Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Feb. 10th, 2011

[Chief Mark Wedge]

We've not heard back on it, so I'm hoping it's going forward.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Does the Carcross/Tagish First Nation specific claim have a value of over $150 million?

[Chief Mark Wedge]

No, it doesn't. None of our claims has a value of over $150 million. They're all under $150 million. In terms of the specific claims process, under $150 million is what we're discussing.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

What would you achieve by appearing before this committee today to discuss claims under $150 million?

[Chief Mark Wedge]

Sorry, I didn't catch all of your question.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

What would you like to achieve or bring forward here in regard to your testimony in regard to your claims under $150 million?

[Chief Mark Wedge]

As has been pointed out, two of them have been rejected. If the specific claims process has been set up to make things more efficient, and if the efficiency is to reject the claims, it's not efficient for us. We need to have more dialogue and more input as to why they've been rejected. We believe there's foundation for these claims.

When we were in our negotiating process for the final and the self-government agreements, Canada, Yukon and the first nation agreed that there was a basis to move these claims forward. I find it quite disconcerting that two of them have been rejected when initially we looked at it and said that there was foundation for it. That's why we put them into the treaty.

The problem is that we're getting boxed in. Once we agree to the treaty, we can't take Canada to court for other things, other than those three specific ones.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I have no further questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Are there any other remaining questions on this subject?

Go ahead, Mr. Bagnell, briefly.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Briefly, Mark, as Jean said, perhaps you could give us some specific recommendations in writing when you write to the committee.

I just want to be clear: your first two were rejected by Canada, by the Department of Justice, and therefore you have the right to go to the tribunal. It's not the tribunal that has rejected them. Is that correct?

[Chief Mark Wedge]

I presume so. I will have to follow up. As I said, this is not one of the things currently on my file.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

The information we have is that the minister has rejected them. That, therefore, gives you the right to go to the claims tribunal.

On the third claim, a legal opinion was signed by the Department of Justice on September 21. I'm not sure what that legal opinion was, but once again, if it was a rejection, you would have the ability to go to the claims tribunal. In theory, there's still good hope for you. In my understanding, you should proceed that way.

Once you research it and put in your submission to the clerk of the committee, it would be very helpful to have your specific recommendations on information and communications and all the things related to specific claims.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Kha Shade Héni, it's been great to have you join us this morning. We want to wish you well for the remainder of your day, which it appears is going to be a long one.

Is there anything you would like to say to finish? Do you have any final comment for our members this morning?

[Chief Mark Wedge]

Yes, there are some final comments.

When we started this process, Prime Minister Harper came to the Yukon very soon after he was elected, and he said to the Yukon and to these areas that these modern-day treaties were an opportunity for Canada and for the first nations to really advance relationships and creativity. Unfortunately, that's not how it's playing out.

I believe he was sincere when he said that things like our Family Act could be creative and were different ways to look at more efficiency between our governments. Unfortunately, that's not being accomplished.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you again. As I say, we wish you well for the rest of your day.

Members, we're going to suspend our meeting momentarily, and then we're going to continue with the Nutrition North report--oh, pardon me; go ahead, Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

I have just a very quick point. With regard to the specific claims study or the large claim study, could I ask our analysts to do a little rundown on the process? If a claim goes in, what happens if it's rejected, and so on? They could list a few scenarios so we could understand more clearly what the legislation allows for in terms of the process. I think that would be helpful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay, I understand. You're requesting a backgrounder on that.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Yes. It would be like a flow chart.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

This study is generally on those that are over the threshold, but I think you're correct: we should have at least a grounding in the understanding of the specific claims policy as it pertains to all claims, even though those we're focused on are in the higher category.

Members, we'll suspend momentarily. We'll be going in camera, and I would urge you to be cooperative with my colleague, Mr. Russell, who is the vice-chair. I won't be able to join you for this next hour. I wish you well in your deliberations on the Nutrition North report. Take care.

The meeting is suspended.

[Proceedings continue in camera]