Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 12th, 2008

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Again, it would require an amendment on the way the appointments are done, although part of that is outlined in the political accord as well. But there are two pieces to this, the political accord and the clause in the bill that deals with the tribunals.

[David Joe]

Yes.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Really quickly, you may have heard me ask earlier about mediation. I wonder if you have some comments about mediation, given that I know there's probably been experience with the federal government turning down an opportunity for mediation, which has typically been their track record. I don't know that specifically, but it has typically been the federal government's track record not to engage in mediation.

I wonder if you can see a useful place for that.

[Chief Mark Wedge]

I think mediation is wonderful. As a matter of fact, most of our structures are built around consensual approaches and these types of things. I think it makes a lot more sense; I think you can get more creative solutions, and I think you get more agreeable solutions when you look at them.

Whether it's mediation or other processes, such as dispute resolution processes.... It's not just about mediation. We use circle processes, and we've developed some of these processes where we have actually identified what issues can be dealt with and creative solutions for them.

Our experience in the negotiating process is that Canada has said that it has used principle-based negotiations. The difficulty is that this is not necessarily so, from our experience. That's understandable, because you have a large organization that has a hard time shifting to some of those issues. But this is an opportunity where you could actually build in something like this, where you could start using some of the processes that are used, such as the peacemaking circles, and these types of things. Our administration of justice is beginning to use these models of looking at identifying and addressing issues.

So I think it would be great if you could put these areas in there. This is an important area.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

So you have models and some examples that could be built upon to be effective.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The last questioner is Mr. Albrecht from the Conservative Party.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank both of you for appearing here today.

My understanding is that you're generally supportive of Bill C-30 and the matters it addresses. I think that's good news, considering the large number of outstanding claims we have across the country, and especially when we consider that the average processing time is in the neighbourhood of 13 years. Hopefully this will be an improvement on that.

I'm wondering if you could outline for us the number of specific claims that are under review currently in the Yukon. Maybe you said that, and I missed it, in your earlier remarks.

[David Joe]

I think we have between about 15 to 30 specific claims currently outstanding.

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

Fifteen to 30?

[David Joe]

That's an approximation, yes.

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

I don't expect you to have specific numbers, but could you give us an idea as to how long some of those claims have been in process to this point? Have some of them been in the process for a lengthy periods of time, or are they more recent? Maybe, as well, what magnitude of claims are we looking at?

[David Joe]

In terms of time, some certainly have been outstanding since about 1974. I know other claims that I have worked on certainly have exceeded the 10-year timeframe. The magnitude of claims, from a monetary-compensation perspective, certainly would not exceed the cap, I do not believe, that is currently contained in Bill C-30.

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

I believe I heard you say in your presentation that you were supportive of that measure within the bill, the $150 million cap, probably partly because you don't have any claims beyond that. But if you had claims beyond that—and I'm sure you've talked to some of your colleagues who have claims in excess of the $150 million—do you still feel that the $150 million cap is a good idea in terms of addressing those claims that are under $150 million and allowing the other claims to proceed in the manner they're dealt with now, by cabinet?

[Chief Mark Wedge]

In terms of some of the specific claims, the cap is reasonable. There are other areas where they're under comprehensive claims. That is a different process. I don't want to get the two mixed up, because there are some comprehensive claims that fall into a different category. But generally with respect to the specific claims we're looking at, I'm not aware of any that potentially may exceed that. We would like them to, but....

[David Joe]

Well, I think implicitly under the current construct of the act, there is a black hole. What happens if there is a specific claim that exceeds the amount of the monetary cap in the Yukon? Is that still a valid claim? We don't know the answer to that question at this point in time, but the vacuum that may exist is indeed a concern to us, because all of the defences that are not allowed to be used by the crown that are currently contained in Bill C-30 outside of the cap limit--many of the time constraints for filing a claim--may become a defence that the crown or Canada wishes to use in any claims that exceed that particular cap. And that is indeed a concern to us, both in terms of the construct or the category of that particular claim and the fact that they may be barred in that fashion.

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

I want to change gears a little to the issue of consultation.

I remember very clearly in June of last year standing in the room next door with the Minister of Indian Affairs, Chief Fontaine, and the Prime Minister, when the specific claims action plan was announced. And then in November 2007, Minister Strahl and Chief Fontaine, together, signed the political agreement that accompanies this specific claims reform.

Since that time, we've also had a joint press conference in which Chief Fontaine stated, “The collaborative process engaged between the Assembly of First Nations and the Government of Canada to reform the specific claims process was efficient and effective...”.

Now, since that time, we've also had a number witnesses appear before this committee to give their input. From your perspective, do you feel that the efforts of consultation, discussion, dialogue--however we want to describe that--have been adequate? Have you had opportunity for input on your part? Have the people you represent been adequately represented?

If you could answer some of those questions, I would appreciate it.

[Chief Mark Wedge]

As I pointed out, we have participated. We have talked with the Assembly of First Nations; we've come to some of the meetings to address some of those areas. Whether it has been adequate is a big question.

As I pointed out, yes, there are areas for a lot of improvement. We've pointed out that there could be amendments--maybe we see some of them--but given where we've come from, it's an important step. We're very much of the idea that we have to move these things along. There are things we would like to see in here, as I say, that could improve it, but considering where we've come from, it's very important.

So that's why we're supporting it. It's an important step forward. It may not be quite where we want it to be, but it's an important step forward.

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

I understand that you didn't have access to the actual bill in the consultation process, but you were aware of some of the general principles that were going to be put forward in the bill, and some of your people participated in the task force. One of the things we're hearing repeatedly is that this $150 million cap may be inappropriate. I'm wondering if you could respond to how frequently that was raised by your colleagues representing other first nations groups.

[Chief Mark Wedge]

I know that with the leadership where we were at, it was discussed, knowing that nobody wants to see those kinds of caps on it, but at the same point in time, I have to reiterate that when we looked at it in the Yukon, we realized that we have to move forward. In our presentation to different areas, we want to be respectful of other first nations that will exceed that cap. We don't want to have any impact on them, but what is important is that we need to move ahead. That's why we've said we've looked at it and we're willing to move ahead with that.

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

I think at the beginning of your presentation you said that we should make this our number one priority.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, Mr. Albrecht. That concludes almost on time.

I want to thank the witnesses.

For committee members, very quickly, when we return after the break, on March 31 we'll be having our makeup meeting. At this point we have confirmed representation from the AFN regional chiefs from B.C. and Alberta, and the Algonquin Nation Secretariat. There are 10 other outstanding invitations that haven't been responded to. We hope some, but not all, of them will be here on that day.

Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.