Evidence of meeting #47 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was indian.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Hang on for a second. So you're saying there was no analysis of this.
Director General, Litigation Management and Resolution Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
We expect that there will be challenges. We've talked about that. When those challenges come forward we will review the merit of those arguments.
As Monsieur Watson indicated, we have more than 1,000 litigations against the Crown, ranging from the Indian Act to whatever else. About 300 of those are active. So it's a normal course of business for us to review the cases that are in, look at the arguments made, and, as the case proceeds, on the basis of the evidence that comes up, assess and decide whether or not it is something we want to pursue because we think there is a good reason to litigate the matter. It could be that on balance we think the position we hold is right, or that this is a very important issue that we want the courts to adjudicate.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Forgive me for interrupting, but I have only five minutes for questions. I think we have the gist of what you're saying.
Many of us in this room were business people, and any time we took on a new business case we did a risk analysis. That's just good business practice. I'm concerned that the department hasn't done some kind of risk analysis, given previous court decisions, Auditor General reports that talk about where there are deficiencies, and the department's own analysis of where there are significant gaps in the delivery of policy. So I'm curious why the department did not do a risk analysis. I know you can't anticipate where the complaints might come from, but surely there would be a high-level look.
Director General, Litigation Management and Resolution Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
The short answer to your question is that—
Conservative
Director General, Litigation Management and Resolution Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
The short answer to the question is that this decision to proceed with repeal of section 67 was made on the basis of principle. It was made on the principle that you've had the situation going on for 30 years, and the time to repeal it is long overdue. If there are consequences along the lines of what you say—well, we'll see, but the reality is that it's been on the books for far too long, and the minister thought the time had come to repeal it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
Thank you.
On behalf of the committee, I want to thank the witnesses for their attendance. You had some great insights into what we're doing with Bill C-44, and we really do appreciate that.
We're going to suspend now for two minutes.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
We'll now reconvene.
First of all, does everybody have a copy of the motions from Madam Crowder and Madam Neville?
Second, what is the pleasure of the committee? Do you want to have this in open session, or do you want to go in camera to speak to this?
I see that open is fine, so we'll move to the first motion, which is from Madam Crowder.
The motion is for the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to invite the members of the independent blue ribbon panel to report on their findings and recommendations in regard to grants and contributions to first nations, Métis, and Inuit.
Would you like to speak to that, Madam Crowder?
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.
I thought it would be important for the committee to hear from this panel. They published a report called From Red Tape to Clear Results in December 2006. I thought it would be important because, particularly over these last couple of months, the minister has been talking about the fact that $10 billion has been going to first nations communities and has been using figures like $16,000 per individual. Under “Grants and Contributions”, the blue ribbon report actually says that only $4.9 billion goes into first nations communities in grants and contributions. So I think it would be helpful for the committee to hear from the blue ribbon panel the kinds of things they considered and how they came up with these kinds of numbers. Now, this is in 2004-05, but we know the funding hasn't gone up substantially since that period in time.
I think it would be helpful for us to get a good handle on what those numbers look like, how they were assigned to communities, and what the direct results are, and I did make some recommendations for how money needs to be accounted for.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
Okay. Is there further discussion? Does anybody wish to speak to this motion?
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
All in favour of Madam Crowder's motion, please indicate.
(Motion agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
That's with the understanding that it will be after the Bill C-44 study.
We'll move on to the next motion, which is from Madam Neville.
The motion is that the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development call Professor John Borrows to present his analysis of the cumulative impact of aboriginal case law in Canada and its potential impact on federal land claims policy development, the duty to consult, and other aboriginal policy development.
Madam Neville, would you like to speak to the motion?
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I put forward this motion some time ago in another context. What I was thinking as I was listening to the discussion today was really the importance of hearing from somebody like Mr. Borrows. If the committee is agreeable, I would welcome having him as part of the discussion on this bill, particularly as it relates to the duty to consult and to policy development as it relates to aboriginal people.
I hadn't thought of it in that context until I heard...pardon?
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
It's a somewhat different motion. Your motion seemed to indicate you wanted this individual to come as a witness after Bill C-44.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
My original motion was that he come in and of himself, just to give us his expertise. When I heard the lack of information we got from the witnesses today, I would be interested, if the committee were agreeable, to have him as a witness. But let's deal with the motion.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
If you wish to have him speak to Bill C-44, I think the proper way to deal with that would be to recommend it to the subcommittee, but this is separate.
Are there further comments on the motion as presented?
(Motion agreed to)
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
In terms of the planning calendar for the committee, Madam Neville, if you want to request that the clerk add that person to the witnesses, we have an opportunity on May 17. We've just reserved a meeting with legal experts, and we have a question mark after that, so there is that possibility, if the subcommittee so desires.
Go ahead, Madam Crowder.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
When is the subcommittee going to meet? I had put forward the Westbank band as well, as a potential witness.
