Two governing bodies set the overall direction of the IAP. They are the Oversight Committee and the National Administration Committee.
The Oversight Committee is made up of people who represent the parties that signed the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. The Committee recruits and appoints the Chief Adjudicator and all other Adjudicators.
The Oversight Committee watches carefully to see how the IAP is working. It makes recommendations to improve the process. The Chief Adjudicator helps the committee by giving advice.
You can learn more about the work of the Oversight Committee by reading its Meeting Minutes.
The National Administration Committee is made up of lawyers who represent each of the following groups:
The National Administration Committee’s role is to oversee the implementation and administration of the Settlement Agreement, subject to the supervision of the Courts. It may seek necessary court orders as well as ensure there is national consistency in the Settlement’s implementation.
The Committee strives to make decisions by consensus. Where consensus is not achieved, decisions require a majority vote of five members. Where a decision requires increased funding, the Government of Canada must vote in favour.
In terms of the IAP, the National Administration Committee makes sure the Government of Canada has provided enough money and resources to make the IAP work effectively. The Committee also reviews and approves any changes to the IAP that the Chief Adjudicator or the Oversight Committee may propose.
You can learn more about the work of the National Administration Committee by reading about its Proceedings.
To date, the IAP’s technical procedures consist of directives as well as changes to its Complex Track.
Occasionally the Chief Adjudicator, the Oversight Committee and the National Administration Committee issue instructions on the interpretation and application of the IAP model.
You can learn more about the instructions by reading these Directives.
The 'complex' track of the IAP deals with claims of Actual Income Loss and Other Wrongful Acts. Originally, it included a pre-assessment hearing. This hearing was to occur before the expert assessment and the full hearing.
The Chief Adjudicator found some problems with the pre-assessment hearings. As a result, he proposed a change for the complex track.
The main change is to compress the preliminary assessment and the full hearing into one. The change was approved by the National Administration Committee on January 16, 2008. Although this streamlines the process, claimants are still urged to get a lawyer before going through the complex track
You can learn more about these changes by reading the Chief Adjudicator’s Proposal.