Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 4th, 2011

[Anik Dupont]

We have been looking at that, and as a continuation of a discussion with our colleagues in lands and economic development, we will continue to look at that, because some of the first nations, as Ms. Green has said, have invested. They have used the settlement money to invest in their communities, either by putting in some of their funding to improve housing or, also, by buying land for them to be able to build on or to have access to businesses and be able to participate in the local economy.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

And that clearly is an important component of this.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

No problem.

Committee members, we've moved expeditiously through the first two rounds. If there's a willingness, we'll go into a third round of questioning as well, but if we do want to get to committee business, just be mindful of that and of the necessity to keep your questions to the point and as short as possible.

Mr. Rickford.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

How many more rounds does the...?

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I just have a couple of follow-up questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

The third round includes one...well, we can move people in or out based on the list.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Just go in the order and...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Yes.

If people don't have a question, please, let's pass it on to the next person.

Ms. Duncan, for five minutes.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madame Dupont, I have a follow-up question. I want to go back to the three-year timeline. I have two questions in that vein. On the first one--I haven't had a chance to look at the evaluation yet, and I look forward to looking at it--I notice in the points that you have pulled out in your presentation to us on the independent evaluators.... My first question is, was the evaluation done before the department made it known that they're going to stick to a three-year timeline for all specific claims reviews? Also, did they comment on this policy of the three-year timeline, if it was then in effect?

[Anik Dupont]

The three-year operational framework has been in operation since the announcement of the action plan. The evaluation does cover that three-year period. They interviewed first nations and other organizations, as well as employees, to develop their recommendations.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

So it would be fair to say, then...because when my colleague and I met with the department in the summer, we were told that there is not a broad-brush policy of the department to end all negotiations at three years. But from the testimony here today it sounds like that in fact is the government policy in place: if you don't complete your negotiations within three years, that's it, even if there's a small one or a large one or whatever, or even if there is a matter that would take another couple of months to negotiate.

Is the policy in fact in place? Is it the understanding of the department, regardless of what the legislation provides, that no specific claim goes past three years?

[Anik Dupont]

No. What we're saying is that we are managing each and every negotiation process to reach a settlement within the three-year process--

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

But where does that three years come from? This is what I remain puzzled about. Where is the government getting this three-year deadline? I don't understand that. I know the act gives...and there's a very specific reason for that. The legislation was intended to put in place a process that would trigger greater government attention to this file. So the first nations, then, are given that right to go before the tribunal--not the government.

I still remain puzzled. Where, then, has the government...? I mean, a first nation doesn't have to go to the tribunal at three years. It's simply given the option to go to the tribunal at three years--

[Anik Dupont]

Yes.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

--or even earlier if something else happens and the minister agrees.

So you're saying that at this moment, if first nations are negotiating claims and three years have passed, they can continue those negotiations...?

[Anik Dupont]

If we feel that we need to continue the negotiations, of course; if we're not done and we don't have an idea of where we're going towards the settlement, yes.

Yes, the act says three years. What the department is trying to do is govern itself in accordance with what the act says. We are governing ourselves in response to the first nations, who have come to us complaining that it was taking too long. So if we have the act, whereby the first nations can avail themselves of access to the tribunal, and we continue to do the negotiations without set timeframes, there's an imbalance there. The first nations will not be getting what they want, which is a fair, expeditious, and equitable resolution of their claim, and then we've changed nothing. The government has done its reform to work towards that, to the settlement of the claims.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I fully understand that the government is showing their cards, that they're committed to trying to expedite these languishing claims, these claims that have been going on for 100 years, 50 years, 10 years, and so forth. But we're now talking about claims that have been filed just three years ago, two years ago, or a week ago.

I'm still not getting a really clear answer. I've been told by a number of first nations--they've contacted me, which is why I asked for the briefing--that they're very disturbed that there now appears to be a policy that at three years it doesn't matter if you're close to resolving something, that's it.

So I'm seeking, so that I can pass on my understanding of the government policy.... There is not a clear “three years and that's it, accept our settlement and we're going on to the next first nation....”

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

You just have 20 seconds left, if there can be an answer. It may be a repeat, but....

[Anik Dupont]

There is no policy to end the negotiations in three years. It's a framework that we've adapted to get to the settlements within three years.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

It's a framework and a policy.

Okay. Thanks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Mr. Seeback, five minutes.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

I'll pick up where Ms. Duncan left off, because there still seems to be some confusion about this among some members.

We keep hearing “three-year deadline” and “three-year time limit”. From what I've heard, from what you've said today, there is no time limit. It's a timeframe. Is it safe to say that it's an option of the first nations to appear before the tribunal or they can continue to negotiate after the three-year timeframe...?

[Anik Dupont]

Yes.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Is there a cost to the first nations to go before the tribunal?

[Anik Dupont]

If they have representation, there's a cost to the first nation, but there's funding available to cover those costs.