Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 10th, 2008

[Chief Conrad Polson]

That's a good question.

We haven't been given any indication that there were going to be any additional resources to be able to address these issues. But going back to the ATR, we have an additions to reserve claim submitted in that process and we haven't heard anything back on it yet. It has been almost four years now that we've had no feedback on that file, and it is causing a lot of problems with our neighbours. But as to additional resources, we haven't heard anything concrete coming from that either.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

And is it your experience, either in your own community or others in the area of your association, that you end up often using dollars and human resources that should be used elsewhere to support your legitimate claims? Are you robbing Peter to pay Paul, as they sometimes say, to support your legitimate claims?

[Chief Conrad Polson]

It happens. Yes, definitely, you have to use other resources.

We can go on with that one forever, because there's a lack of resources in all areas.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Thank you. I just want to make that point.

Mr. Chair, could I let my colleague Mr. Tonks have the remaining moment or two of my time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Yes, you may. There's just over a minute left.

Mr. Tonks.

[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?

[Chief Conrad Polson]

Pete is more technical than I am.

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

And if there's no appeal process, should there be?

[Peter Di Gangi]

This is one area where I have to admit we'd like to have more opportunity to study the options for appeal. My understanding is that once a claim is accepted for submission, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada would have it for three years to be able to decide on whether or not they're going to accept it for negotiation. So they could say after two years and eleven months they accept it, and then they get another three years to negotiate. If you don't reach a negotiated settlement after the end of that second three-year period, my understanding is that it would go to the tribunal and the tribunal would carry out its hearings.

On the issue of appeal, my understanding is that once it's at the tribunal, that's it; their say is final. I suspect, though, if they made errors in law, that might be appealable, but again, it's one area I haven't had enough time to look at closely, and we haven't had enough time to consult properly with other technicians to be able to be clear and provide an alternative if we feel it isn't sufficient.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

Mr. Albrecht, five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for coming today.

I was privileged to be at the press conference when the minister and the chief of the Assembly of First Nations were here, and they stood shoulder to shoulder committed to working to address this unacceptable level of backlogs of roughly 800 specific claims. So I think we're all committed to moving ahead, as your brief indicates.

It's my understanding that the AFN was charged with the responsibility of at least entering into...if not consultation, at least having discussions with first nations groups across Canada. I wonder if you could do two things: first, describe for me the process of discussion that took place in that period between June and now, or especially between June and November when the bill was released; and second, which groups are you representing from Quebec? Does the AFNQL represent all first nations groups, the Inuit and the Council of Cree? Which groups are represented?

[Claude Picard]

Thank you for your question.

We rarely use the word “represents”. Since the AFN brings together the 605 Indian chiefs of Canada, the AFNQL invites the 43 men and women who are responsible for acting as first nations chiefs on the territory of Quebec and Labrador.

The concept of representation is not really the focus of what we do. For example, the mandate given to the chief of the AFNQL or the national chief is clear. Where there is no specific mandate, the concept of representation does not exist, if you understand what I mean. The AFNQL, in Quebec and Labrador, is headed solely by the chiefs. It's an organization that is led by its grassroots.

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

Thank you.

Could you clarify for me, did consultation or discussions take place with the various first nations groups within Quebec?

[Chief Conrad Polson]

At the press conference in June 2007 with the national chief and the Minister of Indian Affairs, I understood at that time that this document would be tabled in September, but I guess over the summer months other things happened and they took precedence over the drafting of this bill. When it was finally set, it was given near the end of November. The AFN didn't have adequate time to be able to consult everybody on the issue, given that there was a delay over the summer months. So, no, they didn't have the opportunity or the time to meet with all the regions and the communities to go over this legislation.

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

I'll take a different approach for my next question, and that is related to your concern about the specific judicial or legal implications of the province of Quebec and the land claims there. I wonder, are you familiar with the fact that at least 18 Superior Court judges will be supplied for this tribunal, and that certainly some of those should have some expertise in dealing with issues specific to Quebec? Is that still a concern for you, knowing that fact?

[Chief Conrad Polson]

Definitely, I hope, for sure, they know what they'll be getting involved in. Like I said, we didn't have a chance to have our own legal analysis of the document. Until we have that done, then definitely we'll look at what the next steps are.

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

So at this point you're supportive of moving ahead, as long as we have a little further time for input and possible amendments to this bill.

What we have now is certainly unacceptable, with the increasing number of backlogged cases. Are you committed to continue moving ahead with the process, with further discussions?

[Chief Conrad Polson]

Definitely, we want to move ahead with the specific claims process. We have to set up a clear and agreeable process that is going to fit everybody's unique situation.

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

Do I still have some time?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

You still have some time.

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

I'll wait until the next round.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

Before I go to Monsieur Lévesque, I would just like to let the committee members know that Mr. Darrell Paul, from the Union of New Brunswick Indians, has arrived. So we will be continuing with our second panel today as initially scheduled.

What we're going to do is the last turn. We'll go to Mr. Lévesque, from the Bloc, in the first round. We will take a brief five-minute recess, and then we will reconvene with Mr. Paul.

Monsieur Lévesque, I want to say happy birthday to you. I understand this is a special day. You have five minutes.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

The same to you, Mr. Chair.

Gentlemen, welcome.

I saw on page 6 of your documents that the first part of the negotiation, before the court stage, worries you because you consider that the government is in conflict of interest. We would like to hear your suggestions in this regard because you are the ones who will be dealing with the government. In addition, we may be prepared to respond to your claims, if we can find a way to do so. Perhaps you feel that $150 million is not enough. People have mentioned that on several occasions. Once again, we would like to hear your suggestions as to what amount you would find reasonable.

What struck me, and this is something you did not mention in your report, is that section 22 of the bill states:

22(1) If the Tribunal's decision of an issue in relation to a specific claim might, in its opinion, significantly affect the interest of a province, first nation or person, the Tribunal shall so notify them. The parties may make submissions to the Tribunal as to whose interests might be affected.

(2) Failure to provide notice does not invalidate any decision of the Tribunal.

Section 23(1) states:

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

It may make a decision concerning the responsibility of the federal government, but it cannot make a decision concerning a party who is not there. Neither can it tell someone to go and see a particular party. It can say so but there is no obligation. Did you look at that? Does this provision bother you at all?

[Peter Di Gangi]

The issue of federal-provincial responsibility for claims has been a big problem through the years, as you know, particularly in areas of pre-Confederation, where the claims arose prior to Confederation in Quebec, the Atlantic, Ontario, and parts of B.C., in particular.

We realize that the federal government is constrained because of its constitutional powers and because of the division of powers between the province and the federal government in this area, and that of course it's only by consent that the provinces can be involved. That's understood.

I think what we tried to do in the brief was to say that if there are disputes about responsibility for issues before Confederation, the federal government should simply cover the costs of the breach, and if it has a problem with the provinces later, then it can resolve that later, but if the claim is against the crown, the federal crown should resolve the claim.

I'm not sure if that answers your question, sir.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Aside from that, if the claim was brought after Confederation, the judge may decide that the federal government is only responsible for 50% of your claim. We're talking about a single judge who makes a decision that is not subject to appeal. A province, a municipality or an individual may be responsible, but there is nothing forcing them to bear the responsibility. What happens if these authorities assumed responsibility for only 50% of your claim? Do you have a recommendation to make to ensure that the judge takes possession of the remaining 50% in some way?