Evidence of meeting #79 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was claim.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
I'm going to be asking very pointed questions, and I'm going to pass a couple of minutes to my friend, Will Amos.
With regard to extinguishment, I know it was brought up earlier. With respect to the discussions that are ongoing, particularly Chief Norwegian, is that something that's still being insisted on, or were you able to overcome the extinguishment demands that were requested earlier?
11:55 a.m.
Grand Chief, Dehcho First Nations
That was the big problem back about 20 years ago when other groups were trying to negotiate, but today, with our claim, we've put the whole extinguishment aside and said that we don't recognize any extinguishment. Extinguishment is not something that happens in this day and age. As a result of that, we took a really bold approach and started looking at asserting our authority over our territory.
One of the ways we did that was by taking what's called land-use planning. We brought Canada and the GNWT on board and we started talking about designs in regard to how we can protect our land. The land-use plan became a tool on how to engage with developments. There are various tools out there that you can actually put in place to counter this whole thing of extinguishment. For us, we're moving forward. It's quite an exciting time.
11:55 a.m.
Grand Chief, Dehcho First Nations
We're able to take the extinguishment out of the issue right now.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Thank you, Chief.
I'm going to pass the rest of my time to Will Amos.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
William Amos Liberal Pontiac, QC
Thank you, member Anandasangaree. It's very appreciated.
Chief St. Denis, could you please help me understand better? When you filed an assertion of rights in 2013, what was the response then? From your perspective, where does the discussion now stand with the federal government? Is it moving anywhere? Are we in a period of stasis?
We've heard your point around extinction of rights and the need to move forward. Chief Norwegian has offered a different perspective on how to just move right on past that by going in a different direction. What point are you at right now, and what needs to be done to move this forward?
11:55 a.m.
Chief, Wolf Lake First Nation
As you mentioned, we did submit what we call an assertion of rights. It was basically a summary of our evidence that we've gathered over the years. That was at the request of the federal and the provincial governments based on what was happening with the Pikwàkanagàn, or the so-called Algonquins of Ontario claim.
We submitted a document. We have not heard anything back concerning the document. We don't know if they have done any assessment of our assertion. They've never asked for any more information. Basically, it's sitting on a shelf somewhere, the same as a couple of hundred or thousands of other reports and interventions that we have been making over the past 25 years or so.
Noon
Chief, Wolf Lake First Nation
Well, it was in 2013 that we submitted that document. Should we expect a response?
This government has been in office now for a couple of years. They should have had time to look at the information and to engage us if there was an interest, a serious interest, in what's going on with the Algonquins of Ontario or the Algonquins of Pikwàkanagàn, especially from Ontario and the federal government. Quebec is not involved in those negotiations.
We haven't had any meaningful discussions about our concerns. The only thing they keep coming back with is, “Don't worry; your rights are going to be protected. If there's ever an agreement signed, your rights will be taken care of.” As I mentioned earlier, we have evidence that this is simply not the case. That's basically where that assertion of rights is.
Noon
Chief, Wolf Lake First Nation
The provinces wanted it, too, for consultation purposes on this suite of legislation. They asked for something; we gave it, and then we didn't hear anything anymore.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
That's a good point. It's very frustrating when you don't hear back from the other partner.
That concludes our time; we've run out.
It's a fascinating discussion, both from the north.... I'm sorry that we missed you. Thank everybody from us for the hospitality. We enjoyed being in Yellowknife.
To those who came here today, I want to thank you for travelling and being present, once again, to raise these issues. I appreciate your patience.
Meegwetch.
Noon
Chief, Wolf Lake First Nation
Thank you, Madam Chair and members. We do have a full document that has been translated and given to the committee.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
Thank you.
We'll suspend for a few minutes. We have three more panellists.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
We have the Treaty and Aboriginal Rights Research Centre of Manitoba here. Welcome. We do want to hear from you.
I am looking for two representatives: Douglas Eyford, from Eyford Macaulay LLP, and Glenn Archie, head negotiator, flood claims, Mishkosiminiziibiing First Nation.
The MPs are here. If the other presenters happen to come in, there may be time for us to incorporate them, but why not get started?
It's always nice to see somebody from Manitoba come in, and we see that significant statistics have been presented from StatsCan. On our tour, we stopped in Winnipeg and I saw you in the audience but we didn't have an opportunity to hear from your organization. Please go ahead with your presentation.
12:05 p.m.
Cam Stewart Director, Treaty and Aboriginal Rights Research Centre of Manitoba
Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members, for inviting us here today.
Before we continue, I would first like to acknowledge that we are on unceded Algonquin territory.
Over the last several weeks, TARR Manitoba has been given the opportunity to absorb a variety of issues that have been brought forward by other groups directly affected by INAC claims policy and funding mandates. In order to enhance the conversation related to INAC's management of the claims process, we would like to provide TARR Manitoba's perspective relative to the unstable financial support for claims research and the associated impacts of funding cuts.
The Treaty and Aboriginal Rights Research Centre of Manitoba is located in Winnipeg. The research centre provides claims and historical research services on behalf of 54 of the 63 first nations of Manitoba.
The first nations in Manitoba are signatories to Treaties 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 10. There are also five Manitoba Dakota first nations who are not signatories to treaty in Canada.
Within INAC's status of specific claims website, Manitoba is listed as having 51 settled claims, nine claims in active negotiations, two claims under assessment at the Department of Justice, six claims at the tribunal, 14 claims listed as “concluded with no lawful obligation found”, and 19 claims filed as “files closed”.
In relation to the “concluded with no lawful obligation found” and “files closed”, the website's information is somewhat misleading, because some of these claims are still being actively researched or intended to be researched contingent upon human and financial resources. Over and above these, the TARR Centre has an additional 17 claims in its current work plan. An undetermined number of claims have yet to be added; however, at this time the TARR Centre does not have the capacity to deal with them.
Over the past several years, research directors were forewarned by INAC that funding cuts were imminent, based on the position that the number of claims submitted to the specific claims branch, or SCB, for its assessment was the reflection of a research organization's progress. This philosophy was not new. Cuts had been going on for some years prior to that, but at a more subtle level.
SCB's position did not take into account, however, the number of claims still being processed at the claims research unit level. Instead, SCB should have assessed each claim as unique, with the knowledge that claims progress at different rates. Claims research does not simply flow in a seamless direction and can often become complicated because of unforeseen circumstances, such as political change, lack of internal resources, etc.
As the TARR Centre receives 100% of its funding through the research funding unit, or RFU, attempts were made to work directly with the RFU to prevent any further cuts. Other attempts were made to point out the inappropriateness of judging progress based solely on the number of claims submitted in a given year. However, explanations were to no avail.
In fiscal year 2014-15 the TARR Centre received a 60% funding cut. As a result, the Winnipeg-based staff of four employees consisting of a director, an office administrator, and two full-time researchers, was reduced to one employee. The Thompson-based office, which employed one researcher, was immediately shut down and its researcher subsequently laid off.
The damage and resulting repercussions have been severe for TARR Manitoba. The 60% cut in funding in 2014-15 effectively stalled claims research within Manitoba for several years, but also and probably more importantly, legitimately interfered with the first nations' right to pursue the claims process.
For three years, TARR Manitoba's staff consisted of one director and one research assistant to service 54 first nations clients within Manitoba. Currently, funding has rebounded to the pre-2014 levels and our staffing levels have stabilized to five. However, and I underscore this, the instability of funding makes it difficult to guarantee sufficient financial and human resources to conduct the work in an efficient manner. This again affects the first nations' right to pursue the claims process.
The TARR Centre has been forced to relocate twice in the last three years to accommodate the fluctuations in funding. With each move, more contracted library management services are needed to organize the centre's main stacks and journals, and more time is spent away from the claims process.
Each fiscal year requires a new contribution agreement between the RFU and TARR Manitoba. A new contribution agreement is provided to TARR Manitoba after the previously funded fiscal year, but there is little time for review or to discuss the agreement on account of the RFU's placing a hold on any further funding until the agreement is signed.
TARR Manitoba is typically spending from month to month as per the funding allotment stipulated within the contribution agreement. Any pause in the flow of monthly funds places TARR Manitoba in a vulnerable position. Bills and rent are typically late, and more administrative time is needed away from the claims process to mitigate the lack of funds. In the future, TARR Manitoba would like to have sufficient time to review and perhaps negotiate proposed contribution agreements.
Since 2008, supplementary funding has been made available during the last few months of the fiscal year. The research funding division of INAC has always maintained that this additional funding does not extend into the following fiscal year. Again, the funding agreement represents a one-time fiscal arrangement, and therefore, there is no guarantee of a stable level of funding from year to year.
The specific claims branch has been working collaboratively with the Assembly of First Nations to rectify the funding issue, but has so far been unable to formulate an adequate solution. Simply, there is no guarantee that there will be funding to operate adequately from year to year, and this does not allow for the proper momentum in claims research.
Recently, Canada has made changes to improve the claims process, such as the removal of the pre-Confederation bar on specific claims, the influx of additional financial resources to the process both within INAC and to first nations, and also the formation of the Canada-first nation body referred to as the joint technical working group, which was established to examine the claims issue.
We hope this trend continues. Canada, however, remains both the indicted and the chief justice throughout the claims process. Following the recommendations outlined by the JTWG, the AFN, and the the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, TARR Manitoba fully supports the notion that Canada must be removed from the claims process to ensure impartiality. The TARR Centre of Manitoba also hopes that a stable funding structure will be created to guarantee proactive claims research for its first nation members.
Thanks.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal MaryAnn Mihychuk
Thank you.
There is no sign of the other presenter, so you'll have our undivided attention.
We'll start the period for questions with MP Anandasangaree.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Madam Chair, I'll be sharing my time with Ms. Zahid.
Thank you for being here. I have some very specific questions with respect to the specific claims process.
If you were to make some recommendations for changes to the process itself, what would they be? Maybe you could give us three specific recommendations.
12:15 p.m.
Patricia Myran Assistant Director, Treaty and Aboriginal Rights Research Centre of Manitoba
My name is Patricia. I'll answer the questions, if you don't mind.
What changes would I recommend in the specific claims process? Last year the joint technical working group was formed between AFN, INAC, and several research directors across Canada. They formed four subcommittees to deal with four issues only. These were funding, claims over $150 million, negotiation and mediation, and offhand I forget the last one. On one of the subcommittees on funding, we didn't get very far. I sat on the subcommittee.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
Patricia, if I may, the difficulty we have is that we have a very limited time. Let me ask you to be very specific about what those recommendations are. I know that giving the background is important, but unfortunately the process doesn't really facilitate doing so. If you could, be quite specific about what the recommendations would be.
12:15 p.m.
Assistant Director, Treaty and Aboriginal Rights Research Centre of Manitoba
As Cam said, it has to be a body that can deal with the claims process and that is not judge and jury. That's basically it. Also, they should have control of the funding. That's one of the bases of the funding issue.
12:15 p.m.
Director, Treaty and Aboriginal Rights Research Centre of Manitoba
It essentially interferes with the process, as I pointed out. Funding is a major issue for us, in particular at the ground level.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
With respect to the timelines, are you comfortable with the timeline used by the Specific Claims Tribunal?
12:15 p.m.
Assistant Director, Treaty and Aboriginal Rights Research Centre of Manitoba
The timelines...?
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
Gary Anandasangaree Liberal Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON
With respect to going to mandatory hearings.... I know that right now there is no timeline on mediation.