You mentioned passing specific legislation. I think that's only going to delay justice. I think what is required is simply for the cabinet to give direction to the minister of Indian affairs to clarify this policy. I reference Canada's specific claims policy and I think there was a document called “Outstanding Business” in 1992, a specific claims policy. That's 25 years ago. It was reiterated again in 2007. We shouldn't have 25 years pass with a lack of clarity or instruction on what this policy means.
There is nowhere, when I read it...:
Where a claimant band can establish that certain...lands were never lawfully surrendered, or otherwise taken under the legal authority...the bands shall be compensated either by the return of the lands or...the current, unimproved value of the lands.
It doesn't say in there that Canada can't buy land. Therefore, all the cabinet has to say is that there is one mechanism of settlement, so that Canada can purchase land and give those instructions to your negotiator. What's happened is that the negotiator is mired in these age-old policies. There's no senior direction from government, so we just spin our wheels in the same rut. It requires some leadership and it requires the cabinet to give instructions to the minister to tell her staff that Canada can buy lands. If it's cabinet direction, I'm sure the other central agencies of government can figure out what they need to do, but there needs to be strong central direction on how this is going to be administered and right now it's not there. I think it's simple clarity on the policies and some instructions, so your negotiator who comes to me knows that he has the authority for that.
The other thing is that normally what's done in the department is that it is operated on the basis of delegated authority. Give full authority to the minister of Indian affairs. If the government expects her to report on settlement claims, give the minister the authority to do that and give her a budget to do it.