Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 23rd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Rickford.

We're going to go to Ms. Crowder in a minute, but I might make a brief interjection, if I could.

When members are questioning our witnesses today, I appreciate that there need to be some sidebar conversations from time to time. If you could keep those to the sort of inaudible level, that would be wonderful.

Let's continue with Ms. Crowder for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the 1998 audit, in paragraph 14.57, there was a note “that Indian and Northern Affairs Canada does not request an overall assessment from the Department of Justice on the final settlement agreement before it is signed. We believe that such assessments are necessary to enhance the accountability of the federal parties and to reduce the risk that unintended interpretations of the terms of the agreement could be made”.

Do you know if that's still the case?

[Sheila Fraser]

We haven't done a follow-up. That is something that would have to be asked of the department.

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

That's very serious, and given what we know about the great challenges and difficulties in implementation, it seems that we almost have a philosophical difference. I know that what we've often heard from first nations is that they are looking at the spirit of the agreement. And it's not possible to outline every single detail in the agreement. I know that you identified in subsequent audits that the government often tries to maintain the letter of the agreement. If this practice is ongoing, it would seem that this in itself would contribute to the kinds of challenges we're seeing with agreements being implemented.

This is a fairly specific question. In the 2003 audit, there was a comment made about a database. There was a database called the LCOS, which was, I think, the land claim obligation system. There had been a number of findings in 2001 about the inadequacy of the existing system, and the government was replacing that database. This, again, was in 2003. Do you know if the data management process has improved? I know that in the TLE it identified some serious issues with data management, so it sounds as if even if they have replaced it, it hasn't actually substantially improved.

[Frank Barrett]

Mr. Chair, thank you for the question.

I will just make a couple of clarifications. In the 2009 audit, there are two important points. One, on the keeping of records, we found there were some significant problems, particularly in the Manitoba office; but we also noted that they are putting in place a new database that will capture a lot of the information needed—not all of it, but a lot of it.

But that is a very different system from the LCOS dealing with comprehensive land claims. I believe the department could speak more to that system, but it's certainly covering different issues, as I understand it.

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

Back to TLEs, do Saskatchewan and Manitoba have different data management systems?

[Frank Barrett]

They are putting in place, and have committed to having in place by April 2009, a new data management system that would capture system information from across the country. It would actually capture all of the information needed on additions to reserves in a consistent fashion.

What we have seen to date is that in the Saskatchewan office, at least the core or basic information was needed—that is, on how many acres were involved, which land claims, and where it was in the process, etc.—whereas in the Manitoba office, very often it was difficult for us to obtain that information, and it was much less consistent in terms of its file structure.

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

It's surprising that in a federal department, we have such huge discrepancies in how the files are managed. We know there has to be a reflection of regional differences—and being from British Columbia, I will be the first one to say that—but it's also of great concern that we're having to report back to Parliament that there are such inconsistencies.

Back to the 1998 audit again, which impacts directly on the TLE, paragraph 14.42 stated: “One report attempts to place an economic value on uncertainty. It discusses the cost of not settling land claims in specific sectors of the B.C. economy.” But moving over to Saskatchewan and Manitoba on the TLE, I know that's a factor you talked about in your report. Was there any effort to actually talk about the impact of that economic uncertainty?

[Sheila Fraser]

We've only given certain cases—or almost anecdotes—of how resolving the treaty land entitlement has enabled first nations to continue with economic development. But to my knowledge, there has been no study done or any assessment of the economic impact of resolving these issues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

That's about it, Madam Crowder. We're out of time. Thank you very much.

We'll go to Mr. Duncan for five minutes.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Thank you very much.

Welcome to our committee. I'm one of those people who were around when this TLE process was really quite a hot political potato. So there is a lot of history at work here, which I think has affected the current status of the difference between Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The fact that the two tripartite agreements were signed five years apart, and that Saskatchewan went first, has a lot to do with that history, and I think the differences are still showing up. I don't think I need to dredge any of that up, but we are talking about implementation here, not initiation.

I have a couple of questions. In your 2005 report, you talked about that fund that was set aside for addressing third party interests, and you talked about how none of that fund had been disbursed. Could you give us the current situation? The 2009 report does not address that question.

[Sheila Fraser]

We did not look at that fund in this particular audit, so I'm afraid I don't have that information. That is something the department would have to provide.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Right, but would that not be a normal thing to do if you already had identified something in 2005?

[Sheila Fraser]

Perhaps I should have explained from the very beginning that the status reports are follow-ups to the recommendations that we had made in previous audits. We don't go back and re-audit everything. So if there were no recommendation about the fund, we would not have addressed it. So the status reports are really there to assess progress on recommendations that have been made and to give an assessment as to whether progress is satisfactory or not.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

In the latest report, you are saying that 430 selections remain in Manitoba and 700 in Saskatchewan. I guess the question that would be logical to ask is, have all of the first nations in the two provinces now negotiated all of their TLE claims, or are more claims likely in the future?

[Sheila Fraser]

We believe all the claims have been negotiated, but of course not all the land may have been selected. There may be more land selections to come.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

I guess that's my next question. Do you have any idea what that number would be?

[Sheila Fraser]

No, but it would be a variable number. First nations, for example, could be entitled to 1,000 acres. But they could decide instead to have a smaller portion, or something closer to an urban centre and more expensive. There's a minimum that they have to select, but the number can vary. The department should be able to provide this information to the committee.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Did you become aware of barriers to the selection process for first nations?

[Sheila Fraser]

That's not something we looked at. We looked at the second phase of this: the process for conversion once the land had been selected.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Your report talked about the difference in the department's management of land selections in Saskatchewan and Manitoba. The words would indicate that the department supported dealing with third party interests in Saskatchewan but not in Manitoba. This doesn't seem to relate to the financial number I asked about. How was that demonstrated?

[Sheila Fraser]

We saw that the regional office in Saskatchewan was assisting first nations in resolving these third party interests. We became aware of this through discussions with department officials and first nations communities, who would then express to us that the department had been helpful to them in resolving these issues. In Manitoba, this was not the case.

In Saskatchewan, it was obvious that the first nations had a much closer relationship with the regional office. They knew the person they were dealing with in the regional office. They knew the status of the land that they were trying to convert. They would have regular meetings. They were very much involved in the process. We did not get that at all in Manitoba.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Duncan.

Now we'll go to the member for Ottawa—Vanier, who has five minutes.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Barrett, the information I'm given is that in 2006 the Auditor General reported that the department had prepared a draft plan for evaluating the impacts of comprehensive LCAs, and that a pilot evaluation was due for completion in early 2007. Are you familiar with this?

[Frank Barrett]

Yes.