Evidence of meeting #50 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was process.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:25 a.m.
Director General, Specific Claims Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Yes.
On the claims concluded, the eight hundred--
9:25 a.m.
Director General, Specific Claims Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
That's cumulative since the policy was in place.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Okay.
The other question I have on this number is about the 265 “No Lawful Obligation found”. Would those then be eligible to go to the tribunal if the first nations so chose? So theoretically, of the 100%, there could be 265 in the hopper to go to the tribunal.
9:25 a.m.
Director General, Specific Claims Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Yes.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
On the files closed, the 252, would that have been a mutual closure or would that have been no action or....
9:25 a.m.
Director General, Specific Claims Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
It's both. Sometimes it's at the request of the first nation, and sometimes there has just been no activity and we have no response from the first nation so we close the file.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
So if there has been no response from the first nation they would still be in the loop, though, if they chose to respond?
9:25 a.m.
Director General, Specific Claims Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
If they chose to reactivate their file.
9:25 a.m.
Director General, Specific Claims Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Yes.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Okay.
As another note on numbers, just so it's on the record, 46% of the specific claims inventory comes from British Columbia, which is an extremely high number given that we have so few treaties. I just want that on the record.
And of course we all know that any new treaty signed won't be eligible under the specific claims policy because of the 1973 cut-off, correct?
In the Justice at Last specific claims action plan, it is noted that “in the course of negotiating the claim, the Minister consents in writing to the filing of the claim with the Tribunal”. Have there been any of those where they have been in negotiation and the minister has consented that they go to tribunal?
9:25 a.m.
Director General, Specific Claims Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Not to date, no.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Because the tribunal is in progress, are we aware of any claims that people have signalled an intention to file before the tribunal?
I know that in your presentation, Ms. McCurry, you said that by the end of April 2011 first nations will be able to file their claims with the tribunal. Is it possible for them to signal that intention now?
9:25 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Aboriginal Affairs Portfolio, Department of Justice
It is possible,but it's not likely. It would be in general conversation. It wouldn't be an official signalling until the time.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
So they can't officially signal until approximately April 2011?
9:25 a.m.
Assistant Deputy Attorney General, Aboriginal Affairs Portfolio, Department of Justice
That's when they can file, yes.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
That's when they can file.
Ms. Swords, I want to come back to your presentation.
My apologies to all the lawyers here, but this sounds like it's been written by a lawyer. On page 6--
9:25 a.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Hang on a minute! That is dangerous. Point of order, Mr. Chair!
9:25 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Self-disclosure: my son is a lawyer.
On page 6 in the English version, the middle paragraph has to do with the political agreement between the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations, and says that representatives of the AFN met on a number of occasions during 2009, and then later in that paragraph it says they “are well understood by the Government of Canada”. That sounds to me like there isn't an agreement on how large claims are going to be handled. It sounds like, “We hear what the AFN is saying, and we understand it, but so what?”
So can you tell me, since 2009, how many meetings have happened with the AFN around claims over $150 million and if there has been an agreement between the government and the Assembly of First Nations about how this will proceed? Because I just want to turn quickly to the political agreement: it said that future work would include “claims that are excluded by the monetary cap or other provisions of the legislation”. Then, of course, the joint work plan also talks about the process for claims in excess of $50 million.
It was fairly wide open, but in your view, is the Assembly of First Nations in agreement with the government's view on claims over $150 million? Or the department's view, I should say, because you're speaking for the department....
9:30 a.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
I'll just make a few comments and then ask Anik to answer the question about how many times we've met with the AFN. I think if you look at the political agreement, it says that we're “committed to work together to inform ongoing policy work”. So it didn't commit us to work together to finalize any agreement; it was to inform.
So the purpose of that statement you're referring to from my opening statement is to say that we have been informed by these discussions, there is clearly a lot of common ground in terms of the value of trying to reach negotiated settlements, and--
9:30 a.m.
Associate Deputy Minister, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
I think when you look at the issues around the cabinet process...one can't change the cabinet process alone. The cabinet process is confidential. It has set up long-standing procedures on how it operates. In terms of how presentations would be made to cabinet, it would follow cabinet procedures.
My understanding is that the AFN would like, for example, to have the first nation appear before cabinet or make their own presentation. That's not likely to happen under the current cabinet process, and in fact is one maybe better suited to a court or whatever. It's a different sort of process.
So there are issues that fall outside our ability to change with respect to how the cabinet process works.