claim with the 5 per cent royalty share, which I think is working very well in Nunavut as resource potential is identified. I will ask Chief Coon Come about what potential that might hold. I was interested in your answer and I would have asked that question.
There is one question that comes to my mind. It is a huge area, do not get me wrong, but it is a relatively small area to manage yet did you say there are three co-management boards? Will they be adequately resourced to deal with management of natural resources in these areas? I wonder if co-management boards for such a relatively small area are the most efficient way of doing things. Had other models been considered? I just want to make sure these boards can function, and perhaps there will not be significant developments, as you have suggested, but in case they are and that has been an issue, as Senator Sibbeston has said. In the implementation of the Nunavut land claim, will there be the resources available to support those boards to do their work?
Mr. Borbey: The agreement does provide for initial funding to support the creation of the three boards. There is an amount of $1.9 million set aside for the first year and then $1.5 million per year ongoing. We feel that is adequate to deal with the work plan expected for those boards. Certainly, if there were to be major development projects in that area, we would have to look at how we could help out the boards in terms of dealing with that kind of pressure, as we have from time to time had to do in the North, in Nunavut and the Northwest Territories. We have had to find ways of supplementing those resources or helping with participant funding, things of that nature.
We have also set aside an amount of $5 million to support the wildlife board in doing some initial baseline research. That is also an important investment that will help that board get up and running fairly quickly and get a baseline of the resources in the area, which will then contribute to future decisions.
Yes, we think the resources at the outset are adequate to the boards, but we will need to monitor that situation and be prepared to respond if there is a major development that is required.
Senator Sibbeston: Mr. Borbey just said that there have been a number of instances in the North, in Nunavut, where the government has provided more funds. He has given the impression that the federal government is very generous beyond the terms. Can you give me instances where this has occurred? It is not the general view of the federal government. Generally they have been tight and refusing to live up to their obligations. I cannot imagine the federal government going beyond what the agreement stipulates. Could you provide an example of where the federal government has been generous, as you have stated?
Mr. Borbey: I would not describe it as either generous or stingy. We need to be responsive to the reality of the costs of running boards and the pressures that those boards face. We have two or three years ago provided an across the board increase to the boards of Nunavut, and this year we have provided additional funding to boards in the NWT that were facing some pressure because of, again, a spike in development projects and hearings.
We have also from time to time provided participant funding. For example, for the Bathurst Inlet port project, we had identified a certain amount of participant funding that we would make available to facilitate, again, the work of the board.
We try to be as responsive as possible, but we have limited resources that are available to be able to support that.
Senator Sibbeston: Can you please provide us details in the form of a letter in terms of the information you provided, please?
Mr. Borbey: Certainly.
The Chair: I thank the people from the department. Thank you, Mr. Borbey, for your presentation and for all of you being here this morning and for being forthright and succinct.
We now have with us, from the Grand Council of the Crees, Matthew Coon Come, Grand Chief; Rod Pachano, Negotiator; Denis Blanchette, Legal Counsel; and Brian Craik, Director of Federal Relations. We look forward to your presentations.
Grand Chief, I am sure you are aware of our procedures, as you have been here before. You have always done an excellent job. I have no doubt you will carry on in your usual efficient manner. The floor is yours.
Matthew Coon Come, Grand Chief, Grand Council of the Crees: Good morning, chair, deputy chair and honourable senators. Thank you for inviting us here to speak on the new Cree offshore agreement.
The Grand Council of the Crees represents almost 17,000 Crees living or having roots on the East Coast of James Bay and Hudson Bay, who are the beneficiaries of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. The proposed Eeyou Marine Region Agreement was initialled by the negotiators in Ottawa in June 2009. In May 2010, the Crees voted by referendum overwhelmingly in favour of the proposed Eeyou Marine Region Land Claims Agreement. Ninety-five per cent of the voters accepted the agreement, and they represented 70 per cent of the eligible voters.
On July 7, 2010, the agreement was signed between Canada and the Crees. We support Bill C-22, and we are confident that this legislation will be well received and supported by all the members of the Senate.
The Cree offshore agreement protects and confirms our existing ancestral rights, our way of life and our traditional practices on the offshore islands. No rights will be extinguished. Rights that are not specifically addressed and recognized in the offshore agreement, including rights to self-government, will not be affected by this agreement. If the offshore agreement is ratified by Bill C-22, the Crees will be in a position to discontinue legal proceedings against Canada with regard to our claims in the offshore area. The Crees were well informed about this agreement, and they voted massively in favour of it.
In the community consultation tour, we visited all Cree communities. We went to the towns where a number of the Crees live, work or go to school, including Ottawa, Montreal, Val d'Or, Amos, Rouyn, Sudbury, North Bay and Moose Factory.
The rate of participation among the youth was unprecedented. Over 70 per cent of the youth took part in the process and voted in favour of the agreement.
With Canada, we have developed a comprehensive implementation plan, which includes a committee to monitor implementation. Canada has promised to provide the implementation funding and to pay the Crees for some of their costs of implementation. Canada and the Crees have also agreed to carry out joint reviews every 10 years to ensure the agreement is properly implemented.
The offshore agreement contains one of the first overlapping claims agreements in Canada. This overlap agreement was signed in 2003 and covers areas of common interests of the Crees and the Nunavik Inuit. It forms part of both the offshore agreement and the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement signed with Canada in 2007.
The Cree offshore agreement contains provisions to guarantee that the rights of other Aboriginal peoples will not be affected by this agreement. We are pleased with the collaboration that the minister and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada have shown in negotiating and concluding the Cree offshore agreement and in ensuring that it can be ratified as expeditiously as possible. We continue to work with officials from the department on preparation for the coming into force of the agreement, and we are confident that everything is in place for this historical date. The negotiations of this agreement were completed with the government in early 2009. Passage of Bill C-22 through Parliament will demonstrate Canada's commitment to solving Aboriginal claims.
In closing, I invite honourable senators to support Bill C-22 and to make it into law so that it can come into force as soon as possible. Meegwetch. Merci. Thank you very much.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Patterson: I have some specific questions. I have indicated my support for the bill in the Senate, when it was given second reading, and this morning.
First, grand chief, you mentioned the happy event which will be the discontinuation of litigation. Even though I was a lawyer myself, it is not the way to go. I am always pleased when negotiations can replace litigation.
I am not at all questioning the good faith here, but how will this happen? Will you wait until third reading or royal proclamation? When will the lawsuit be discontinued?
Mr. Coon Come: We will discontinue our legal action once this bill is passed and it is in force.
Senator Patterson: Very good.
I am very impressed that, if I understood correctly, you are repaying a loan for your negotiating costs out of the proceeds of the settlement; you will have cash compensation of $67.5 million, and the loan is around $2 million. How did you make it so small? I shudder sometimes. I am a member of the legal profession, but I shudder sometimes at the staggering loans that accumulate. This negotiation has been extant; the issue was there in 1975, and I am sure there have been years of work on settling it. I want to congratulate you and ask you how you kept your loan costs so low. This is 3 per cent. I have seen much bigger. How did you do it? Did your lawyers give discount fees?
The Chair: You have got to be joking. We have a comedian this morning.
Who will spot that one; grand chief or legal counsel?
Mr. Coon Come: I will not let the legal counsel answer; he might charge me. I might save some costs here. I will let one of our negotiators, Mr. Craik, answer that one.
Brian Craik, Director of Federal Relations, Grand Council of the Crees: I guess the answer is we worked very efficiently at the table. I must admit that the Crees made the first draft of the agreement. It was understood when we accepted the framework under which it would be negotiated that it would be very much like the Nunavik agreement. We built our agreement off the Nunavik agreement and made some improvements here and there. That made the process much faster.
I can also say that because that path had already been opened up by the Nunavik negotiations, there were things that did not have to be re-discussed; we both understood them. At the time, our legal counsel was Robert Mainville, who is now a judge on the Federal Court of Appeal. He was very skilled at writing agreements and did so in a very expeditious manner.
For the second half of the negotiations, Mr. Blanchette was also involved, and he took over from Mr. Mainville when he was appointed to the court. We have had the luck of having two good lawyers who did not spend a lot of time trying to make more out of it than it was.
Senator Patterson: I would like to ask the grand chief about the resource royalties piece, which I think is appropriate and adequate, as I mentioned.
Are you anticipating that there may be natural resource developments on these lands? Has that been inventoried by the Crees? You have heard Canada say that there was no known potential, and I am sure it is primarily traditional use of the lands and waters that is a driver of this agreement. However, are you preparing for the day when there may be mineral, oil or other non-renewable resource revenues on these lands?
Mr. Coon Come: On the mainland, 300 junior mining companies have done exploration work. Of them, probably nine are going through the environmental regimes provided for under section 22 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, of which probably four may start a mine. The reason I say that is because of those mining companies and the exploration work they have completed, they have found that along the East Coast there is probably gold, uranium and possibly iron ore, up near Duncan Lake. Inland they have found minerals as well. However, of course, the extension into the islands is not clear yet.
We did anticipate that if there was any potential mineral development within the territory, the Crees would be involved in any economic spinoffs, thus the creation of the regional impact review, which will act as section 22 of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. It is a new regime. Certainly, the wildlife board we created will take into consideration at present the major activity within our territory, which is hunting, trapping and fishing.
As you know within the legislation itself, we will own the minerals, but we will certainly do so in consultation.
The most important work is done by the planning commission. The planning commission is very crucial because we are working in partnership with Canada, and we have 50 per cent of the representation from the committees. With that, we can designate areas if we wanted to, such as for protected areas or a marine park, and we will be able to not totally prevent any development that happens but at least protect certain areas.
Once we find clarity in the ownership question of the islands, we will see some of these mining companies come in because now they know who to go to. In this case, nothing can be done without the involvement and the consent of the Crees.
Senator Campbell: It is good to see you again, grand chief. Every 10 years there will be a review by the Crees and the government. Is that correct?
Mr. Coon Come: Yes, that is correct.
Senator Campbell: 10 years is a long time. Is there a process in place wherein you can do a review sooner than that if issues arise such as mining or oil exploration or anything of that nature?
Mr. Coon Come: I will let Mr. Pachano, our chief negotiator, answer that.
Rod Pachano, Negotiator, Grand Council of the Crees: Thank you for that question. If you will recall, under the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act, there is a review or a report requirement of every two years. With that, I think people felt that was too often. Trying to find the magic number of years for a review, whether it is five or 10 years, I guess only time will tell. We are just basically following the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement legislation that was adopted two years ago in which there was a 10-year review that was incorporated into the treaty or agreement itself. No one knows for sure.
Senator Campbell: Thank you.
Senator Sibbeston: I had a question regarding the potential of the offshore and island area, but it has been answered.
My question deals with money. I am aware of other agreements, such as in Inuvialuit up in the Northwest Territories, when they signed their agreement in 1984, I think the compensation money-wise was in the area of $50 million. I appreciate with inflation, it is millions more now, but $67.5 million seems like a lot of money for an area that is not even land; it is mostly water and islands. How did you arrive at that $67.5 million figure?
Mr. Coon Come: We never saw this agreement as being about money. Our approach since 1974, when there was a letter of intent to settle the offshore islands issue, we saw it as trying to create certainty for the federal government and for our hunters. There are about 2,722 islands in the territory, and those islands are used by the hunters and fishermen of up to five Cree communities along the coast of James Bay. They are the main users and occupants of the territory, pursuing their activities as hunters, fishermen and trappers. Certainly, they wanted to protect and allow the continuation of that traditional way of life. The land is still the largest employer for us, and certainly the island itself is an economic base.
However, we know that with the agreement, we wanted to ensure there was an implementation process. We wanted to ensure there was a proper planning commission. We wanted to ensure there was wildlife protection and, of course, review boards were set up.
We knew it would cost money with that implementation, and we wanted to make sure that the work that needed to be done had adequate resources. We have been waiting since 1974 to settle this offshore claim. Throughout those years, I think we have learned a thing or two and I think Canada has learned a thing or two from over 35 or 40 years of how we can improve and do things better, trying to work together and involve the people there — in our case, 50 per cent of Crees participate — and put in place a proper implementation mechanism. Unfortunately, that costs money. Most of those funds will go into implementation so that adequate work is being carried out as per the intent of the agreement.
Senator Sibbeston: Extinguishment of Aboriginal rights is a dominant issue and has been significant in negotiating these claims. In the past, the federal government has wanted to extinguish Aboriginal rights in exchange for an agreement. How have you handled that issue so that you feel secure that your Aboriginal rights will continue into the future?
Mr. Coon Come: During my presentation, I said that no rights will be extinguished. The offshore agreement protects and confirms our existing ancestral rights, our hunting, fishing and trapping rights and the traditional practices we have always carried out. We feel that the approach in the Cree offshore agreement is different from other treaties. The Cree rights to the land and to the natural resources in Nunavut, in the James Bay and Hudson Bay territory, are fully and clearly defined, and they flow from our ancestral past. As part of the treaty, we feel our rights will be protected, and they will be protected under the Constitution as well.
Senator Ataullahjan: What was the participation rate of women in the vote? How will it affect or impact their lives if this agreement is ratified?
Mr. Coon Come: I am glad you asked that question because with the reality in Cree communities, when we have public meetings, referendums or elections, it is the women who come out to participate. The men are too busy out on the land hunting, fishing and trapping.
We had two young women and a young man that helped us, used the social network and reached out to these young people. The majority of them were young women and were involved in the process. For a woman whose livelihood is living off the land — because you cannot be on the land by yourself; you have to be with a man — you need your partner. It creates certainty for these women. There is nothing like insecurity for a woman. A woman needs security that someone will support her and be able to go out on the land with her.
Our women also hunt, fish and trap. They practice their harvesting rights of picking berries out on the island. To them, it creates great certainty. They will not be hassled. They will continue to pursue their activities as they did in the past. We did the community consultation and that is the reality for them. The majority of the women are the ones that participate in our meetings. They had a say in the way this would go through. Thank you for asking that.
Senator Dyck: Thank you for the presentation. It was impressive.
You were describing the turnout of eligible voters and the degree to which the Cree have ratified the intention to have this. As a follow up to what Senator Ataullahjan was saying, you also mentioned youth. Presumably, your population also has a high percentage of young people. I am wondering whether having a large number of young people helped people decide they should push for this bill — in order to protect the traditional lifestyle — and whether the population demographics helped give support to your initiative.
Mr. Coon Come: We are well aware of our demographics, and probably 65 per cent of our youth are under 25. They are the largest eligible voters. We prepared our consultations and knowing we would have to have a referendum, we used the social network. We created Facebook pages and all kinds of communications were done with the youth, using the social network to reach out to our youth. That contributed to an increase in participation. We knew by looking at the population and the turnout of the majority of the people, that we would probably have difficulty passing the requirement for a number of people to accept the referendum. The youth understand their culture and the need to preserve that traditional way of life. They are major users of the islands and to them, this was very crucial. I remember at one meeting we were telling them there should be a way of expressing support to your fathers, your fathers' fathers and your parents who are out on the land, because this is for them. However, it is also for the future. If you look at it, about half of our population of 17,000 are on the coast. The other half is inland because there are 10 Cree communities.
Senator Dyck: You also mentioned you were reaching out to some of your citizens that live in cities like Ottawa and Sudbury. Do you think you got a lot of support from those who live further south?
Mr. Coon Come: We have about 420 post-secondary students that live in Sudbury, about 100 in Ottawa, and maybe another 150 in Montreal and the other cities I named. Those are statistics from the Cree School Board. We knew we needed to reach them and made every effort to visit them. I think we had a good turnout. We had polling stations in all the cities I named. They were able to participate because they are only here temporarily to get an education. We want them to come back to our communities and work for the nation.
Senator Raine: We are very anxious to see this proceed quickly. I am curious about what happens with the payment that you receive for this? How does the Cree nation deal with that? Is it put in a trust fund or divided up to the different communities? How do you deal with that?
Denis Blanchette, Legal Counsel, Grand Council of the Crees: I will answer the question. Money will be held collectively on behalf of all the inland and coastal Crees by the Cree Regional Authority. It will be segregated from other funds that the Cree Regal Authority manages for operations and maintenance. It will eventually be allocated for projects that are intended for the offshore regions. It will be kept separate and it will not be divided individually.
Senator Raine: It will be an ongoing resource that works in perpetuity.
Mr. Blanchette: That is the idea at this time. This money will be set aside for projects to be decided upon in the future, and kept separate for future projects in the offshore.
Senator Raine: That is interesting because many people in Canada are envious of the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund, which has done that over many years collectively for the people. It is a good model.
Senator Ataullahjan: Have you identified any key issues the funds would go to?
Mr. Pachano: There have been no issues identified as far as where the money will go. We have not decided how the money will be allocated or for what purposes in the future. We have been waiting for this legislation to pass and for the agreement to be in force before we count our chickens.
The Chair: Grand chief, as usual you have done an excellent job on behalf of your people. You have all done great work for the Cree in the region that you live in. Thank you for appearing this morning. It appears we have reasonable consensus to proceed. Is it agreed that we proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-22?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: I will let the witnesses leave.
Honourable senators, we have agreed to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-22.
Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 10 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 11 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 12 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 13 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 14 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 15 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Does the committee wish to consider appending observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: None being heard, we will proceed.
Is it agreed that I shall report this bill or we shall report this bill to the Senate?
Senator Sibbeston: Today, if possible.
The Chair: We expect to do that today and, colleagues, I cannot be there as a result of my presence being requested in the House of Commons. Senator Dyck will report Bill C-22 back to the Senate. Is it agreed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: All right, colleagues, I want to thank you all for the cooperation and I think it is an excellent piece of legislation. When you see First Nations people like Mr. Coon Come, the grand chief, I think it is refreshing and it encourages me to think that the report we are doing on education, when people like this have emerged from our First Nations, there is a bright future for our First Nations people, our Aboriginal peoples generally in Canada.
(The committee adjourned.)