Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 27th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

Did you have any comment, Mr. Hunter?

[Luke Hunter]

Yes, on the issue of consultation, I want to point out that Canada is a very large country, and we need resources to be able to provide that meaningful consultation.

In terms of AFN, I know there's been a joint task force on various matters concerning land claims. I would think that if they were being given proper resourcing they would have done their job. In terms of timelines, I guess that's an issue.

Based on the comments I heard from the chiefs I represent, at the meeting in December a lot of the chiefs weren't aware of the political agreement; they didn't have it before they attended the meeting. So I think it's the timeframes, as I said, that were an issue.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

The last participant in round two is Mr. Warkentin, for five minutes.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much to each one of you who have taken the time, even on short notice, to be with us this afternoon. We really appreciate it.

I want to localize the issues concerning specific claims to issues that you in your everyday life may see need to be dealt with in the specific claims legislation. You've had an opportunity to look at it. We've spoken at length now about issues of consultation, with respect to whether people were consulted or not.

There is legislation before us. Each one of you has spoken about the positive parts of the legislation that may assist your communities in dealing with some of the specific claims you may have.

Specifically, I'm wondering about specific claims you're aware of in your communities that this legislation, if it were to expedite the process.... Let's just assume that it expedites; there are questions as to how fast it can move. If this were to expedite the process of specific claims that you are aware of in your personal lives, and if they were moved forward, how might that alleviate the situations in your communities?

I don't know whether any of you have specific examples, where you have issues of specific claims you're hoping to help out with.

Then, if you were able to expedite them, what would this mean to your communities?

[Grand Chief Denise Stonefish]

I don't know personally, but I do know of the one specific claim in one of our communities, which is the Batchewana First Nation, and the concern there is in regard to the $150 million cap. It's my understanding they believe their claim is worth well more than $150 million.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Yes, I understand that concern, and that certainly is a legitimate concern. As the legislation points out, this is to deal with issues of lower value. Of course, there will be the current mechanism, and if some of these were brought out, then hopefully we could expedite those on that side as well. But I'm just thinking about issues of smaller claims.

[Grand Chief Denise Stonefish]

What I was going to say is that there was nothing we could see that clearly indicated where first nations that had claims in excess of $150 million were going to go. Were they going to be channelled into the specific claims process?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Yes, the legislation specifies that it's only those under $150 million. So the other ones would remain in the current process, so they would have the venues that are currently available for those and the mechanisms that are currently available. But this, I guess, is a situation where those under that amount would have the opportunity to go through this process that would be dealt with within a six-year timeframe. So instead of people looking at years and years, they would have an opportunity; they would be assured that at least within the next six years that would be considered or would be dealt with. It may be dealt with even sooner than that, but it would be that six-year period.

I know in my community there was some relief that finally there would be a mechanism whereby these communities would specifically have the certainty that six years from now they would have some resolution to some of their specific claims, and it was seen as a real move forward. Sometimes these are...I shouldn't say small things, but maybe in terms of the dollar value, we're just talking about into the hundreds of thousands of dollars. These irritants have been in place and really they are impeding a community's ability to move forward, whereas if they have this process, they're able to.

I don't know if you have any specific examples.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Perhaps you could keep your comments fairly brief, please.

[Eliza Montour]

I can't answer for all 42 of our first nations on what their feelings are going to be. So speaking in general terms, of course, our member nations are going to be happy that the claims process is going to be speeded up. It's going to be a good thing. We need to speed this process up.

I'd also like to make a comment on the fact that not only do we need this tribunal, but we also need that other pillar that was spoken to at Justice at Last. The internal system, the front-end system, has to be revamped too so that we can get those review processes done sooner. We can get the Department of Justice looking at it and saying, here's what we think and here's where we're agreeing with you on the issues that you're putting forward, and here's where we're not agreeing with you. So that process is also fundamental to speeding up the whole system.

So I hope that answers your question generally.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Yes, I appreciate those comments. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thanks, Mr. Warkentin.

That's the end of round two. There is still some interest to ask some questions, so what I'm going to do is give each of the caucuses one more turn, three minutes long, and the order will be Ms. Keeper, Mr. Albrecht, Mr. Lemay, and Ms. Crowder to finish.

So Ms. Keeper, three minutes. I'm going to be tough with the time.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I would like to follow up on this consultation question, because it's my understanding that it's the responsibility of the federal government to put in place a consultation process. The language, even within the political accord, talks about the honour of the crown.

I'd just like to go back one step and apologize for some of the dynamics of the committee, interfering with or maybe even insulting our presenters, because that is certainly not my intent, for sure.

When we are talking about the honour of the crown, when we're talking about a fiduciary obligation, when we're talking about a process of reconciliation and partnership and how we want to move forward, I think the legal aspects are really important in that, so that we're not just making these off-the-cuff remarks about what we think consultation should be.

So I would like to ask whether there is any comment you'd like to make on the legal aspects of the duty to consult that have been recommended by the Supreme Court of Canada, and the responsibility of the federal government in that, rather than that being the responsibility of this committee or AFN.

[Deputy Grand Chief Glen Hare]

We don't have the mandate to speak to that today.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Okay.

[Luke Hunter]

I have just a quick answer. I'm not in a position to answer on the issue of consultation. In general terms--I can't speak for my member first nation or my political executive--my understanding is that when we talk about consultation from anything that impacts the welfare of Canadians, be it on first nations...there is a duty to consult regarding anything legislative at all that the government brings forward.

And I think this question of whether or not there was enough consultation on this bill is important. But on that issue, we talked about timing as an issue of doing work in Parliament, and because of the situation we're in with a minority government, I think that comes into play. I think it's the political environment generally.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

Can we have a really quick answer?

[Grand Chief Denise Stonefish]

As the grand chief of the association, I do not have the mandate to consult on behalf of my member nations. It's been clearly indicated to me that the duty to consult lies directly with the first nations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

Mr. Albrecht, go ahead, please, for three minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to share my time with Mr. Bruinooge. I'll be 30 seconds.

Mr. Hunter, you mentioned in your opening remarks that one of the obstacles in this process is that the judge will make his ruling, and that there are no future obligations. I'm just having trouble understanding that, because my understanding is that the process is actually for trying to settle these outstanding land claims. So how is that an obstacle?

[Luke Hunter]

When we are talking purely about money compensation, it's fine, but when we get into land, then it becomes a totally different dynamic.

If you look at the bill under the release and discharge section, what's to prevent the government from saying that we've released our obligation based on a tribunal decision? If I want land--

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

But that's the whole point of the bill, I think.

[Luke Hunter]

But the thing is that it has no capacity to award--

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

I want to pass my time to Mr. Bruinooge.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

You have a minute and a half, Mr. Bruinooge.