Notes for an address by

The Honourable Jim Prentice, PC, QC, MP
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-status Indians

to the

Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples

Ottawa, Ontario

November 1, 2006

Check Against Delivery

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to appear before you today. I fully support the committee's decision to investigate specific claims processes.

Today, I would like to contribute to this committee's work by sharing a few general observations and describing this government's approach to specific claims. I will also strive to answer any questions you may have.

My 10 years on the Indian Claims Commission enabled me to gain valuable insights into the negotiation and resolution of specific claims. And the months I've spent in my current position have strengthened my conviction that while the fundamentals of the specific claims program are sound, the Government of Canada must do a better job of finalizing these claims.

Specific claims deal with the past grievances of First Nations. They represent outstanding lawful obligations that Canada owes First Nations' outstanding debts for which the government is accountable and must address. The key objective of the program is to discharge these obligations and pay these debts. Before doing so, Canada first completes a thorough review of the facts of each claim to determine whether it owes a lawful obligation to a First Nation. Then Canada and the First Nation negotiate a settlement that provides the First Nations with fair compensation to resolve the claim once and for all. This compensation is based on legal principles and supported by empirical evidence such as land appraisals and other studies. This is important because it ensures that settlements are fair to all concerned.

Another underlying principle of the program is the premise that the best way to resolve these claims is through negotiations. The program was, in fact, first set up to provide First Nations with a way to have their claims dealt with by the government without having to go to court. Negotiated settlements are a viable alternative to litigation not only because they are more cost effective, but also because they avoid the risks of a court-imposed settlement in which the outcome is uncertain. By contrast, negotiated settlements are jointly developed. The process of working together can strengthen relationships and settlements can better meet the interests of both parties. Negotiations lead to "win-win" situations in which valuable resources can be invested in communities rather than in courtrooms.

While the objective and underlying principles of the program are sound and the department has achieved successes in the resolution of claims, the process is clearly not working as it should. The number of specific claims has doubled since 1993 and the system has been crippled by a large and growing backlog of claims. As the backlog increases, so do the frustrations that are out there with regard to the pace of the process.

In my view, there are a number of factors that have contributed to this current state of affairs. Firstly, the process itself has remained stagnant since 1991 and has not kept pace with new trends in dispute resolution. For example, we receive a wide range of claims from very small and routine claims to very large and complex ones. Yet all undergo the exact same level of review and must follow the same steps. That is to say that a claim worth less than $1 million is treated in exactly the same way as a claim worth over $100 million.

Secondly, resources that were earmarked for specific claims in 1991 were later cut through program review and similar initiatives in the mid to late 1990s. As a result, there is a shortage of staff to review the claims and undertake the negotiations. This means that a claim could sit for years waiting for a lawyer to be assigned before a First Nation hears whether or not it is accepted for negotiations.

Also during this period, government focus was on trying to develop a new institution to "fix" the specific claims program. As we all know, while we do have an Act in place, it has not been implemented because it does not have the support and confidence of First Nations and thus would be totally ineffective as a dispute resolution mechanism.

To be effective, I believe efforts to improve processes must be informed by four fundamental truths about specific claims. One, the Government of Canada has a lawful obligation to settle these claims in a fair manner. Two, the decision to file and negotiate a specific claim must continue to be voluntary; First Nations must always have access to the court system. Three, the process is information-based; negotiations must be based on accurate, reliable information. And four, all parties must be equal at the negotiating table.

We must bear these characteristics in mind as we ponder ways to improve current processes. As I have stated publicly many times, the current situation is unacceptable and I intend to retool the process.

And while I have yet to announce and implement the action plan that is under development, I do have some general ideas about where improvements can be made. These improvements all focus on how the Government of Canada manages specific claims.

I'm convinced that the processing of specific claims should be and can be a centre of excellence for government. To achieve this goal, I believe we must re-tool some current methods and practices. And while increasing the amount of public resources devoted to specific claims seems to be part of the answer, it's too early to say how many resources are needed and where they should be allotted.

I believe we'll need to design and implement a strong long-term policy on specific claims. Given that specific claims often involve multiple groups such as other federal departments and agencies, the provinces and the territories, our efforts must accommodate the interests of a broad range of stakeholders.

In the short term, revisions to a few particular aspects of the current process will go a long way toward accelerating the resolution of specific claims. The first involves sharing historical data. The truth is that one particular action or series of actions taken by government often leads to specific claims from several First Nation communities. And a common set of historical background materials often applies to several claims. We must find ways to facilitate the sharing of historical research.

I believe that similar efficiencies can be achieved through the judicious grouping of claims. Given that many claims are closely related, tremendous advantages can be realized if one group were to assess and negotiate similar claims at the same time.

Some efficiencies have been achieved through the streamlining of approval processes and clarifying authorities within my department. We may be able to make further improvements in this area, and we may also be able to simplify some internal work processes.

I also encourage this committee to consider several larger issues. As we look for improvements, we must carefully analyze the benefits and risks of various approaches. It may be helpful, for example, to consider steps that can be taken immediately to improve the system and address the growing backlog of claims rather than the longer-term solutions that would require far-reaching policy and institutional changes.

In closing, I would like to note that my motivation to accelerate the rate at which Canada settles claims is not rooted in a desire for greater efficiency in government. My desire is fueled by the notion that settled claims not only resolve longstanding grievances, they also foster tangible, lasting improvements in the lives of First Nation peoples. They not only help us to come to terms with the past, but also bring hope and economic opportunities to First Nation communities. This is why claims have such a prominent role in this government's strategy on Aboriginal issues.

I value the input of this committee; your insights on workable solutions are both welcome and appreciated. I look forward to receiving your report.

Thank you. I'll do my best to answer your questions.

Back to Index Page