Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on April 28th, 2009

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

Ms. Filbee said something in her introduction that made me wince a little. I quote it in French: “Toutefois, il y a beaucoup de parties concernées qui n'ont aucun motif apparent de faire avancer rapidement les dossiers.” You'll understand why I'm wondering about that.

[Paul Fauteux]

The translation may be a little harsh. I believe in English, it referred to

parties who don't have the same incentive to move ahead politically.

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

It could be translated that way into French.

[Paul Fauteux]

The first nation, the federal government and the province have a common interest in moving ahead quickly. In the case of a third party, whether it be an electrical, gas, pipeline or telephone company, it has to obtain an instrument under the Indian Act that replaces the easement provided for under the common law system outside the Indian Act. For a third party, that's not necessarily as high a priority as for the first nation, the federal government or the province.

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

For example, if Bell Canada has pylons there, it would need an exemption.

[Paul Fauteux]

It would need a right of way. The business already had a right of way under the provincial act, when the lands were under the legal system of the province. It has to obtain an instrument, an easement, a right of way, issued under the Indian Act.

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

In 2005, the figure cited was seven years. So do you still think it's possible this will be settled in 2012?

[Paul Fauteux]

That seven-year figure isn't a target; it's an average that was mentioned by your colleague, which may have applied to a number of additions to reserves at one point. We're putting in place—and Ms. Filbee mentioned this in her statement—a national additions to reserve tracking system. It's a data base containing all the data on all additions to reserve processes. Once that data base is operational, in the current fiscal year, it will enable us to monitor every detail of the process very closely. We will then be able to say whether the average is indeed seven years or whether it is shorter, if we are headed in the direction of a shortcut to the process. However, seven years is not a target.

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

Does that also apply elsewhere than in Manitoba and Saskatchewan?

[Paul Fauteux]

Yes, absolutely.

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

So it applies to Quebec.

[Paul Fauteux]

The data base will be national.

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

So it applies to Quebec as well?

[Paul Fauteux]

Absolutely, it applies to all the provinces.

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

My question was a bit of a trick question. For those lands to be considered reserve lands, must the aboriginals concerned necessarily be recognized under the Indian Act; in other words must they already be established as a reserve?

[Paul Fauteux]

To make an addition of lands to an existing reserve, to create a reserve, there must be an Indian band within the meaning of the Indian Act on the site, since it is the act that defines a reserve as being lands reserved for the use and benefit of an Indian band, which today is called a first nation.

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

My colleagues have been made aware of a problem we have in Quebec, which is called Kitcisakik.

[Paul Fauteux]

That's a place that I know and have visited.

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

I'm sure you must know it and I am convinced that you know it. The problem is that Kitcisakik is in the middle of a Quebec national park. If I understand correctly, the problem is far from solved: it'll take some time before the problem is solved, first because this isn't a recognized band for the moment. It is recognized only in part. What do you do in that case?

[Paul Fauteux]

I'm a bit at a loss to answer you because I don't have the most recent information about Kitcisakik. When I visited the community a few years ago, it was clear at that time that the Quebec government had agreed to make available to the first nation lands that could constitute a reserve under the Indian Act. They don't like the term “reserve” at Kitcisakik, but it was arranged so that, to all intents and purposes, it was a reserve that could be called a “village”.

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

From the moment you have those lands and you include them in a reserve, how many communities in Manitoba and Saskatchewan can the process affect?

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

A brief response.

[Paul Fauteux]

I believe the number should be about 50 or less. A framework agreement was signed in each province by a group of first nations. I believe there are about 20—

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Unfortunately, Monsieur Fauteux, we're finished our time on this.

Perhaps you can work it into another one of the responses, Mr. Lemay, or there will be another round for the Bloc also.

Now we'll go to Ms. Crowder for seven minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming to the committee today.

I want to come back for a moment to the difference between Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I just want to go back to a couple of the specific comments the Auditor General made.

In paragraph 4.21 she says that “We found numerous examples of data being received from the Manitoba region that was inaccurate or incomplete”.

In paragraph 4.25 she says, “For those in Manitoba, we found that the Department does not even capture the information necessary to determine whether processing times are being reduced”.

In paragraph 4.43 she says, “In fact, throughout the audit, Department officials repeatedly referred to the fact that the Manitoba Framework Agreement does not obligate them to resolve third-party interests”.

In paragraph 4.46 she says, “We found that most of the land selection files that we reviewed in the Department’s Manitoba office were not well organized and often were not comprehensive”. She also says neither Saskatchewan or Manitoba had a protocol for file management.

In paragraph 4.48 she points out the fact that “...the Department uses management tools in Saskatchewan that track the status of all land selections to help keep officials up to date on the outstanding treaty land entitlement workload”.

Part of what you were saying was that there were some differences around selections, but it seems to me that the Auditor General identified some fairly serious issues of management within the department in Manitoba. It seems to me if Saskatchewan can put in systems and procedures and work on relationships around third party interests, surely Manitoba could do that as well. I wonder if you could comment on the differences and what actions have been taken to remedy those differences.