Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 25th, 2008

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Madam Chair, how much beyond one hour are we going on this?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

My understanding is that because we didn't have other witnesses we were going to see these two and then deal with some in camera committee business at 5:15, unless people want to finish up and deal with the motions that were before the committee.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Okay, very well then. We could look at that after 5:15 perhaps, since one of the movers of the said motion isn't here, at least in the role of being part of the committee.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

I'm sure I could probably convince Ms. Karetak-Lindell to assume the chair so I could address my motion on the United Nations declaration.

Mr. Bruinooge, would you like to continue with the questioning?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

We'll cross that bridge when we get there, I guess.

Perhaps we'll get back to some of the elements of your submissions that I'd like to discuss a little further.

You mentioned that there was no involvement of the provinces in this tribunal, or perhaps that there was not going to be necessarily any way for the provinces to be involved. I think it should be said that because this is federal legislation, and of course we can't necessarily compel these provincial bodies to be a part of the proceedings, it needs to be made clear that the tribunal results will actually have an effect, of course, on provinces and it is expected that the provinces will take part in a meaningful way. I believe that to be the case. There has been a lot of support from across the country for this bill. There hasn't been one provincial leader who has spoken out in any way against this process. We've seen good strong support, and I expect that to continue.

In relation to the element that you discussed on the cap, which I think has been brought up by a number of individuals, and you also have raised that point in relation to the $150 million mark, it's our understanding that there's actually quite a small number of specific claims that are above the $150 million mark. It was felt that this bill would capture effectively the ones that are perhaps quite a bit smaller than $150 million, the claims that tend to get lost in the judicial system and obviously lost in the negotiations with the federal government. When we see very small claims in the range of $1 million or perhaps $10 million, these are small claims that I think past governments overlooked. That of course was the reason to bring forward this bill. So I feel this will be a very effective process in being able to deliver results for those small claims.

Now, on calling for the expansion of the cap, going above and beyond $150 million, when we get into claims of that size, I believe those claims in particular would very likely bog down this very tribunal that we've set up, with its specific budget, which has been approved by our government, of $2.5 billion. It's our sense that the larger specific claims needed to be addressed in a more directed manner, through the political offices, to grab hold of them and drive them to conclusion, because I think that is something we've seen in the past that needs to be improved. But once the smaller claims are removed from the system and put into the tribunal, I believe there will be more of a focus on these very substantial large specific claims that aren't as plentiful as the smaller ones.

So in my very roundabout way I've expressed some logic. Do you have any agreement with what I've said?

[Debbie Abbott]

I guess the thing that really comes to mind is that there needs to be complete fairness to move all communities forward to resolve their specific claims, and I don't know if this would really, truly be the process to do that.

When we see communities that, as Jody had confirmed, had been rejected and now have to wait for the tribunal, there is such frustration of our leaders right now that we really need to see some positive early wins. As our leaders have confirmed, 2010 is around the corner, and they are going to bring the message forward that things are all not as well as they should be. We're very mindful of that and we're really encouraging the best possible opportunities that are here to resolve the specific claims in a manner that is timely and just.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

I have one question, and I'll share my time with Todd Russell.

I know you want some amendments and you give really good cases as to why you wouldn't get very far very fast under the new system. If worse came to worst, would it not be better to pass this? At the moment you just have the government adjudicating on itself, and things are going to take over a century to get finished at this rate. Even under the worst circumstances, wouldn't it be better to pass this bill the way it is, if it came to then being stuck with what we have?

[Debbie Abbott]

Hopefully this would come with a definite commitment for amendments to this bill for sure.

[Jody Woods]

If the goal of the bill is to get rid of the backlog and ensure the fair, just, and timely resolution of specific claims, I don't know if a “wouldn't it be better to accept it as it is” approach is the sort of approach we would necessarily think about. I think we need to push for the reforms that are going to make the bill do what it's intended to do.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

My question is, if you have two choices and the only two choices are this or what we have now, is this not better?

[Jody Woods]

I don't know if those are our only two choices. I think no matter what, we have to push for the amendments that are going to make the bill do what it's intended to do.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I agree with my colleague in some senses that the government sometimes puts us in the position where either we're for it or against it, and we either accept it and we make no amendments, and then we're all put in a very difficult position.

That being said, part of the committee's work is to study this bill, to listen to witnesses such as you. Sometimes amendments to a particular bill can go through quite quickly if all parties agree that substantive amendments can be made, or not-so-substantive amendments can be made, and that sort of thing.

I want to go back to the appointment of judges. We have heard the government in the past saying that the current judges on the bench were too liberal or liberal-minded, and that we needed to appoint judges that were more conservative-minded. We had the Conservative government questioning the decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and other courts, saying they were too lenient and didn't favour their political ideologies. So I can understand why one had reservations about the government solely being responsible for the appointment of judges without the cooperation or the legislative commitment to have both parties, the aboriginal people and the government, coming forward with recommendations. I can certainly understand your apprehension in that.

Can anybody give me an example of where there is only one judge, at the end of a process with no appeal, making the final decision? I find that troublesome, from my perspective, that there would be a sole judge, with no appeal mechanism after that, making the decision. That is why I think we should have adopted what Bill C-6 says...at least three, so there would be various opinions, varied expertise on the bench listening to this particular case.

Would you agree that three as opposed to one would be an improvement in terms of the tribunal process itself?

[Debbie Abbott]

Yes.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

You still have a minute.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

The gifts keep flowing today, don't they?

I'll go back to the whole issue of process. Do you think the process as outlined under this specific piece of legislation is actually going to speed up the resolution of the specific claims process? I am worried, for instance, that we'll see a jamming up of the process, whereby negotiations fail and then everybody says we have no recourse except to go through the tribunal, and the tribunal only has one recourse, which is to offer you money as opposed to some other type of settlement. And they get this “put the cash on the table”, we raise the ceiling on the cash settlement, and therefore more people will go to the table and solve their claims quickly.

I'm concerned about that. Is that a concern for you, that if they jam up the process you're forced into the tribunal basically because there's nothing else to do except go to court, and maybe the higher cash ceiling is more attractive to people who say “let's get this over with” and the lands are basically done?

[Jody Woods]

There's potential on a bunch of different levels for the process to be as jammed up, as you say. For instance, my understanding is that the claims that have already been rejected, that may already have been in the system for 15 or 20 years, are going to have first stab at the tribunal. Many of those claims, because they've been lying dormant for so long, are going to require new research, new analysis of case law and stuff like that, so it could jam up at that end as well. With only six full-time judges, if I'm understanding this correctly, it may not be quite big enough to handle all of it.

Another recommendation could be that there be more judges or more experts.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Thanks Ms. Woods.

Mr. Albrecht.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I have a quick question and then I'll split my time with Mr. Epp.

To clarify, Bill C-6 did not require that the people on the tribunals be judges. A majority of them had to be on a quasi-judicial body, and the judges we're selecting here are not new judges we're appointing. They've already been selected from a roster of judges. I think your concerns are not well placed. In fact, probably the concerns are related to the Liberal judges that are already there.

I'll defer to Mr. Epp.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jean Crowder]

Mr. Epp.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

I'm going to change tack just a little bit.

I understand, Ms. Abbott, you are a chief. You're not a chief. What role do you have, then, in the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs?

[Debbie Abbott]

I'm a member of the social development committee on behalf of my community, Lytton First Nation, and I am a council member of Lytton First Nation.

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Thank you.

How many Indian chiefs belong to this organization?

[Debbie Abbott]

Approximately just under 80.