0-million a year is needed for native land claims, report says

$250-million a year is needed for native land claims, report says

More violence is probable if disputes remain unsettled, Senate study concludes

OTTAWA -- A major Senate report is warning of more Caledonia-style blockades and violent confrontations between natives and non-natives unless Ottawa starts setting aside $250-million a year to settle land-claim disputes.

After hearing from a wide range of native leaders and academics over the past year, the senators concluded in yesterday's report that a plan to settle these claims is a proven way to better the lives of Canada's natives. Resolving land disputes, they argue, allows native communities to benefit from economic activities such as housing developments and natural-resources projects.

"In every case where they have been settled, it has meant an immediate improvement in the lives of First Nations people," the report states.

Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice, who spent most of his pre-political career working on land claims, has pledged to reform the way Ottawa deals with land claims but has yet to announce his new approach. A spokeswoman said the minister will go over the details of the report before responding.

Print Edition - Section Front

The Senate committee is chaired by Conservative Senator Gerry St. Germain, a Métis with a strong interest in aboriginal policy.

In an interview, Mr. St. Germain said federal leaders need to treat their legal liabilities in the same way a business would, setting aside enough money each year so that the debt can be paid off.

He said most of the natives' claims against the government are clear cases of Ottawa allowing development, such as roads or rail lines, on native land without compensation. "It's fraud, theft and mismanagement," he said.

Although the senators found positive results where deals have been reached, the nearly 300 resolved claims are a fraction of the almost 900 that are currently backlogged.

The report found that long delays -- and Ottawa's conflict of interest in acting as both defendant and judge -- means it will be at least 90 years before that backlog is cleared.

To speed up the pace, the senators recommend at least $250-million be set aside each year to settle these disputes. They also call on Ottawa to create a claims commission to rule on these matters independent of the federal government.

Hard numbers are difficult to find, but Mr. St. Germain estimated that settling all specific claims would cost between $3-billion and $6-billion. Even at $250-million a year, it would still take between 12 and 24 years to clear the backlog.

Mr. St. Germain said the threat that further confrontations like Caledonia -- the Southwestern Ontario town where Six Nations protesters have occupied disputed land for nearly a year -- will spread across the country inspired him to dig into the issue.

"I can see problems just lying there waiting to happen and I think we have a responsibility as members of Parliament to make certain that if something is imminent, that we deal with it in a responsible manner," he said. "[Addressing claims] is something that I think really, really hits right at the very core of what we have to do right off the top to deal with our aboriginal peoples."

The Conservative government had promised an independent body for such claims during the campaign but has yet to act on the file.

As Canada was settled by Europeans, a wide range of promises were made to native communities in the form of treaties and other land arrangements. But natives who felt those promises were ignored, either by neglect or outright fraud, were legally prevented from hiring lawyers to defend themselves until the 1950s.

Since then, hundreds of claims have been filed against the federal government. Known as "specific claims," they deal with violations of deals that already exist. Talks toward new treaties or land claims are called "comprehensive claims." The report found that Indian Affairs estimates its liability for all claims to be at least $15-billion, a figure that the senators said will continue to rise unless action starts soon.

In an interview in December, Mr. Prentice said self-government and settling land claims hold the most promise for addressing native poverty in Canada.

"My view of where we need to go in this country is we have to resolve treaties, we have to resolve the self-government issues and there has to be a gradual replacement of the Indian Act," he said. "I'm pretty passionate about this because I think it is the way forward."

Appendix B

Argument/Point #1:

Supporting Evidence #1:

Argument/Point #2:

Supporting Evidence #2:

Argument/Point #3:

Supporting Evidence #3:

Closing Statement:

Possible Opposing Arguments:

Possible Counter Points:

Modern Impact of European and First Nations Contact

Debate Rubric

	Levels of Performance
Criteria	1	2	3	4
1. Organization and Clarity: Viewpoints and responses are outlined both clearly and orderly.	Presentation was unclear in most parts.	Presentation was clear in some parts but not over all.	Presentation was mostly clear and organized throughout.	Presentation was completely clear and well organized throughout.
2. Use of Arguments: Reasons are given to support viewpoint.	Few or no relevant statements made to demonstrate viewpoint provided.	Statements provided were somewhat thorough and relevant to demonstrate viewpoint.	Statements were somewhat thorough and relevant to demonstrate viewpoint.	Statements were thorough and highly relevant to demonstrate viewpoint.
3. Use of Examples and Facts: Examples and facts are given to support reasons.	Few or no relevant supporting examples/facts.	Some relevant examples/facts given.	Many examples/facts given: most relevant.	Many relevant supporting examples and facts given.
4. Use of Rebuttal: Arguments made by the other teams are responded to and dealt with effectively.	No effective counter-arguments made	Few effective counter-arguments made	Some effective counter-arguments provided	Many effective counter-arguments made
5. Presentation Style: Tone of voice, use of gestures, and level of enthusiasm are convincing to audience.	Few style features were used unconvincingly.	Few style features were used convincingly.	All style features were used mostly convincingly.	All style features were used convincingly.