Opening Statement to the Committee On Public Accounts

Chapter 14 - Indian and Northern Affairs Canada - Comprehensive Land Claims (September 1998 Report)

L. Denis Desautels, FCA
Auditor General Of Canada

Mr. Chairman, thank you for this opportunity to present the results of our audit of Comprehensive Land Claims - Chapter 14 in my September 1998 Report.

Comprehensive land claims is a very significant and complex topic to many Canadians. The stakes are high from moral, legal, social and economic perspectives. And the impacts of settled and unsettled claims can be far-reaching.

At the time of the audit, 12 settlements had been reached between 1975, when the first one was finalized, and 1997. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada plans to spend $262 million on comprehensive claims in 1998-99.

The settlements involve 48,000 Aboriginal people, full ownership of over a half million square kilometres of land, direct payments by the Government of Canada of almost $2 billion and various rights and obligations of the parties, with attending costs.

Although these settlements are very significant, they may reflect only the tip of the iceberg. This is because there are over 200 First Nations that have actual or potential land claims and treaties still under discussion or to be addressed.

The challenges to successful settlements are enormous. They involve complex issues and require the goodwill of several parties and many non-parties to a claim.

I believe that negotiating fair settlements is far preferable to the lingering threat of, or actual, litigation. I also believe that the nature of the relationship between First Nations and the government will, in a large measure, reflect the way in which settlements are reached and outcomes are achieved.

With respect to the September 1998 report on comprehensive land claims, there are a few highlights that the Committee may wish to consider. First, the audit was performed in the context of the Department’s objectives to provide certainty and clarity to ownership and use of land and resources through negotiated settlements, thereby encouraging socio-economic development.

In this regard, the audit focussed on the Department’s role and sought to identify opportunities for improvements in the way claim settlements are reached, implemented and reported.

We found that certainty achieved under settlement agreements can mean different things to different parties. The risk is that the parties may have agreed on the negotiated outcomes, but have different expectations of the benefits and obligations set out in the signed agreements.

In addition, the audit found that:

• more rigour is needed, to enhance the effectiveness of the settlement process, in determining financial amounts, land transfers and other considerations that are ultimately included in final settlement agreements;
• the Department needs to act on its commitment to explore methods other than the surrender or extinguishment of Aboriginal rights or title that would provide clarity, stability and certainty through negotiated claims settlements; and
• implementation of final settlement agreements needs to be improved and timely evaluations should be performed and implementation results reported.

Furthermore, one must question why, notwithstanding the very complex issues, it has taken or will take 20 years or more to settle some claims. In my view, protracted settlements do not contribute to cost effectiveness and may result in less desirable outcomes for all concerned.

Although the audit recommendations are directed primarily to the Department, a consistent, co-operative effort by all parties is needed in order to achieve the necessary goals, and to achieve them in a fair and expeditious manner.

In its published response to the audit, the Department did not explicitly address the audit recommendations. Consequently, there is no commitment to specific remedial action against which it can be held accountable.

The Department suggests that under its current comprehensive land claims policy of 1986, things have improved and therefore the audit observations apply to approaches used prior to that date.

However, I wish to bring to the Committee’s attention that the audit included a review of settlements reached under the current comprehensive land claims policy as well. Further, because some claim settlements have taken 20 years or more to reach, and all are still being implemented, the audit issues need to be addressed regardless of which policy the Department wishes to apply.

In its testimony before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on November 3 1998, the Department indicated that it was preparing an action plan which will allow for consultation with key partners to address the audit recommendations. The Department also acknowledged the challenges that it faces.

I believe this is a step in the right direction. Appropriate effort will be needed to ensure that the challenges are met and suitable results are obtained. With the encouragement of the Committee, I am hopeful that improvements will be made.

It would be most useful to hear from the Department today as to what we can expect to see from this action plan. For example, how will it address the issues relating to certainty, rigour, implementation and length of time to settle a claim? Will the plan include components for these areas?

Your Committee may wish to request the action plan in order to follow the Department’s progress in addressing the audit recommendations.

Mr. Chairman, we would be pleased to answer the Committee’s questions.