Evidence of meeting #45 for Public Accounts in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was offenders.
A video is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Paul Lefebvre Liberal Sudbury, ON
Usually at these sessions, Madam Chair, we always have the presence of the deputy minister.
Representative, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
I didn't have a discussion with the deputy minister as to whether or not there were issues vis-à-vis her availability. My assumption would be that there was a scheduling conflict that she couldn't address in order to be here.
NDP
Liberal
The Vice-Chair (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes
We will definitely take this up with the deputy minister.
Liberal
Paul Lefebvre Liberal Sudbury, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
In your remarks, Mr. Wild, you mentioned that the Auditor General's report found that the process reforms initiated in 2007 unintentionally created barriers to First Nations' access to the specific claims process which, in turn, are impeding the resolution of claims.
The Auditor General came up with 10 recommendations. Can you tell us in what way these barriers impede the resolution of claims? Can you expand on that, please?
Stephen Gagnon Director General, Specific Claims Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Thanks for the question.
I'll give you a couple of examples. I don't mean to try to interpret what the Auditor General may or may not have meant, but my understanding from the discussions I've had with first nations groups was that there was a cut to the research funding back in 2012, I believe, so the argument was that if first nations couldn't research claims, they couldn't submit, and therefore they couldn't have them dealt with.
Another example is that we were trying to find a way to deal more expeditiously with the smaller-value claims. In other words, we would define those—and I think the Auditor General may have referenced under $3 million—the point being that you try not to spend a ton of time and money on a claim that would not be worth the amount of money that would come out of it. The practice was that we would send a letter of offer to the first nation. There would be very little communication happening between the first nation and the department, and with a fairly tight deadline to get back to us, the offer would be withdrawn.
Liberal
Paul Lefebvre Liberal Sudbury, ON
How long would that deadline have been? You issue a letter and tell them to get back to you in—
Director General, Specific Claims Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
On smaller ones it would be three months or something like that, three to six months. I think three months was the general timeline for the very small ones.
Director General, Specific Claims Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
To give you a bit of background context, the reforms in 2007 were in response to long-standing criticisms of how long it was taking us to research claims and to resolve them. Our branch put a premium on trying to get the work done quickly so that we could show that we were making progress and that we weren't in processes that weren't going to produce a result.
Liberal
Director General, Specific Claims Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
I don't have a number for that.
Liberal
Paul Lefebvre Liberal Sudbury, ON
Is it nine out of 10? Is it 90%? Is it 50%? Is it 20%? Is it zero?
Director General, Specific Claims Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
It's not zero. We do have a number of claims that were resolved, but I can tell you that the large number of claims that were suspended are the smaller-value ones.
Since typically they are closed because we haven't received a response, I can't give you an actual reason. I can't speak for the first nations, but your assumption may be that they just said, “Well, this isn't negotiation, so we're not negotiating with you.”
Director General, Specific Claims Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
There was a case at the Specific Claims Tribunal in 2014 where the issue of that approach to small-value claims was dealt with. The judge told us that, effectively, that this wasn't negotiation, so we have changed the practice in response to that.
Liberal
Paul Lefebvre Liberal Sudbury, ON
There was a budget that was allocated to deal with these specific claims from 2007 to, basically, the time of this audit, 2015.
Mr. Wild or Mr. Gagnon, can one of you tell me if the budget changed?
Director General, Specific Claims Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
I'm sorry; are you making—
Liberal
Director General, Specific Claims Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Do you mean the operational budget?
Director General, Specific Claims Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
There was a fund created at the time. I think it was $2.5 billion. That was the amount available to settle claims with first nations—
Liberal
Director General, Specific Claims Branch, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Yes, there was time-limited funding to increase operations to get through what was considered to be a large backlog of files in assessment—I think there were about 540 of those at the time—and to negotiate more expeditiously.
Liberal
Paul Lefebvre Liberal Sudbury, ON
Okay.
In the Auditor General's report, the Specific Claims Tribunal overturned 12 out of 14 of the department's decisions not to accept a specific claim because the claim was not found to disclose an outstanding lawful obligation. That was kind of the reason you were asking the Specific Claims Tribunal to overturn it quickly. Why were 12 out of these 14 decisions overturned?
