Bill C-30 (Historical)

Specific Claims Tribunal Act

An Act to establish the Specific Claims Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment establishes the Specific Claims Tribunal, the mandate of which is to decide issues of validity and compensation relating to specific claims of First Nations, after their submission to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts and repeals the Specific Claims Resolution Act.

[David Joe]

Yes, I think if it's the intention of the crown or Canada to include those claims that may have been released because the period of time has passed, and if we have access to that, then the question becomes, which act is paramount? Are the treaty relief sections paramount, or are the provisions of access under Bill C-30? We'd like to think that's an open question at this point in time.

In terms of the makeup of the tribunal, it is our hope and desire that.... What we basically have is a tribunal that is made up of superior court judge appointees. As our brief submits, I dare say that if you were look across Canada, there may be one or two first nations citizens who are indeed superior court judge appointees, and none are from the Yukon Territory. For us to get some degree of credence or acceptability when we file these claims on the issue that we just spoke about—whether or not you are indeed a claimant—and given the fact that, hopefully, our appointees can be just as impartial in reviewing the administration of Bill C-30, as currently defined, as other appointees, we want to have that ability as well.

Therefore, there should be no bars with respect to our appointments, given that we meet certain minimum standards that are acceptable. We think that is a fair approach.

[David Joe]

I'll answer your second question first. It's obvious that before you become a claimant you have to fit within the defined term, and part of the defined term is the extent that you have not released your rights within any land claims. So every claimant would have to demonstrate that they have not surrendered or released their rights to file a specific claim.

The example Chief Wedge gave is exactly that point. For Champagne and Aishihik—that is where I am from—we have exempted seven specific claims, three of which have been accepted. So those claims are ongoing. We assume that, if they are not settled, these claims can be contemplated within the construct of Bill C-30. For the other four claims, the question becomes whether or not those claims are released under the way in which we define a claimant. It's unclear to us if indeed that is the case. We would like to assume indeed that it is not the case, that it is indeed pursuable or advanceable to allow first nations to continue to file those particular claims. I think that's a question of debate in the future, because it's obvious you're going to have to jump through that hoop to prove you are an eligible claimant.

With respect to your first question—

[David Joe]

If I could, I would very quickly add to that.

In the Yukon, it's true that we have a territory. The Yukon Territory is a delegate of Canada. Canada has created the Yukon Territory by passage of a federal statute to give the territory law-making capacities and control of our land and resources.

Now, the assumption we make is that for the purpose of Bill C-30, An Act to establish the Specific Claims Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts when they use the word “province”...under the Interpretation Act a province includes territories for the purposes of making the bill apply to them. So in that respect, we assume Yukon is caught by the terms of the Interpretation Act. Even if it isn't, certainly given the fact that Yukon is a delegate of Canada, Canada could instruct it under the terms of the Yukon Act to comply with the wishes of the federal crown.

So we assume that's how there is that degree of consistency in that process.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

At this committee, we have received representatives of First Nations communities in provinces, but this is the first time that we have had representatives from a territory, the Yukon, of course, being a territory rather than a province.

I am very pleased to have this opportunity. I would like to know how things are with the Yukon government. Do you have agreements and discussions? How can Bill C-30 fit with your land claims and with the discussions with the Yukon government and your communities?

[Chief Mark Wedge]

One of the comments was about the tribunal being one person. I mean, obviously it would be great if there were more.

What I think is important is that what's being proposed is better than the way it was before. Do you know what I mean? It's not the best. We use circles, we use consensus, we use restorative justice models. We're building these processes into our administration of justice agreements. So of course that's what we would like to see reflected in some of the things, that these kinds of processes are there. However, that being said, a tribunal of one person is better than what was there.

I think it's important, and I want to touch on it because, really, we're moving ahead. We want to work with Canada, with the legislation. We've spent 30 years negotiating. We know that where we start from is not where we intend to end up. There are reviews that are built into these things. We would like to think that the community would look at these things and start having confidence as we build our judicial structures. We're using family councils and some of our self-governing legislation to move forward. We think that as we build this capacity and experience, this legislation will start taking that into account and start looking at how we would draw these into it. So it is a very important area.

Regarding the cross-border issue, just to touch on it, we are in the B.C. summit--our first nation is, Teslin is, a number of us are--so we're still negotiating treaty processes. It's very difficult, because what we're tending to do is to try to negotiate treaties on one hand and implement these other agreements on the other hand. But what's happening is that there's no movement. It would be great if Canada somehow could get some movement, because these are important areas that we need to work on. We're not even to the point of saying, how do we identify what those specific claims are that are related there?

The last point I'll just touch on is that we've recently gone through this nine-year review. I met many of you, actually, when we came down to do it, and I really appreciate your taking the time to receive us. What I think is important is that this legislation starts helping us, as first nations, to move forward better, because we seem to be moving forward at different levels, talking about administration of justice, doing these types of things. I think the nine-year review says that as governments, we need to be looked at differently and we need to start implementing the agreements adequately. And looking at resources is important, right? Gradually what we would like to see is that these flow into the Bill C-30 amendments and the review that will come about.

[Chief Mark Wedge, Carcross / Tagish First Nation, Council of Yukon First Nations]

Good afternoon, honourable members, ladies and gentlemen.

It's an honour to come to present on behalf of the Council of Yukon First Nations. I'd like to ensure that you have a basic understanding of our constitutional circumstances with respect to comprehensive claims and the specific claims policy in Canada.

In 1973 the Yukon first nations successfully petitioned the Government of Canada to commence modern-day treaty negotiations, and on August 8, 1973, the then Minister of Indian Affairs, the Honourable Jean Chrétien, announced the first comprehensive claims policy immediately following our petition to the Supreme Court of Canada decision on the Calder case. Really, it was the foresight of the elders that moved us forward to anchor those claims. Currently in the Yukon we have 14 first nations; 11 of those 14 first nations have self-government and modern day treaties, and three of them do not.

I will touch on some brief components that are important to bring forward regarding the Yukon in relation to the specific claims policy. In 1973 when the Yukon first nations proceeded to negotiate the claims that started the specific claims policy, they did it under what's referred to as the Umbrella Final Agreement. The UFA is often the way it's referred to. After that, each of the first nations negotiated treaties, so we have 11 of those first nations negotiated treaties.

There weren't a lot of reserves in the Yukon. There were summer reserves, because some of our areas overlap the Yukon borders; they go into B.C. So those are areas where we still have ongoing negotiations for treaties. Some of our self-governing first nations have reserves in B.C., such as the Teslin Tlingit Council. Some of them have reserves in B.C. that aren't yet finalized, such as the Kaska.

So when we look at this, it's not just the Yukon, it's also some of the B.C. things. We look at the proposed legislation and we see there are ways we can deal with that in terms of B.C. participating.

I think people understand that the treaty part of the agreements is protected under section 35 of the Constitution. Our self-government agreements don't enjoy that same constitutional protection. Under our self-government agreements we've reserved some of our reserve lands, our lands set aside that are under self-government; they give us certain self-governing powers to assert in those areas. So it's a complication that I think people need to understand.

One of the things that are important about this--and actually I'll leave it, and Dave can maybe touch on it a little later with some questions--is that the current specific claims policy does not simply limit the crown's obligation to wrongful surrender of reserve lands within the meaning of the Indian Act. Recently we went through some reviews of the implementation of these agreements, and we're finding some technical differences. We don't fall under the same Indian Act policies and we're moving outside that box. So we find ourselves in this area where section 91(24) lands and these types of lands become a more complicated issue, because we have referred to a certain amount of land.

So in this brief you'll see a section that talks about how those lands are set up. In the interests of time, I'm not going to get too involved in that.

I would like to talk about how the Bill C-30 issues relate to the Yukon.

In our past submissions we supported the adjudicated powers and independent tribunal. We think that's very good: participation in and representation on the tribunal, increasing the monetary cap for compensation, consideration of time-limited opportunities to file specific claims, more enlightened specific claims policy to reflect evolving common law principles such as honour of the crown, and consideration of exemption of monetary rewards from tax and own-source revenue offsets.

Generally, the Council of Yukon First Nations supports the idea of the approach adopted in Bill C-30 in setting up a tribunal. Our first nation has three specific claims, and in the past it's been hard to get those claims moving forward. So we think it's very important to move to that quasi-judicial tribunal, and we think that's a big step forward.

One of the things that are important, and I know it's been touched on before, is first nations adjudication. In the Yukon we're beginning to look at administration-of-justice agreements. We're starting to set up tribunals. We're starting to look at how our administration-of-justice agreements will be integrated with judicial matters in Canada and the Yukon.

We want to look at how to integrate the adjudicators, especially, as we gain experience. For example, we have somebody here who has over 35 or 40 years of judicial experience and has done a number of things. These are the people who should be considered to sit in these areas. You need to look at that. That's an important thing we looked at.

The bill also defines the term “first nation”. A first nation can only be a claimant for filing a claim at the tribunal. In the Yukon there are three Yukon first nations that are still bands under the meaning of the Indian Act, as I talked about earlier. They've not entered into land claims agreements. There are 11 first nations that fit the term “a group of persons that was a band within the meaning of paragraph (a), that is no longer a band by virtue of an Act or agreement mentioned in the schedule, and has not released its right to bring a specific claim”.

Under the Champagne and Aishihik First Nations Final Agreement, for example, there are seven reserves that are not released but that must have been accepted for negotiation prior to March 31, 1994, by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Three of the seven specific claims have been accepted. However, granting the authority to the minister to determine the validity of the other specific claims within a limited time release is problematic.

Even if the first nation is successful in maintaining that the release was not effective, the issue becomes whether the compensation is land, as visualized under the final agreement, or monetary compensation, as stated in Bill C-30. Clause 4 ensures that Bill C-30 is the paramount legislation in the event of a conflict or inconsistency. In more recent Yukon final agreements, land is considered part of any settlement. However, I suspect that all first nations with land claims agreements would have similar definitional issues.

I want to spend a bit of time on this. One of the areas that are important for us is that first nations are a growing citizen base, one of the fastest growing in Canada. In the past there may have been infringements and things like that, and often it was the taking away of lands. Land is an important part that should be considered in terms of compensation or settlement, because land bases, especially around these areas, are important for our citizen bases to grow.

We've had some successes in advancing some of these issues, but I think this is an important part when we start talking about the legislation. Looking at land is a possible way to start accommodating these specific claims.

Clause 14 sets out the grounds for a specific claim. Paragraph 14(1)(a) contemplates claims for “a failure to fulfill a legal obligation of the Crown to provide lands or other assets under a treaty or another agreement between the First Nation and the Crown”.

Clearly, this only applies to historic treaties, as a first nation cannot file a specific claim for a land claim agreement entered into after December 31, 1973. Canada announced this comprehensive claim policy in August 1973. To my knowledge, it's virtually impossible to negotiate a treaty within four months, and therefore, subclause 14(1) appears to apply only to historic treaties and not to modern land claim agreements. That's important, especially for those three first nations in the Yukon that don't have modern-day treaties.

Paragraphs 14(1)(c) to 14(1)(f) refer only to reserve lands, and although the term is undefined under Bill C-30, it becomes clear that aboriginal title lands under Delgamuukw are excluded, as paragraph 15(1)(f) ensures that such a claim cannot be filed as it would be “based on, or alleges, aboriginal rights or title”.

This is an important consideration for all Yukon first nations, as our form of land tenure retains aboriginal title to our settlement lands. It is especially important for those first nations without final agreements, as aboriginal title is still retained on any claimed reserve lands. I think this is very important in terms of the aboriginal title, as we've pointed out.

The monetary cap is set at $150 million per specific claim, and we support the limit placed upon the award under clause 20 of the bill. That's an important thing. We think it's an improvement, as has been pointed out.

Finally, Bill C-30 does not exempt any monetary compensation from taxation. However, Indian Act bands are generally exempt under the terms of the Indian Act. If first nations with modern treaties are able to avoid the legislative bars and are successful in obtaining monetary compensation, then the compensation received may be treated as own-source revenue and therefore can be used as a component of offsets for the purpose of its financial transfer agreements. As these are legacy and/or heritage funds, if paid, these funds should not be taxed as principal payments or on interest, and should not be used as offsets in financial transfer agreements.

Basically what this amounts to is that with our agreement, because our citizens are now taxable and we share taxes, we have offsets. What we're saying about these specific claims is that because they're for these past areas, consideration should be given that these are not taxable or used as offsets against the expenditure bases we're using. I think that's an important consideration that we want to put forward.

In conclusion, I have tried to briefly set out the unique constitutional status of the Yukon first nations that may relate to the specific claims. I've also set out some general concerns and suggested potential solutions to remedy these concerns.

Again, I want to thank the standing committee for hearing us. What we're saying overall is that we need to move ahead, because what's happening is that we're depending on specific claims and some of these past things to build our early childhood education centres. We don't have enough compensation or infrastructure, and we're depending on some of these things to build some of the infrastructure we need to get there. We'd like to have other means to do that.

So we do have some specific claims, a number of them in the Yukon. We support the process to move it ahead and try to get it passed. We know there are going to be improvements generally. We're in support of it, and want it to somehow get to the top of the list. But how do you do that? Can you apply here and get that done?

Thank you. That's all I wanted to say.

[Jim Big Plume]

Thank you.

Again, I will need to mention, for the record, that I am not the chief. In fact, my cousin, Chief Sandford Big Plume, might be offended if I came into Parliament announcing myself as the chief.

But thank you for the question.

The improvements we see include things such as this. In Bill C-6, there was a cap allowed of only, I believe, $7 million to $10 million. We, as first nations in Alberta, recognize that Alberta is one of the wealthiest provinces in all of this country. For that particular piece of legislation, Bill C-6, to be passed and that particular issue of compensation to be capped at $7 million to $10 million would not have worked for any of the first nations. In fact, we may have found, quite nationally, that a lot of the cases would have been in Federal Court by now, clogging up that system. That was the vast improvement we saw in the current bill being promoted today, Bill C-30, where the cap has now been raised to $150 million.

Now, it has been suggested in our presentation, in certain areas, that we're still unsatisfied with the fact that there has been a cap put on the claims of Treaties 6, 7, and 8, in consideration of the economic status of Alberta at this point in time, in consideration of the losses that the first nations have experienced since the time of the signing of treaties. But we also recognize that there needs to be a cooperative effort by all parties in order to bring resolution to these issues that, I suppose, we both have an appreciation for.

As a good example, as my legal counsel pointed out, we ourselves have a claim on a reservoir of water that supplies Calgary with 80% of its water needs. We have been working vigorously with the City of Calgary to try to bring a resolution together that is beneficial for both parties. Through the current process there's too much uncertainty that the claim, as it has been put forward, would not gain or have the recognition we hoped it might have.

My colleagues Chief Lagrelle and chief executive officer Ron Lameman can attest too that there are a number of outstanding claims and issues in northern Alberta. We have the oil sands, the tar sands. We have all kinds of water problems that are being forecast in the forecast that's been done by our elders, and these forecasts are very, very concerning.

As for the cap of $150 million being placed here, although we look at it as an improvement from Bill C-6, we still do not feel it is adequate. But then again, we still feel there's a definite need to assist in bringing this current legislation being promoted to fruition, on the basis that we all live in this land, we all need to share this land, and we all need to recognize that we need to move on.

I've been working as director for land claims for Tsuu T'ina for almost 20 years. When I started I had black hair. And yes, it's been exhausting; it's been frustrating. It's been an exercise, to say the least, that has caused a lot of wear and tear on our people, especially our elders. I mentioned in my opening comments that we have lost a lot of elders, unfortunately. I wish I was exaggerating, but we have lost approximately 50% of our elders on Tsuu T'ina in the past five years. There were very informed elders who were...in fact, one was with the people involved with treaty discussions. He was 107 years old. So we've lost that.

I guess to capsulize, the Tsuu T'ina First Nation first took the opportunity to bring this presentation and concern to you so that we might be able to voice our opinions on this. When this was brought to the other tribes in Alberta, they readily adopted the presentation before you and concurred with everything that has been said in the document. Unfortunately some of those people who were part of the informal committee, if you will, could not make it here today from the other treaty areas and therefore their opinions, which are also valid, have been contained and held in the document.

The other area for improvement that we see is, of course, that issue of consultation. Again, I realize that we all have our respective jobs. We have a life outside of this building, and circumstances at times do not permit proper consultation. We have done our utmost as technicians to bring the concerns that we see to the attention of our chief and councils respectively, and to our elders.

Basically we support the legislation, but we still say there's room for improvement. But that's a general comment to anything in life, and nothing will ever be perfect. If we lived in a perfect world.... As my grandfather used to say, if everybody thought the same way they'd all have married my grandmother.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please.

Welcome to the 19th meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. We will be continuing today with our hearings regarding Bill C-30, An Act to establish the Specific Claims Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts.

We have been hearing from umbrella organizations and groups from provinces and regions across the country. We have come to the final meeting in this round. We will hear today from folks from Alberta and from the Territories.

I have a couple of quick housekeeping items for committee members. We will have bells today at 5:15, so our meeting will be about 15 minutes short of our normal time. I would suggest that we get going now. I could--or I will--bring panel A to a conclusion at 4:25, we can suspend briefly, and we can be back with our second panel by 4:30, finishing by 5:15.

Monsieur Lemay, did you have something to say?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I have trouble agreeing with you, and I'll tell you why. If a ruling worth $10 or $15 million is handed down in your favour, and the government decides, for financial reasons, to appeal this ruling, that will delay everything. However you know that you are right.

I don't know about you, but I see Bill C-30 more as a reconciliation process than as an adversarial process or a fight in court. In my opinion, it bodes well for reconciliation. I don't know if you agree. It should be stated that the government must be ready to go to court and that you must be ready too. Both parties must be accompanied by mediation specialists, or else it will go on for another 10 years. That's why there are currently 788 unsettled claims.

I am not prompting you to revisit your position, but perhaps you should analyze it again. In your opinion, does Bill C-30 represent a reconciliation process, or an adversarial process?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Thank you Mr. Paul, for having braved the storm. Your comments are well chosen, but I have a problem that I would like to share with you. Through the process set out in Bill C-30, we sought to curtail court proceedings. That is why we asked that the decisions be final and not subject to appeal, except in the case where the judge makes a serious error, as stipulated in section 28 of the Federal Courts Act.

I find your position problematic, because you want to ask both the Federal Court and the Supreme Court for the right to appeal. With all due respect, I do not trust the government. If a right to appeal is granted, that means that the government can also appeal a ruling. You are not the only potential claimants. God knows that the federal government has the means to appeal to the Federal Court and the Supreme Court, and that a specific claim can go on for 15 or 20 years. That is why I am asking you to show me why these rulings should not be final and why they should be subject to appeal. That would mean that a case could go to Federal Court and then on to the Supreme Court.

What is your request based on? Do you maintain that the right to appeal to higher courts is absolutely necessary?

[Darrell Paul, Executive Director, Union of New Brunswick Indians]

Thank you. As I was introduced, my name is Darrell Paul. I'm with the Union of New Brunswick Indians.

First of all, I want to say that it's a pleasure to be here before you to make this presentation on behalf of the aboriginal people of New Brunswick. Let me say up front that we are in favour of this legislation and encourage you to have it passed and adopted into law. It is a significant move forward from the status quo.

There are many positive aspects to this bill. It is an independent tribunal that we've never had before; it can hear claims that go up to $150 million, far more than any previously proposed; it now puts a timeline of three years in which Indian and Northern Affairs Canada must respond to a claim; and AFN and Canada signed a political agreement as a companion piece to this legislation.

As you know, the land claims process only came into being in the early seventies, when I first started working in this area. I have spent the past 30 years being frustrated by a system for settling land claims that just did not get the job done.

I want to give you some idea of just how frustrating the system has been. There are specific claims in Atlantic Canada, and practically every one has taken several years to be accepted by INAC. There are cases where it has taken five, six, and seven years just to have a claim rejected, meaning it's been sitting that many years with Justice deciding whether or not a claim is valid, and in most cases it was rejected.

One of the biggest bottlenecks is that the Department of Justice gives an opinion to INAC on any claim submitted. This has been a problem. For example, several years after a claim has been submitted, there is a legal opinion rejecting our claim. The door is then shut on our claim unless further research indicates otherwise. At this point, it is very difficult to prove a valid claim to INAC unless we take it to the courts, and that would be very expensive to do. This is the result of INAC taking on the role of judge and jury and the final decision resting with them. In other words, we're at their mercy.

The establishment of an Indian Claims Commission has not been much help to us either because a decision made at that level was not a binding one. Should the ICC decide against us on a claim, INAC seemed pleased about it. On the other hand, if the ICC made a decision in our favour, it was ignored because the ICC could only recommend.

The courts are the only recourse we have, and that would be very costly because the bands do not have the financial resources to go to court.

When we apply to have a claim accepted for negotiation, INAC requires us to submit a legal opinion on our claim to them. Then, after they get Justice to give them a legal opinion on our claim, they refuse to share it with us, claiming that it is privileged. If their legal opinion is privileged, then why isn't our legal opinion privileged as well? The requirement that we submit a legal opinion with our claim as a precondition should be disallowed, whether or not the claim may be valid.

The negotiation process has been particularly frustrating. It takes years to try to move these claims forward--10, 15, 18 years. After it has been accepted, some claims have been in the system for 15 to 25 years and are still not resolved. If we are dealing with a claim that has been rejected and we have had to gather further evidence and do even more research, it adds even more years to the protracted process.

This act, Bill C-30, now before Parliament, is the latest attempt to resolve the specific claims problems that face us. I believe it is the best attempt so far.

The AFN has worked hard on our behalf to get the legislation. It has dialogued with first nations and first nations organizations to ensure that what goes forward is generally acceptable to most of our people, and it is. There are several reasons why it is better than anything we have had before.

This is a legislated approach, which, so far, is a better approach than the policy that existed before. It is not necessarily perfect; however, it provides for a truly independent third party to deal with our specific land claims. Despite this, we have some suggested improvements to put forward. There are five suggestions I want to put forward concerning this tribunal, which may help to improve what is being set up here.

First, there needs to be an overall policy approach that makes the process less intimidating and as informal as possible. Right now the tribunal will be mandated to look like and operate like a superior court of law. As I said earlier, that is good, but if there were provision for the tribunal to have a group of elders from across the country—call them an advisory council of elders—one of them could sit with the judge to hear the case and advise him during the hearing. Then, as a decision is being made, it should make it easier on any aboriginal people participating, such as community elders who are there to give evidence. There is already a provision for an advisory council to advise the tribunal on the drawing up of the rules and procedures. There should be a provision to have aboriginal representation on that advisory council as well.

Second, the bill provides for an appeal by any party, but the appeal must go to the Federal Court of Appeal, and presumably it may go further on leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. Although that specific provision is not mentioned in the legislation, maybe it should be, to ensure that the Supreme Court of Canada has jurisdiction to hear such a case. The Federal Court has a trial division and an appeal division. The National Parole Board has a trial level of hearing and an appeal level. I believe the Tax Court of Canada has trial and appeal levels. There is no reason this tribunal could not also have an appeal level built into it, so that the first level of appeal would be internal and made up of three judges and come before the Federal Court of Appeal and a more formal judicial process. Such a provision would make for a quicker, more informal, and less intimidating appeal process, which could also benefit from the advice of elders, who should advise the appeal judges.

Third is the issue of cost. The court has the right to order the crown to pay the cost of bringing a matter to court, and has done so in the past in order to ensure a more level playing field, especially in regard to some aboriginal cases. This legislation should provide that the crown automatically pay all costs for the parties before it, rather than awarding costs to one or other of the parties after the fact. There are provisions to ensure that frivolous matters will not go to the tribunal. If there is a dispute as to what is covered by costs or the amount of the costs, that can be argued before the tribunal and settled by the tribunal.

Fourth is the issue of the jurisdiction of the tribunal. At present it seems to be limited to issues dealing with land or assets, and aboriginal and treaty rights are excluded. This is going to be a problem. For example, we have had the right in New Brunswick to harvest wood on crown land for personal use. Now if we are denied this treaty right in some way, we can only go to the regular court of redress, or if there is a dispute as to what is an aboriginal right and how that right can be exercised, again we must go to the court. Going to court is just too expensive, and most bands cannot afford to do it; therefore justice is denied us.

This problem also applies to landless bands such as the Passamaquoddy of New Brunswick, who are not only landless but are also unrecognized in Canada. Here is a group of aboriginal people living in Canada who are recognized as status Indians in the United States of America, and their people have reserves in the U.S.A., but they live and work in Canada and are not recognized here and therefore have no land here, even though they have claims to land here in Canada.

They have the right to have their status recognized by Canada and the right to fight for land based on their traditional lands, because they are signatories to our treaties.

If you feel this matter of dealing with issues that are not provided for in the mandate of the tribunal is too complex to make an amendment to the legislation right now, then add a provision to have a committee study it over the next year or two and come back with recommendations within a certain timeframe.

Fifth, there needs to be an adequate and meaningful follow-up on the commitments contained in the political accord, such as a clear, workable, timely, and funded process. This must include a meaningful process for dealing with claims over $150 million and must ensure that there's proper and complete funding. In particular, there needs to be funding provided for those first nations that need to carry out research for negotiations on a specific claim.

In conclusion, we certainly appreciate the opportunity to make this presentation to you. We recommend the passing of this legislation and hope you will give serious consideration to our suggestions.

We are prepared now to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

[Alan Tonks, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Thank you.

There are two parts to the process: there's the minister and the claimants who are part of a negotiation, and then there's a judicial process with the tribunal.

Perhaps I don't know the full application of the legislation, Bill C-30, but could you tell me, if there is a difference in terms of a settlement, who adjudicates? Is there any appeal process that kicks in? Are you satisfied with the way it has been written?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate all the witnesses who've come before us today. Clearly, you've brought a lot of good testimony to our committee, and I'm very excited to take your recommendations as we continue with the work we're doing. As everyone knows, this is a very important bill.

In the previous rendition of the way the Government of Canada dealt with specific claims, many argued that we were in fact the judge and jury and final arbiter of all things that had to do with specific claims. So there was a massive call for us to remove that conflict of interest, and thankfully, our government has proceeded with this bill. After what has turned out to be quite a fruitful consultation with the national chief and the Assembly of First Nations, we have a bill before us today.

Some testimony has indicated that there could be improvements to all bills before this House, so I'm glad to hear that you've brought forward a number of recommendations. I'm especially pleased to read in your conclusions that Bill C-30 represents a significant and important improvement over Bill C-6, which was introduced by the previous Liberal government. We believe that the modifications suggested, with further clarification, will help it become further strengthened. I'm also glad that you're suggesting to this committee that it continue its all-party support of the initiative so that we do not lose this opportunity, as you've written in your conclusion. We clearly have a lot of common ground, and I appreciate the testimony you've provided so far.

One area, though, on which I would like to continue the discussion is in the section on page 4 of your brief on the provision of reserved lands. It is in relation to paragraph 14(1)(c). You talk about how the provision of reserve lands, including unilateral undertakings, might not account for or properly deal with specific first nations that don't currently have reserve land but were perhaps promised reserve land at previous times in history.

This is the current language within the bill, which we've already talked about:

a breach of a legal obligation arising from the Crown’s provision of reserve lands, including unilateral undertakings that give rise to a fiduciary obligation at law, or its administration of reserve lands, Indian moneys or other assets of the First Nation

In defence of the drafting, it is felt by the government that those situations you've referred to would be covered under this particular section. So if you could give me more testimony as to why you don't think that's the case, that would be appreciated.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

The question must be put to those in charge in the department. I promise you that I will remember it because it is very interesting. It is a critical point. It is possible, then, that communities would not have any reserve lands but that they would have been promised them. As a result, they should be included in the bill.

I know that you are very careful and that you have done a very good job. If I have enough time, I would like to move on to section 15(1)(f).

Other than the amendments that are already mentioned in your brief, do you intend to send us any further draft amendments? If so, you have until April 20 to do so. We should complete our deliberations by the 20th or the 25th. Do you have any further draft amendments for bill C-30?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Are claims currently possible under C-30, for the first nations which were not granted reserve lands?