Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 7th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

And now for the last questioner, from the Conservative Party, Mr. Albrecht.

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

Thank you to Mr. Paulette and Chief Erasmus for taking time to be with us today.

Chief Erasmus, you mentioned in your opening statement that you serve as a regional chief for the AFN and that you've had many years of involvement, not only in this particular initiative, but also in previous attempts to address the specific claims issue. You indicated you're happy to see the bill before us.

As you would be aware, the Government of Canada not only consulted with the Assembly of First Nations, but also asked the Assembly of First Nations to engage in consultation with regional first nations groups. It is my understanding that these groups have provided input and have actually been directly involved in the drafting of the bill. As you would know, the process indicated in the preamble as well as in clause 5 is an entirely voluntary process. The preamble reads: “the right of First Nations to choose and have access to a specific claims tribunal”. Clause 5 reads: “This Act affects the rights of a First Nation only if the First Nation chooses to file a specific claim with the Tribunal...”.

I think it's important too that those two points are on the record.

As it relates to some of the amendments you have suggested--and we've actually heard from other witnesses as well on some suggestions for amendments--you mentioned the issue of land not being allowed to be awarded and that it's only a monetary award. You're also concerned about the $150 million cap as it relates to specific claims settlement by the tribunal. Are you concerned that if we were to back up and go into opening this up to some amendments that we may in fact lose the progress we've made to this point? You indicated the number of years it's been in process already. I'm wondering if you could comment on that.

[Chief Bill Erasmus]

Thank you.

First of all, yes, the Assembly of First Nations have been involved. We don't go so far as to suggest that the process was one of consultation. We did participate. We didn't get nearly as much involvement as we would have liked from people across the country. There are, as you know, over 630 first nations, and that's a lot of people to bring to the table. This process is much better than most of the processes we've had before us.

I'm sorry, I didn't write the last question down. Can you repeat it, please?

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

My concern would be if we open this process up to a number of potential amendments. If you were concerned we didn't have adequate consultation to arrive at this point when Assembly of First Nations groups were actually involved in the drafting of the bill, if amendments are proposed, would we not need to go back to these groups and also include them in the amendments? That would, in my opinion, lengthen the process--who knows for how long. In that process we could end up losing the good progress we've made to come to what we have now. There is a five-year review mechanism in place. It would be my feeling that if we get this in place it would in fact make it much better than what we currently have.

The other point I made earlier is that it is totally a voluntary process. My big concern is on the lengthening of the possible adoption of this bill. It's my feeling that we need to move expeditiously to get it in place for the interests of all first nations and all Canadians.

[Chief Bill Erasmus]

Thank you.

Well, in my comments I wasn't directly suggesting that you make amendments. I was careful to say that in the event that you were open to amendments, those were the two areas I would suggest you look at.

Of course there's the danger of a lengthy process, especially with the sensitive nature of government as it is in a minority situation. The legislation may not get passed. It may die on the order paper.

That was partly why I was suggesting that the federal government needs to take the lead when dealing with the province and to develop creative ways so that the province is open to providing lands within the system.

We know that if a first nation is granted compensation in terms of money, it can then go to the province. I think the federal government could have a large part in convincing the province that it ought to open up lands when that happens. I was making suggestions to that effect.

In terms of the bigger claims, I think to some degree you may have some discretion on the part of the minister as to which agreements to deal with and what amounts of money. There's nothing stopping cabinet, for example, from using the authority it has to deal with larger claims and moving quickly on them.

Thank you.

[François Paulette]

I just want to make comments on that.

I'm a first nation member living on the land. So who I'm speaking to right now, this audience, is the government. I don't segregate Conservatives, Liberals, NDP, and the Bloc. You are there, responsible MPs, in Parliament.

We are first nations, making a pitch that Parliament, that Canada, make the wisest and the best decision it could make affecting first nations for the future and the rest of Canadians, who you are speaking to.

I just want to put it in that perspective.

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

From my perspective, I would totally agree that we want to make the best decisions for all Canadians, and specifically in this case for those first nations communities that do in fact have outstanding specific claims. However, my concern, as I said earlier, is that it will lengthen the amendment process, but secondly, if we remove the $150 million cap, that that in fact could do two things. It could slow the process down, but also use up the $250 million or large portions of the $250 million that's available to settle these specific land claims.

So it's my view that if we leave that cap there, we will speed up the process of the specific claims under that, and cabinet, as you pointed out, still has the authority to deal with the claims that are above the $150 million, and in the process both streams of claims will be expedited.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

That brings this part of our meeting to a close for today. Thank you for your time, your statements, and the answers to our questions. You are an important part of our deliberations.

For the rest of the committee, there's one little bit of business I would like to discuss with you before we go. On Wednesday this week, we have another large group of witnesses, as we did last week. My suggestion, if members are willing, is that we extend our meeting by half an hour, until six o'clock, so that we can hear two panels and hear from witnesses.

The two meetings next week are not a problem.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I believe we have a vote scheduled for 5:30 p.m. Wednesday. I do not have a problem with extending the meeting until 6 p.m. if there is no vote. That is fine with me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Okay. Well, if there is a vote, we'll be forced to do it within our normal time. But we have several groups and we could run out of time, just as we did last week. It's the questioners who don't get their time.

At any rate, that concludes our meeting for today.

We stand adjourned.