Evidence of meeting #12 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was tribunal.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Sylvia Duquette  Executive Director, Specific Claims Reform Initiative, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Robert Winogron  Senior Counsel, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin

I'd like to call the meeting to order.

Welcome to the members. I appreciate that with the votes today after question period we're about ten minutes late getting started and some of our members have not yet arrived, but I anticipate they will be here soon.

To refresh everyone's memory, we have the minister, the Honourable Chuck Strahl, here today to talk about Bill C-30. He will be here until 4:30 but his officials will remain until 5:30, for the full committee meeting, to pose questions and have some answers to those questions.

As we did the last time, our typical process is that once the minister is finished with his opening remarks, we will have the first round of questions, which will be seven minutes long, followed by subsequent rounds of five minutes. As the last time, I will be fairly tight on the time in an effort to get as many turns in as possible.

With that, on behalf of the committee, I'd like to welcome you here, Minister Strahl, and ask if you have an opening comment for us.

3:40 p.m.

Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon B.C.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl ConservativeMinister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Members, it's a delight to be here. I'm obviously very pleased to be here to speak to a bill that's been on the minds of many Canadians and I think especially first nations leadership for decades, and that's Bill C-30, the Specific Claims Tribunal Act.

As you ail know, Bill C-30 is the key element in implementing the broader specific claims action plan announced last summer by Prime Minister Harper along with Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine.

While federal governments have entered into treaties with first nations since this country began, we acknowledge there have been instances when the crown has not lived up to its obligations stemming from these treaties and other agreements. Bill C-30 will help right those wrongs. In doing so, this bill carefully balances the interests of first nations with the interests of all Canadians.

First nations leaders have been calling for this kind of legislation for 60 years. It has taken willing partners to finally have it become a reality. We have listened, we have worked closely with the AFN, the Assembly of First Nations, to finally get it done, and in the words of National Chief Phil Fontaine, concerning Bill C-30, “it's pretty darned good”.

This bill is the embodiment of a spirit of genuine productive collaboration between the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations. We are showing the rest of the country the benefits of working in partnership towards a common goal, a new and forward-looking way of addressing historic grievances.

By establishing a specific claims tribunal with the authority to issue binding decisions, this government has shown that it is serious about resolving these long-standing claims. And in just two years of office our government has made significant strides forward on land claims, many of which have languished during previous administrations, sometimes for generations.

Last July a joint task force was established between our government and the AFN, consisting of representatives from the Prime Minister's Office, former minister Jim Prentice's office, and departmental officials, as well as the national chief's office and regional chiefs from British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan.

This task force oversaw the development of the legislation and was fully supported by a group of technical experts from both the AFN and the federal government who discussed the elements of the bill in great detail.

It's important to look at several key features of this historic piece of legislation. I want to also explain how we have built upon both past recommendations and past criticisms arising from a number of sources--the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples report entitled Negotiation or Confrontation: It's Canada's Choice; the Canada-Assembly of First Nations joint task force report of 1998; and lessons learned from the Specific Claims Resolution Act.

As announced by the Prime Minister on June 12, 2007, claims valued over $150 million will no longer be dealt with through the specific claims process. The tribunal proposed in Bill C-30 would have a jurisdictional limit of $150 million, which means the tribunal cannot award compensation in excess of that amount.

I'd like to stress a few points related to this issue.

First, a jurisdictional limit of $150 million per individual claim is a huge increase from the $10 million limit included in the Specific Claims Resolution Act, which was highly criticized by first nations.

Secondly, the vast majority of specific claims can be resolved within this limit through negotiated agreements or through tribunal decisions.

Thirdly, there must be greater flexibility for the very large claims, which can only be achieved by securing separate cabinet mandates on a case-by-case basis. Removing these large-value claims from the application of the specific claims policy and the tribunal process means that the $250 million per year of dedicated funding available on an annual basis will be available for the resolution of more specific claims.

Finally, the Political Agreement National Chief Fontaine and I signed just over two months ago commits the federal government to further discussions on approaches to claims that are outside the specific claims policy and the scope of the proposed legislation.

In summary, this bill and the accompanying political agreement were the result of a collaborative effort that included compromises on both sides. Striking the right balance can be challenging. This initiative is a good example, though, of how when two parties work together the end result will be balanced and fair for everyone. In light of this collaborative process, I would suggest, and I hope, that we can move forward quickly with this bill without amendments.

I have heard some concerns expressed that $250 million per year will not be sufficient to pay for both negotiated settlement agreements and compensation awards issued by the tribunal. As I mentioned, because large-value claims will not be paid out of this dedicated funding and because the federal government retains the ability to have funds paid with interest in installments over a five-year period, I am confident that the funding set aside for the resolution of specific claims will be sufficient.

Lastly, there will be a five-year review of the legislation, which will provide an opportunity to examine whether sufficient funds have been made available.

I would like to spend some time discussing the ineligibility of claims based on treaty rights related to activities of an ongoing and variable nature, such as harvesting rights, to be filed with the tribunal. Let me be clear: these kinds of claims are not being accepted for negotiations under the specific claims policy. The fact that the bill precludes the filing of these grievances as specific claims is not a narrowing of the application of the policy; rather, it's a necessary clarification.

The specific claims policy was designed to deal with historic grievances, with a view to settling outstanding debts and obligations in a final manner. The specific claims process is simply not the appropriate forum to deal with the broader issues of ongoing treaty rights, which are part and parcel of our ongoing relationship with first nations. I'm happy to talk about some of the other initiatives that we have going in British Columbia and elsewhere if members would like to do so.

We do recognize the importance of this issue. For that reason, the political agreement contains a commitment to work together on a joint approach to address other treaty issues not dealt with in the bill or the specific claims policy. This joint engagement will begin with a national historic treaty conference taking place this coming March.

Although the tribunal will hear all varieties of specific claims, including those related to lands, it will only award monetary compensation. First nations may choose to use the money they receive to purchase land on a willing buyer and willing seller basis. As set out in the political agreement, any lands purchased with such funds would have a priority status for addition to reserve.

The first nation interest in the land that was the subject of this specific claim will be released at the time of the tribunal decision. Because so much of the land that is the subject of specific claims is now in the hands of third parties, the release provision is necessary in order to clear title to the land. I would point out that this is consistent with the approach taken in negotiated settlements. Provincial and territorial governments have a role here too. They participate in some negotiation tables, and we look forward to their increased participation in settlement negotiations on specific claims.

Our Conservative government continues to believe that negotiations are the best way to resolve specific claims.

Bill C-30 will not bind provincial or territorial governments, unless they have been added as a party to the proceedings and certified in writing that they have taken the necessary steps to be bound by the tribunal's decision.

While we respect the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, I realize that there may be some uneasiness about tribunal decisions where Canada has been found not to be wholly responsible for the losses of the claimant first nation. I wish to make it clear that if the province or territory has not volunteered to become a party to the proceedings, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to rule on provincial or territorial liability. In the absence of the province or territory, the tribunal will determine federal liability only. However, first nations will continue to be able to pursue their claims against provinces and territories through the courts or negotiations with those parties.

This bill is designed to bring greater rigour to the specific claims process, something which, I believe everyone can agree, is long overdue. During the proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples just over a year ago, many witnesses stressed the need for the federal government to commit in legislation to strict timelines for addressing specific claims. We have done that in Bill C-30.

We've also included consequences if those timelines are not met. This legislation requires the federal government to assess specific claims within a three-year time period. The claims in the existing backlog would receive similar treatment as set out in special transition provisions. In order for the government to be in a position to meet this time period, all claim submissions must meet a reasonable minimum standard to be followed in relation to the kind of information required, as well as a reasonable form and manner for presenting the information.

If the government fails to respond to a first nation as to whether its claim has been accepted or rejected for negotiations within this three-year period, the claim will be deemed rejected, and the first nation will have the option of filing the claim with the tribunal. First nations will also have the option of filing their claims with the tribunal if three years of negotiations have not resulted in a settlement agreement, or if Canada agrees, prior to the end of the three-year timeframe.

It should be highlighted that although a first nation will be able to file its claim with the tribunal after three years of negotiations, it is not obligated to do so. The parties can continue negotiating, but once a claim is filed with the tribunal, unless it is subsequently withdrawn a final decision will be rendered.

With respect to concerns raised by the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples and others regarding resources for the specific claims process and the development of new guiding principles, I would like to reiterate that these matters were addressed in the government response to the Senate report in the following manner:

The Government of Canada will be carefully reviewing what resources are necessary to achieve a timely resolution of specific claims and accepts that the principles of fairness, inclusion and dialogue are important to the Government of Canada's new approach to settling specific claims. Obviously, the application of resources will track the new structures.

We have certainly shown that we have worked closely and collaboratively with first nations on the development of Bill C-30 and that we will continue to engage in dialogue on many other matters, as agreed in the political agreement I signed in November. We will also be working to ensure that the necessary resources are secured in order to make the new approach to settling specific claims a success.

In closing, I would like to quote from the Senate committee's report, “Negotiation or Confrontation: It's Canada's Choice”. In it, the national chief is quoted as saying:

Many Canadians are afraid of land claims. People have this real fear that if a claim will be settled, they will be dispossessed of their lands and their property and rights that they enjoy will be taken away. There has never been any desire or any interest on the part of First Nations to dispossess or deny someone else rights that we should all enjoy.

Mr. Chair, the time has come to afford first nations the same courtesy by righting past wrongs and resolving these longstanding grievances. I would encourage all members, no matter the party, to support this important legislation so we can resolve specific claims once and for all, for all Canadians.

Thank you.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

Before I go to our first questioner, I wonder if you could introduce the officials you brought with you today.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

I thank you. I should have done that.

Sylvia Duquette and Robert Winogron are my two officials. They were involved in negotiations, and they'll be able to answer all the technical questions. But I do want to thank them publicly for the work they did, along with other negotiators, to put this deal together. It's a tribute to the work of the entire task force that they came up with this agreement.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin

Thank you very much, Mr. Minister.

Our first questioner is Ms. Neville.

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Thank you very much. Thank you, Minister, for coming. We appreciate your being here today.

This is an important piece of legislation, and we acknowledge that it is.

Before I begin my questions, though, I want to make a comment on your remarks. I noticed that you use frequently in your presentation the word “collaboratively”, and we commend you for that. We hope that any future activities with first nations, Métis, Inuit, or whoever will also be done in a collaborative and a consultative manner. As you and I both know, that's the only way there will be any success in dealing with these issues, so I want to acknowledge that.

I have a number of questions, Minister.

Could you speak a bit further about the specific claims over $150 million? You know that there will be a large number of claims that will not have access to the tribunal. They too have to be resolved in a timely and fair manner. Could you comment on how you see those claims unfolding?

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

Thank you. I would agree with you of course on the “collaborative”. Whenever any groups, including political parties, can work together, I think the collaborative effort is worth the while and gives us good results. I'm hopeful this bill will be one of those examples.

But probably two of the best successes of this Parliament have been the residential schools settlement and this bill. They are two I'd say shining examples of what happens when we work collaboratively; and I agree with you, it's the best way forward when that's possible.

The large claims that are not covered under this tribunal act are any that are over $150 million. There are anywhere from six to twenty of them, depending whom you listen to. Regardless, what we've done in this tribunal, of course, is set out the parameters that are covered. The large specific claims will require a cabinet mandate to negotiate one-off deals.

The really big deals tend to need more flexibility and tend to need a cabinet mandate to drive them home. To simply put them into this process I think would run the risk of bogging them down and of our actually slowing down the rest of them. There are 800 claims in the system overall. Most of them are covered here, and I think that if we put the really big ones in here, you would run the risk of clogging up the system.

So it would take a cabinet mandate. The cabinet mandate would give the flexibility on a case-by-case basis to the negotiators to try to strike a deal based on that mandate.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

And do you anticipate that those claims, recognizing the complexity of the claims, will be dealt with in an appropriately timely manner?

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

I hope so, of course. I was up in northern Alberta, where we signed an agreement on principle for the Bigstone agreement. That one actually evolved into something that involved the province, involved schooling; there was a bit of a self-government agreement in it; there's a lot of money involved, and lots of land. It ended up being quite a comprehensive deal, if you will, although it's not under the comprehensive claims policy. Still, it shows how flexibility is necessary.

I anticipate that we'll be able to negotiate two things, I'd say. One is to anticipate negotiating them as quickly as possible, although the bigger the deal, frankly the more due diligence there is required on all sides. There's due diligence on first nations side. They want to be very careful, of course. It's a big deal with a big impact, so it has to be done carefully from their perspective, and it's a big deal for the Canadian government as well. So due diligence is required, and the timelines are not as easy to specify as they are in this bill.

But I believe the overall impact of this tribunal will be to pave the way for speedy resolution of many more negotiated deals, whether they be large or small, because it sets an atmosphere in which you say we are not only showing that we can do business, but that we can resolve long-standing claims quickly. That, I hope, will set the atmosphere for quicker negotiations on all negotiations, whether they be large or small.

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Let me follow up on a question concerning the tribunal. One part of the political agreement, which I would like more expansion on, states that:

The National Chief will be engaged in the process for recommending members of the Tribunal in a manner which respects the confidentiality of that process.

I need some clarification on this, because it certainly differs from the scheme put forward in 1998, which made eligibility for appointment contingent on the joint AFN-ministerial responsibility.

Can you tell me how you arrived at that decision and why?

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

It's important to note that the tribunal will be judges. They're actually judges, so that changes things.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

I'm aware of that, but I'm talking about the appointment process.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

Right, but once you put judges into the mix, and the agreed-upon solution was to put judges--and I'm hoping very experienced judges--onto these tribunals, then the appointment of judges is within the mandate of the Department of Justice and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. We do want a consultative process with the national chief.

We're not creating a new process to appoint judges per se. What we are saying is that we will be working closely with the national chief. He, working through the Assembly of First Nations, will make recommendations. Because the judges will be selected from existing judges, then it's not appropriate that any one judge is going to be selected to sit on a panel. In other words, there will be recommendations, working with the Assembly of First Nations through the national chief, but they are selected from judges, and judges are the purview of the Minister of Justice in that whole appointment process.

4 p.m.

Liberal

Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB

Just for clarification, are you saying that the Minister of Justice will make that appointment rather than the Minister of Indian Affairs? Is that the intent?

4 p.m.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

Right. They will be selected from existing sitting judges, and that selection will be done by the Minister of Justice.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin

Thank you.

Monsieur Lemay.

4 p.m.

Bloc

Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Minister. I greatly appreciate the work that has been done. The creation of the Specific Claims Tribunal is important work; a good job has been done.

Mr. Minister, I have a few questions that I will admit are somewhat sensitive. I am in no way questioning your competence, that is absolutely not the case. My first question is a little more general, however. Were the provinces, and obviously Quebec, consulted before the bill to create the Specific Claims Tribunal was introduced?

I might ask at this point that your assistants look at clause 15 of the bill, because I will have questions about that.

4 p.m.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

I could answer that. There were consultations with provinces on the specific claims idea, if you will, but they were not part of developing the actual bill itself. We were quite careful in the drafting of the bill to make sure that provinces are not obligated, nor are we trying to obligate provinces or territories to participate in this if they don't want to. There's no attempt to meddle in their jurisdiction in that way.

However, there is an opportunity for provinces, if they want to, to participate in this by expressing interest and making that expression of interest in writing.

4 p.m.

Bloc

Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

I don't want to interrupt you, Mr. Minister, but if I could read subclause 23(1) of the bill:

23. (1) The Tribunal has jurisdiction with respect to a province only if the province is granted party status.

Quebec is still a party to the Confederation of Canada, and what I am going to say also applies to other provinces. Suppose that a land claim affects part of Quebec. It might be made by the Algonquin north of Maniwaki, for example. I would note that this could happen in other communities.

Should the bill not provide that when a specific claim may affect a province, the province would immediately be made a party, that we not wait until a judgment is given? This has an impact on the province, the municipality and the regional county municipality. It isn't happening in a vacuum. It's fine in the case of "isolated" land, but when a specific claim is made for $100 million that affects land that is enclosed by a municipality or a province, I wonder: should the province not be made a party immediately?

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

I may get the officials to comment on this as well, but it's important to distinguish that nothing in this bill is meant to, or will, obligate the provinces to do anything. They don't have to participate in this in any way, they don't have to be part of it, they don't have to acknowledge liability--they don't have to acknowledge anything. They are completely outside the ambit of this bill.

There's is a provision that if they would like to be part of the tribunal--and they would like to be part of it for their own purposes--they have to go through a process to become a party of the tribunal. They have to submit in writing their willingness to do so and show how they have made commitments, perhaps in the provincial legislature, on how they would follow through on it.

Once they sign on they are part of the process. But only if there's a willingness, for whatever purposes the province may designate, would they participate in it. Otherwise it's strictly a federal obligation and a federal government and first nation relationship.

We've seen this at times, and I know one of the other members here has asked if the provincial governments ever take part in these negotiations. They do so at their discretion. They already sit at the negotiating table, and they may or may not participate. We always welcome them, but there's nothing in this bill to compel them.

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

Okay.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

Maybe Sylvia would like to speak to this.

4:05 p.m.

Sylvia Duquette Executive Director, Specific Claims Reform Initiative, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development

I would like to point out one thing. You referred to the Algonquin. This does not affect comprehensive claims, these are specific claims. The only thing the tribunal can ever do is determine the amount of money owing. So there will be no declaration concerning, for example, the position of lands or anything else that may affect the province.

4:05 p.m.

Bloc

Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC

I might come back to that in the second part, but just quickly, what happened in relation to specific claims before Confederation, before 1867? Was a mechanism provided? We know that there are claims in that regard.

4:05 p.m.

Conservative

Chuck Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC

The officials are eager to answer this.