AANR Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, February 26, 2002

Á

1145

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.))

Mr. Warren Johnson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Á

1150

Á

1155

Â

1200

Â

1205

Â

1210

Â

1215

Â

1220

The Chair

Mr. Warren Johnson

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. Warren Johnson

The Chair

Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose)

Â

1230

The Chair

Mr. Thompson

The Chair

Mr. Thompson

Le président

Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier, BQ)

Mr. Warren Johnson

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Warren Johnson

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Warren Johnson

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Warren Johnson

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Warren Johnson

Â

1235

The Chair

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.)

Mr. Warren Johnson

Mr. John Finlay

Le président

Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, Lib.)

Mrs. Geneviève Thériault (Legal Counsel, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Mr. Guy St-Julien

Mr. Warren Johnson

Mr. Guy St-Julien

Mr. Warren Johnson

Â

1240

Mr. Guy St-Julien

The Chair

Mr. Guy St-Julien

A voice

Mr. Raymond Bonin

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Warren Johnson

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Warren Johnson

Â

1245

Mr. Richard Marceau

Mr. Warren Johnson

The Chair

Ms. Karetak-Lindell

Mr. Warren Johnson

Ms. Karetak-Lindell

Mr. Warren Johnson

Â

1250

Ms. Karetak-Lindell

Mr. Warren Johnson

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.)

Mr. Warren Johnson

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. Thompson (Wild Rose)

Â

1255

Mr. Warren Johnson

The Chair

Mr. Richard Marceau

·

1300

The Chair

Mr. Guy St-Julien

Mr. Warren Johnson

Ms. Brenda Kustra (Executive Adviser, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Mr. Guy St-Julien

Mr. Warren Johnson

The Chair

·

1305

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

---

NUMBER 041

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

COMMITTEE EVIDENCE

Tuesday, February 26, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1145)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we are continuing our overview of the Indian Act, in preparation for legislation we expect will be sent to us very soon. We're continuing the education process today.

    We have with us from the department Geneviève Thériault, conseillère juridique; Warren Johnson, assistant deputy minister, lands and trust services; and Brenda Kustra, executive adviser.

    Please make your presentations, and then we will open up to questions. We plan to terminate at 1:15 p.m.

    Mr. Warren Johnson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    In his appearance before this committee in November, Minister Nault referred to the first nations governance initiative as a cornerstone in terms of his potential short-term legislative priorities. He also referenced at that meeting his intent to have this legislation placed before the committee before second reading, to allow flexibility by the committee to suggest amendments, and, anticipating good and substantive consultations at that stage with first nations and other potential interveners, to ensure we got it right.

    As a result, we'd like to thank the committee for the invitation today to come forward and provide background on this important initiative.

    By way of introduction to the presentation, the DIAND Act assigns to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs responsibilities for all matters not assigned by Parliament to any other department, board, or agency over Indian affairs, the territories, or Inuit affairs. But effectively that's all it says about Indian affairs. For that legislative direction we have to look toward the Indian Act. Even though other pieces of legislation are the responsibility of the department, the Indian Act is the core of that legislative base.

    As per the committee's direction, as I understand it, we will attempt to provide an overview of the genesis of this initiative, its scope, and the process that's been followed to put it into place to date.

    To start, the issue we're facing is that the Indian Act was never designed to promote effective first nations governance. It's based on federal control. First nations have minimal autonomy under the act. The minister, not chief and council, is ultimately responsible and accountable.

    It undermines the political legitimacy of chief and council, and the federal government maintains a wide range of micro-level decision-making or review powers, including everything from land management and bylaw disallowance to the appointment of electoral officers.

    It does not provide the tools for effective internal governance. It has no internal or external financial or political accountability structures or controls embodied in it. It says nothing about the separation of political or administrative functions or redress mechanisms for first nation citizens. There's no clear legal status of bands or their bylaws. The authorities in the act are not even up to contemporary local government standards in Canada. The existing jurisdictions are severely limited in the act.

    Given this colonial policy orientation--effectively this act, in its structure and philosophy, has been in place since Confederation--it's a glaring anachronism in the contemporary context.

    As a result of this, over the last few years first nations and the Canadian public have increasingly been demanding changes to first nations governance under the Indian Act. The courts are beginning to strike down important components of the Indian Act in different areas, most recently in the Supreme Court of Canada's decision on Corbiere dealing with Indian Act elections.

    Concerns are increasingly being voiced by first nations on the impact of these court decisions; the large jump they face in terms of the huge gulf between the Indian Act, the experience under the Indian Act, and where they want to go with self-government; and just the day-to-day management problems under the Indian Act.

    We also have academic attention on the fact that effective governance is the cornerstone of the socio-economic development in communities. My colleague, John Sinclair, referenced the Stephen Cornell work. The presentation we had on the work at Harvard is a good example of the kind of work that's been applied to the Indian tribes in the United States, and it is also being done in Canada.

    We also have the work that was done over the last several years between the association of first nations and Indian and Northern Affairs under the joint initiative. A number of core subject matters were dealt with at the front end of that work, for example, on elections. I think my predecessor, Bob Watts, briefed this committee on some of these activities, in the context of the Corbiere discussions, about a year and a half ago.

Á  (1150)  

    Also, we have political, public, and media attention increasingly on financial and political accountability.

    I'd like to spend a minute to illustrate a few of these in more detail.

    First of all, dealing with the Supreme Court decision on Corbiere, that decision gave all first nations members, irrespective of residency, a voice in on-reserve governance for elections held under the Indian Act. That decision held that aboriginal residence was grounds for potential discrimination under the equality provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a result, it found that the words in the act, which restricted the right to vote in elections to on-reserve members only, violated that section and were therefore invalid.

    The Supreme Court did, however, suspend the declaration of that invalidity until November 20, 2000, allowing time for consultations, and called for major legislative review as a result of its decision.

    The government's response was to initiate regulatory consultations as a first stage and to commit to legislative discussions thereafter. In the consultations that occurred, now some two years ago--fairly broad consultations on those regulatory amendments--first nations were invited to put forward their views on what the longer-term legislative issues might be that we should be dealing with in the second stage.

    From those submissions we find concerns being raised with respect to the need for empowering and respecting more traditional approaches to decision-making and leadership selection; concerns about political and financial accountability issues; concerns around very practical matters, like terms of office, which as you may appreciate are two years for Indian Act elections now, or the issues of lack of candidate qualifications, for example; concerns about governance capacity of the first nations--the band councils themselves and their members; and they look at a variety of options for change, including things like the kinds of considerations we have now in the first nations governance initiative.

    But there is also, I think, a general sentiment in those results that Corbiere provides an opportunity--in terms of the potential legislative response to it--to advance nation building for first nations.

    The Supreme Court's decision, however, has broader implications for the Indian Act that need to be addressed.

    The Supreme Court articulated a vision of first nations governance. It was most specifically articulated in the minority report of the Supreme Court, referencing the dual roles of chief and council as local governments in terms of diversion of local programs and services for their members, for the primary interest of on-reserve members and citizens. And the band is the custodian of the assets, if you will, of the first nation--which is a concern for both on- and off-reserve members--whether that be political representation, the management of reserve land and assets, cultural and heritage issues--whatever those broader issues must be.

    I'll refer to Mr. Sinclair's presentation on the demographics. This is not a simple issue given the very high mobility of first nations citizens back and forth between reserves.

    The implication of the Supreme Court's decision on a very practical basis has meant a significant amount of work, and support is required with first nations for them to be able to run these Corbiere-style elections, just in terms of access to the off-reserve voters, the extra costs of mail-out ballots, and all the activity of a whole new style of elections.

    There are also issues with the other sections of the Indian Act that would obviously be affected by extension of the same argument that the Supreme Court made with respect to that one provision. So we have other sections in the Indian Act that would be directly affected, for example, who can nominate--off-reserve members still can't nominate people to run for office--and who can run for office.

    And then there are the implications for the custom election regimes that exist. The Supreme Court decision deals only with the Indian Act elections.

Á  (1155)  

We have some 329 first nations in Canada who don't operate elections under the Indian Act but rather operate under custom, and presumable courts would be concerned that they make the same kinds of provisions.

    Moving on to a different topic in terms of the genesis of this and other input we used in terms of framing this exercise, we have the first nations feedback on the joint work we did under the AFN-INAC joint initiative on elections. There are references in that material key to this, significantly noting that there are major gaps in the Indian Act election procedures. There are no eligibility or qualification requirements, for example, for chiefs. There is limited political and financial accountability to first nations membership from chief and council. There is a failure to support the diverse traditional systems of first nations. The Indian Act and related policies have also harmed nation-level governance systems through the establishment of these kinds of procedures, and the Indian Act itself is just too prescriptive and rigid.

    This whole process culminated in a national gathering in Winnipeg about a year or a year and a half ago, with some 1,800 first nations representatives calling for change in this and other areas.

    These options look very similar to what we hear. Again, we heard the issues being raised in the Corbiere consultations on the regulatory side. I should say, as I'm going through this, in each one of these areas I'm dealing with in the next few slides, we commissioned independent researchers to document these pieces, and they've been available and up on our website for over a year now as background information to this.

    One of those, for example, is a review of accountability systems in selected Canadian and international jurisdictions done by Kaufman Thomas & Associates. Those kinds of findings are illustrated on page 9.

    What do we find when we look at modern legislative governance regimes? We find regimes that set out respective roles and responsibilities, establish local autonomy and authority and support local jurisdictions, strengthen accountability mechanisms, ensure sufficient and stable public sector capacity, measure performance and results, deal with financial reporting, emphasize disclosure and access to information, provide redress, and provide formal processes for public input and direct participation.

    These are all features of legislation that all Canadian citizens are familiar with because this is what they find in their governance structures and mechanisms; not so under the Indian Act.

    The conclusion that has been drawn from all of this is that this points to the need for a fundamental change in the relationship between the federal government and first nations and their citizens under the Indian Act. I refer to slide 10 for a simple pictorial of that.

    The primary relationship under the Indian Act has been one of relationship primarily between the federal government and chief and council, which can be characterized as wardship. It's a relationship of control and compliance, where chief and council are effectively placed in an administrative relationship with their citizens, with minimal financial and political accountability to them.

    The contemporary intergovernmental relationship to the first nations governance initiative is more depicted as referenced on slide 11, where the primary relationship would be between chief and council and their citizens in a transparent, more democratic refrain than we have in the Indian Act, dealing with issues like redress and elections and the rest of that.

    The result would then be that the federal government's relationship to chief and council would be more of a normal intergovernmental relationship, with clear roles and responsibilities respecting treaties and dealing with enabling authorities.

    This is effectively the definition for the exercise of accountable and effective first nations governance that the first nations governance initiative has been framed in.

    Subsequent to the last federal election, Minister Nault expressed the federal interest in strengthening first nations governance capacity, looking at all of these inputs and his own discussions in communities. A number of these are quoted on page 12 because they remain the parameters of the work under this initiative, and I quote

We need an interim process under a modernized Indian Act as we work our way toward self-government so that stable First Nation governments can spend more of their energies on building their economies...the Indian Act doesn't give them the right tools.

In order to build a First Nation economy you need a stable government, which means you need a First Nation public service that is properly funded.

    I should add here that commitments have already been made and acted on in this area. This would now be the second year that the band support funding has been increased to first nations as a means of pre-building for some of these initiatives, but there is a commitment to have that increased by 20%--5% a year over the next four years.

  (1200)  

    The third point is we'll have the courts dismantling the Indian Act or changing it for us. Let me just spend a minute to give the committee a feel for this issue. We have significant decisions such as the Supreme Court decision on Corbiere, and one can speculate about the volume of legislation and what other pieces of the Indian Act may be struck down in the future by the Supreme Court.

    To provide a summary--and this again has been in our public material, but to give a feel for this point to the committee--we have appeals from individuals to the minister or the courts on band decisions respecting program access, residency issues, and per capita distributions because of the lack of formal appeal and redress mechanisms within those communities and within their governance structures.

    We have fiduciary duty claims of councils against chiefs or individuals against chiefs and councils on the use of band funds because of the lack of guidelines here or enforceable conflict-of-interest and disclosure rules.

    We have chiefs, councils, and individuals involved in controversies over the use of band funds by various types of band entities for exactly the same reasons. We have some bands using lack of legal capacity as a defence in commercial disputes, to the detriment of other first nations who are trying to work with banks, lending institutions, and the private sector to improve their community prospects.

    Then we have the developing suite of post-Corbiere litigation I referenced earlier, including members litigating over their inability to run for office or nominate candidates, and changes that still haven't been made from the Indian Act that are consistent with the Corbiere decision, or members or groups trying to quash Corbiere election regulations, or challenging their own custom codes. This is an issue that has come up numerous times in discussions around this issue: the fact that the status quo was untenable in terms of the support activities anyway.

    Coming back to the minister's final comments, framed here on slide 12:

Consultation is extremely important with the leadership and members of communities, to come to some understanding about what a First Nation Governance Act/modernization of the Indian Act would look like.

It is my objective to get it into the House (of Commons) as soon as I can get a consensus with First Nations that this is the right way to go.

    This all culminated in the Speech from the Throne reference last spring that the government will “support First Nations communities in strengthening governance”.

    As noted on slide 13, this was strongly linked to the commitment in the Speech from the Throne to improve the quality of life for aboriginal people; to the role of this initiative in supporting first nations communities and in strengthening governance, including more effective and transparent administrative procedures.

    That, effectively, is the genesis of this initiative and the variety of inputs and forces that have brought us to where we are.

    But that is effectively last spring. Let me turn to the scope of the initiative from that point. Looking at slide 15, it is very simple. There are three points in terms of the scope and the subject matters being dealt with in this initiative: the question of legal standing and authorities for first nations; the question of leader selection and voting rights, i.e., the whole electoral regime; and the issue of political and financial accountability.

    To help position this, slide 16 characterizes the Indian Act if you look at the inside of it. One can view the Indian Act as having four types of subject matters. It deals with the issue of individuals in terms of things like management of estates, treatment of minors, Indian status, or band membership. It deals with communal rights on reserve: the definition of band and reserves, or the taxation exemption for reserve lands. And it deals with regulating reserve land and resources: processes for surrender and designation of reserve land and resources for specific purposes; timber licensing; management of Indian moneys; removal of, for example, gravel from reserve.

  (1205)  

    In the fourth quadrant, if you will, there is the issue of band governance and authorities, where, as is referenced earlier, the Indian Act is very sparse. Effectively, all we have is some fairly simple election provisions and some fairly simple bylaw provisions.

    The first nations legislation would replace or infill that governance component. It is not about the other areas. I'll deal with that in terms of the principles in a minute, but I just thought it might be helpful to the committee to try to frame the distinction between governance and how it's framed with the rest of the Indian Act.

    The first nations governance initiative will, in terms of its intent--and this has been a consistent statement made for more than a year now--be looking at changing the relationship, as discussed earlier, between the federal government and first nations and their citizens, changing it from one of wardship and control to a contemporary relationship defined by effective first nations governments that are accountable to their members, and to Parliament, obviously, for the use of appropriations.

    It should provide first nations communities with the tools to support effective and accountable first nations governments. It should provide first nations with an opportunity to establish governance practices that are sensitive and appropriate to their history, values, traditions, and cultural and spiritual beliefs. It should provide a standard of accountability comparable to that of other governments in Canada. And it should include appropriate remedies and redress for members and others affected by first nation law-making under the Indian Act, all with the purpose of laying the foundation for the growth of those communities.

    A number of overarching and important principles have been continually reinforced since the outset of this initiative. First, this will not abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal or treaty rights recognized and affirmed by subsection 35(1) of the Constitution Act. That is not the purpose. It also would not replace commitments in terms of the negotiation of self-government agreements under the inherent right policy, but should facilitate movements in that direction.

    In this context the Nisga'a have gone on record in public sessions saying that, for example, the work that the North West Tribal Treaty Group in B.C had to do to implement their self-government agreement would have been facilitated if this had been in place a long time ago. They've had a major gap to bridge in terms of developing their own internal procedures.

    The objective of this legislation is not to change the fiduciary relationship with the federal government. First nation governments will operate within the framework of the Canadian Constitution and the charter. As well, an effective first nations governance model would be based on enabling first nation authorities through legislation, not devolution in the administrative sense, or in terms of the creation of a third order of government. This is not replacement for the inherent right negotiations and the self-government approach. These principles have been guiding our process from the beginning.

    I hope that gives the committee a petit aperçu of the scope and the principles. I should tell you that, effectively, the committee will find this presentation on our website, because for a year or a year and a half these themes, these issues, and very much this presentation have been part of consultations and information sessions on this process.

    I'll now deal with the process itself. From the outset, the first nations governance initiative has been structured by Minister Nault in three phases. The first phase, called the Communities First consultations process, is the initial consultation on all of these core subject matters. These consultations were completed before Christmas. From that we proceed to legislative drafting, which is what we're doing now, in anticipation of getting something before the House and this committee as soon as possible.

    Then we will be in the parliamentary review stage. As we originally noted, the minister is committed to referral to this committee prior to second reading for substantive input, again, at that stage.

    We would then move on to the regulatory development stage, because substantial regulatory development will be required to support this initiative. We'll have to be looking at capacity and implementation issues with first nations. Again, there's a commitment to a third round of full consultations on all of that activity, with a target to full implementation of this package sometime in 2003.

  (1210)  

    In terms of the consultation itself, at slide 21, Communities First, this first stage of consultations, which we just completed before Christmas, has been Indian and Northern Affairs Canada's largest and most intensive consultation process. It has been open in the sense that prior to the minister going to cabinet to seek authority last spring to formally launch these consultations, we spent three months, from December through March of last year, consulting with first nations leadership on the design of this process. The earlier slides are exactly the same presentation that was provided to chiefs and to national and regional organizations whenever we could during that period to elicit those discussions.

    The consultations were also comprehensive in the sense that in the Communities First consultations, formally from May to November last year, in that process, every chief and every community was invited, both by the minister and through our regional offices who were fielding teams to manage these consultations, to host in their communities whenever and wherever they wanted. Every national organization was invited to participate in these as joint consultations.

    I think the committee received kits as part of the material provided to you. These are in fact the kits produced last spring that were used to animate those discussions and frame some of those discussions on the core topics that I referenced earlier.

    These consultations were also multi-dimensional because for the first time there was a very strong commitment on the part of our minister to make sure that first nations as individuals had every opportunity to participate that they could possibly have. We combined the use of innovative technology and traditional methods, everything from the Internet to face-to-face discussions in communities, to try, with organizations interested in participating with us, to get to as many individuals as we could.

    They were also in some sense continuous, although I framed it in stages, because we have had regional governance discussion groups used in each region subsequent to that to review the results and to provide us with further input. We had a round of them in November and December and another round just completed in February looking more towards specific ideas and thoughts on the legislation itself, while we were preparing for drafting. In fact, they are all on the website. The last set from February should be going up on the website in a few weeks as well.

    The final point I'd make is that these consultations have been completely transparent. All the background material, all the presentations, all the research, all the consultation schedules, and all the reports, unedited, from all the consultation and information sessions are posted on the website as soon as we can get them translated and available to everyone. That includes all the papers I referenced earlier that were source documents for some of the themes presented earlier in this presentation.

    Together with the national and regional partners, a number of which are framed for your information on slide 22, the end result was that we hosted 470 community information and consultation sessions across the country, attended by some 8,500 individuals. Partners included: the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and its regional affiliates; the National Aboriginal Women's Association; the treaty and tribal groups like the Northwest Treaty Tribal Group and Alliance Tribal Council in B.C.; associations that are working in these areas, like the Aboriginal Financial Officers Association; the treaty groups such as, for example, those in Treaty 7 and Treaty 8 in Alberta; 58 first nations in Saskatchewan, and I think in that province there were only two or three communities in the end where we didn't get on reserve for community consultation sessions; the Federation of Newfoundland Indians; the Native Council of Nova Scotia; the Native Women's Association of the NWT; and the Yukon Coalition for Democracy. There was a variety of groups.

    In terms of the innovative technology and the surveys used to do this to ensure that there was maximum ability for everyone to participate by whatever means, questionnaires were included in all these kits and available in all the communities that wanted them. They were also mailed out to householders. We had some 1,600 responses to those questionnaires. We had a 1-800 call centre. A first nations call centre at Bella Bella in B.C. was set up and running throughout this exercise. It has had some 1,200 calls. The website that I referenced has been set up interactively for a lot of people to get updates and actually leave commentary and see the results, etc. We've logged over 18,000 visitors on that website since it was announced. We've had over 600 letters or e-mails that have been personally responded to by the minister.

  (1215)  

    We've been trying to keep all dimensions open that might allow people access to provide input.

    In the last section of this, we now have the final consultation results reviewed. As you can appreciate, this has been a mass of detail from questionnaires, from written community consultations, and they're reviewed in the next few slides. I think the executive summary of this was distributed to the committee as well, as part of this presentation. That's now available on the website and has been distributed to chiefs.

    The consultation results apparently reflect strong views about the first nations government's core themes. There's a clear desire for chiefs and councils to have the power and authority to respond effectively to the community needs. There's a strong desire for involvement of first nations individuals in the community governments. There are continuing references to information being key to effective decision-making, and to ensuring that those making decisions are held to account. There is consistent reference to the need for a clear distinction in roles between political leadership who make the rules and the band administration who administer them.

    Participants are clearly seeking modern, enabling, and effective community governance tools and are saying that any proposed legislation should be empowering for first nations. By empowering, we're looking at legislative models that would provide first nations.... The minister has been public in terms of interest there, so this would be the kind of legislation that this committee would be reviewing. This would be legislation that would set standards and specific components that need to be addressed, but would leave it to first nations, in terms of meeting those standards, to develop their own codes and practices in these areas. Fallback would be provided, perhaps in the regulation, for those who wanted to take more time to do it or wanted to use those fallback provisions.

    This pattern appears to remain consistent across all regions, all age cohorts, gender, and whether it's on- or off-reserve residency that we see these comments coming from. This pattern seems to be clear from those participating.

    If we look at each of the core areas, on legal standing and authorities, the kind of interest that's appeared to be consistently expressed is that there is significant support for a better definition around legal standing. People appear to understand the problems that are being created with the uncertainty and ambiguity about the legal standing of first nations or band councils specifically under the Indian Act. !There's clear direction, however, that this should not result in a negative impact on the fiduciary relationship. I stated earlier that's clearly not the intent in this initiative, and we're going to have to be careful to frame the legislation to ensure that doesn't occur.

    Also, we should not be creating corporatization or municipalization. Some people are concerned about this, which might also involve the removal of the reserve land protection and the communal interest in land.

    We're also calling for a clear separation between political and band administration functions, as referenced earlier, supporting greater authorities for their elected officials to govern their communities and get on with the job. We're calling for support for the ability to create the boards and agencies that they might find necessary to deliver those services, either individually within communities or through groupings of communities, to achieve economies of scale.

    Finally, we're calling for support for specific issues, such as improvements in fining and ticketing powers for bylaw enforcements. The common instruments of other governments, even at the local level in Canada, in terms of the kinds of instruments and penalties that their laws or bylaws enjoy, are not enjoyed by first nations on reserve.

    We make reference to community meetings and referenda as mechanisms for member involvement. There's a continuing theme of more member involvement. To reinforce, they've cautioned us to be mindful of the implications of changing or defining the legal status of bands, and here there seem to be two consistent themes. There's that concern about the reserve, the protection of reserve land, that it shouldn't be touched, or the corporatization of bands, which has often used the same thing. But also, we must be careful that this legislation doesn't inadvertently define first nations for self-government purposes.

    On leadership selection and voting rights, this was clearly at the top of the minds of participants, and that's not surprising, given the recent Corbiere decision and the impact that's had on communities. Issues raised included the need for eligibility rules or standards for candidates for chief and council, and rules to enable the removal of elected officials from office as a result of criminal convictions and/or breaches.

  (1220)  

    There are no such rules now in the Indian Act. There was the issue of extending the term of office, with preferences for longer terms, and an interest in seeing how the interests of on- and off-reserve can be balanced through different electoral models. There was a strong preference for community or third-party based overview processes in terms of managing appeals or other issues like that rather than the current kind of administration we have by our department under the Indian Act.

    On accountability, consistently, and this is repetitive of the themes in the other areas, community members want to be informed and engaged in the affairs of their communities. They want greater involvement in community decision-making. They want greater involvement in decisions, for example, establishing salaries and benefits for chiefs and councils and approving annual budgets; clear separation of politics and administration in the first nations governance structure; conflict of interest guidelines and codes of ethics for band leadership; more policies and procedures in terms of eligibility for program and services in virtually all aspects of first nations governance; more effective redress mechanisms; and more and better information.

    That's a quick review of the executive summary, and the full results will be up, we hope, within a matter of weeks on the website. It's being translated as we speak.

    Based on those inputs the development of the legislative package then began in November. That started with our minister appointing a joint ministerial advisory committee to provide advice on the range of policy options that would flow from this consultative input to guide the development of the legislation. And that advisory committee includes all of the participating national organizations as well. So we have a spectrum of government experts, representatives of the national organizations, and individual first nation members invited by the minister to participate in that advisory mechanism.

    As I've referenced, we're using the regional governance discussion groups to take a look at the overview of the results and provide their input at the same time. And we'll be conducting, and are conducting, in parallel with that interdepartmental review a review of the operational and financial implications of these legislative options so we can clearly develop the kinds of implementation mechanisms and deal with the kind of capacity issues that will be important to first nations in dealing with this. The target, as referenced, Mr. Chairman, at the outset, is to table this as soon as possible this spring.

    Just to reinforce this, the minister intends to seek the authority to refer the legislation to this committee before second reading to have substantive consultations, and we expect further consultations obviously in the development of the regulations pursuant to this act once it is passed.

    Thank you very much.

    The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Johnson.

    I have a very short question on some little bit of mechanics and then we'll set the rules for the committee.

    I noticed you mailed questionnaires to households. How effective is that, and what success do you have in reaching as many people as possible?

    I ask this because as chair of this committee, after this is all done, I'd like to be able to say that we gave everyone an opportunity to participate in the consultation we will do after the legislation is tabled.

    How effective is it? Do you have the proper addresses to send a letter to each home?

    Mr. Warren Johnson: The simple answer, Mr. Chairman, is I don't think we are there yet. That's why we have used a whole variety of mechanisms, whether it be print, radio and television media, the community sessions, the Internet site, the 1-800 number, and these mail-outs.

    But to give you more detail on that issue, my colleague Brenda Kustra has been coordinating much of this activity and may be able to provide more detail.

  (1225)  

    The Chair: Thank you. We'll deal with that later, after we get the legislation.

    Mr. Warren Johnson: All right.

    The Chair: To my colleagues, normally when we do legislation we ask the opposition in turn to ask questions, and afterwards we go one and one, back and forth. This is not legislation. This is an educational process, so we'll do the full turn, and we'll have as many turns as we want.

    Mr. Thompson.

    Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Chair, how much time do we have?

    The Chair: You have four minutes for questions and answers, and we'll do more than one round. We'll do as many rounds as you need.

    Mr. Myron Thompson: I'm not sure if our guests today are aware of the fact that I spent probably two years touring the reserves across the country in 1999 and 2000.

    When we talk about getting input from people and households, I want the committee to understand that when I went to many of these reserves, the households I visited--that I sat in, where I shared what food they had--were broken-down buses with no windows or wheels; were tarpaper shacks they threw together as best they could possibly do; where we sat on tree stumps for chairs and used hollowed-out logs for tables. I wonder if people really, truly understand how serious the conditions are on the reserves--on some of the reserves; I'm certainly not going to say all of them, because there are some very fine ones as well.

    The United Nations, referring to our first nations people, declares that third world conditions exist in this land to an unbelievable extent in the reserves; yet when these people reach out for help, they have never had an avenue of help that was available to them. They go to the chief and council and have no success. They go to Indian Affairs and are referred back to chief and council. Nothing ever happens.

    I don't believe I've ever come across a group of people in this country where hopelessness and helplessness was at such a high level as in that two-year period. I think you only need to look at the suicide rates at many of these particular reserves as an indication of how the young people in particular are feeling; how mothers who have lost their children are crying out for help and have no place to go.

    I am certainly pleased to welcome this initiative. I believe there are going to be some good things come out of this particular effort. In the meantime, it appears the problems continue to exist, and there just doesn't seem to be any hope. I drove down one highway--Highway 3 in Alberta--and looked at the housing as I went along and said, this looks like a pretty good place. There was some good housing. I was glad to see they were taking care of their people. Then I was invited by a number of the band members from that reserve to come to their homes and visit them. Inside the homes there were no rooms. Rugs were hung to create rooms so they could have a bit of privacy for certain members of their family. Nothing was finished on the inside; only the outside shell.

    There was no water. I watched people go to the creeks and cart water back and forth, because that was their only means of having a drinking source.

    Are these kinds of things coming forward through your consultations? Is this information you're getting genuinely from the heart of the community people who are caught in these very serious conditions? Is the message coming forward to the people who are planning to do something about the Indian Act and make changes? Are we going to be able to get to the real bottom of the problem of humanity and the way things are and the way people are being treated by their own leaders?

    I am quite concerned that this accountability thing will go nowhere unless we put some mechanisms in place--and indicate there will be mechanisms in place--to protect people from exploitation that I think has happened in so many places. I see tools will be provided; tools will be put in place. What tools?

  (1230)  

What exactly are we talking about? What opportunities are going to be made available?

    The Chair: Okay, Mr. Thompson.

    Mr. Myron Thompson: And I don't see the answers in the presentation.

    The Chair: And we won't hear the answer because you took the full five minutes.

    Monsieur Marceau.

    Mr. Myron Thompson: I'll get back, right?

[Translation]

    Le président: Mr. Marceau.

    Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg--Jacques-Cartier, BQ): Mr. Johnson, Mrs. Thériault, Mrs. Kustra, thank you for coming and presenting your report. It is very interesting. I have some questions to ask you.

    First, could you tell us how much did this consultation, which you told us was the most comprehensive consultation ever carried out by your department, cost?

    Mr. Warren Johnson: The consultation cost us, in terms of amounts paid to others, 10 million dollars.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Ten million dollars?

     Mr. Warren Johnson: That's right, 10 million dollars.

[English]

    Yes. We've obviously dedicated significant internal resources because we've had to field extensive teams out of our regional offices to visit the communities. We've dedicated a very large percentage of our normal communications budget in terms of getting the website up, getting the materials out, trying to get the postal addresses for mail-outs, etc.

    In terms of the direct expenses beyond that, roughly $6 million has been budgeted for the actual on-the-ground costs of the community consultations--visiting the communities--and the costs of those consultations. And another $4 million was put aside to support the participating national organizations, to give them some resources to participate with us and to have their own internal communications.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: You don't have an overall amount to give us, that is an amount which would include the sum of 10 million dollars as well as monies you have spent for internal resources. What was the total cost of this whole operation? You speak of an amount of ten million dollars in direct costs. Do you have an idea of the total costs?

[English]

    Mr. Warren Johnson: I don't have that at my fingertips. I don't know that we've added that all up, since we're still in the exercise.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Would it be possible to find out eventually?

[English]

    Mr. Warren Johnson: Yes, we could provide more detailed information to the committee, either now or at a later stage.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Understood. Thank you.

    I'll go on to my second question. When Minister Nault announced his governance initiative, there was a fairly significant angry outcry.

    I was a bit surprised to note that the First Nations did not appear on page 22 of your document, where you speak of national and regional partners. It seems to me - I may be wrong -, that they are the main spokespersons for Canadian aboriginals. How can we have a complete picture, a true picture of the situation, if an association as important as the Assembly of First Nations is not participating in it and does not appear in the list of your partners.

[English]

    Mr. Warren Johnson: Part of that question would have to be asked to the Assembly of First Nations themselves. We've been consulting and working with them on this exercise since the outset and before its official announcement in December. But there has been a variety of stages at which joint work plans and approaches have been put forward and haven't received the consent required by whatever assembly they've been in front of at that time. We don't now have those offers, obviously, as the minister has been at pains to point out, remain open to them at any stage in the exercise. We can only work with those who agreed to work with us. For example, their chair has remained vacant at the Joint Ministerial Advisory Committee. But the first nations who are participating, the various regional groups, and chiefs and councils have designated a separate representative to work with us.

  (1235)  

    The Chair: Mr. Finlay.

    Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you for all your information. It has certainly been a big exercise, and that's what my question is about.

    How did you manage to undertake such an intensive consultation in just six months? You've been to a lot of communities and so on. How have you managed that? Have you hired extra people?

    Mr. Warren Johnson: We haven't hired extra people in that sense. We've obviously had to create, as witnessed by my colleagues, as an example, here with me today, a fair structure to coordinate all of this. But it has largely been accomplished working with the partner organizations and our regional offices, which had to form special teams from right across the department.

    This is not an initiative of my sector or anyone's sector of the department. This is a major corporate initiative. So everybody has volunteered resources into it. I don't know how many there would have been in any one region at the maximum, but there were five, six, or seven teams of three or four people out visiting communities all through last summer from our regional office, as an example. We took our people from wherever we could around the organization and dedicated them to this through all of last summer. That's where the most intensive work was.

    Mr. John Finlay: Thank you.

[Translation]

    Le président: Mr. St-Julien.

    Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi--Baie-James--Nunavik, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have two questions.

    Are the nine Cree communities of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement part of the Indian Act?

     Mrs. Geneviève Thériault (Legal Counsel, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): I think there are only a few sections which still apply, but most of the Indian Act no longer applies. I would have to go and look at the Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act.

    Mr. Guy St-Julien: Mr. Johnson, are they covered by the Indian Act, yes or no?

[English]

    Mr. Warren Johnson: Not completely. As with a number of self-government agreements that are negotiated, those agreements refer, in some cases, to parts of the Indian Act, but the Indian Act is not completely applied to those groups. So you have to look at the specifics of the agreement, and I don't have that information here. We could provide a more detailed response on that specific question, if it would be useful.

[Translation]

    Mr. Guy St-Julien: As far as I'm concerned, Mr. Chair, I have to say “no”.

    I have another question. You say on page 13 that too many aboriginals continue to live in poverty. Did you consult the Economic Dependency Profile to determine that too many people are living in poverty? There are 619 reserves and 49 Inuit communities. Did you consult the 1999 Economic Dependency Profile--my region is covered there--to determine the poverty level of a given community? This book, which contains the Economic Dependency Profile, provides information on the aboriginals and the Inuit, and on the impact that social benefit programs have on the financial situation in their region. This profile is a very valuable tool for anyone wishing to determine the social and financial status of the aboriginals and Inuit of a given geographic region.

    Someone came here on February 21, to speak about social assistance. But have you taken the trouble to consult Statistics Canada to learn about the current Economic Dependency Profile, that of 1999, the next one being scheduled to appear in August of this year. Has your organization examined the Economic Dependency Profile for each Inuit and aboriginal community, to set up the consultation?

[English]

    Mr. Warren Johnson: We did not use the socio-economic profile to develop our consultations. Our consultations were open to anyone, anywhere, on or off reserve, in any community or any organization anywhere in Canada, who wanted to participate. That was the policy, but that is also an obligation in terms of defining this type of legislation.

    So, no, we did not look at those profiles. But we did, as I think my colleague referenced in a similar question last week, and as was referenced at the front end of this discussion, find that irrespective of that profile, the best evidence we have indicates that with respect to first nations communities, the one determining factor overriding all other factors, whether it's geographic location, resource availability or access, nearness to an urban centre, etc., is governance.

  (1240)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Guy St-Julien: Your are going to examine the Economic Dependency Profile so that, in the future, you can provide the committee with the profiles of each of the 619 and 49 reserves and so we can be truly be aware of the situation in 1999 and that of 2002. That is important because there are federal transfers in addition to the social benefits. On February 21, we were told about social benefits in a document but there is more than just social benefits in aboriginal communities. Are you going to provide the committee with the Economic Dependency Profile for each reserve and each Inuit community?

    The Chair: Mr. St-Julien, if the Committee so decides, you will be able, when we have the bill, to have Statistics Canada appear and ask their representatives directly to answer questions. Agreed?

    Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you very much.

    A voice: [Editor's note: inaudible]

    Mr. Raymond Bonin: No. It is not a discussion of the legislation, it is an information session. We grant the opposition more questions when it is a matter of challenging the Government's legislation. It is an educational process.

    A voice: [Editor's note: inaudible]

    The Chair: Is this a problem for you? You are cutting into their five minute allotment. Do you want another five minutes?

    Mr. Richard Marceau: No. I just want us to agree on the rules, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: I outlined the rules before the meeting began.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: I thought it was three times five minutes and then we started another round.

    The Chair: You misunderstood.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: In that case, Mr. Chair, I question...

    The Chair: All right! Mr. Marceau, you have five minutes.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: No, it doesn't work that way.

    The Chair: No. I am the one who is going to chair the meeting.

    Mr. Marceau, you have five minutes.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: The Chair is going mad with power again. I will comply. I apologize for making you watch the spectacle of this pitiful way to operate.

    In your opinion, does the absence of the Assembly of First Nations in the governance process, taint, to some degree, your consultation process? From your point of view is it just too bad but it's not serious, or it's unfortunate and it has a serious impact?

[English]

    Mr. Warren Johnson: You've asked me for a personal view, and my personal view is that it's unfortunate that the AFN isn't participating as an organization. As to the implications of that in terms of its impact on this legislation, that's better left for the politicians to judge and for this committee to take stock of in its hearings on the legislation.

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: How, in your Department's overall game plan, does the governance initiative fit in with the kind of project which the Erasmus-Dussault Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples indicated? How do they complement each other? How do they fit?

    Does the fact that the government has decided to adopt the principle of governance not undermine your efforts a little? You said, as a matter of fact, that you had dedicated significant resources to this project. Does this not reduce the energies dedicated to the implementation of the recommendations of the Erasmus-Dussault Commission?

[English]

    Mr. Warren Johnson: In terms of the government's commitments in response to the royal commission, there is, for example, the whole Gathering Strength exercise, and much of what we're seeing here is the result of that exercise. I'm not aware that the resources we've drawn from around the department to participate in this exercise have in any way frustrated or delayed any of the other negotiations dealing more with inherent right treaties and other discussions with first nations. I am not aware of any of those implications.

  (1245)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Your response surprises me because it says somewhere--I'm trying to find the spot--the governance initiative will promote the negotiation of governmental autonomy.

    Can you explain how and why?

[English]

    Mr. Warren Johnson: I haven't heard anybody contradict this, whether it be academic observers, first nations themselves, or those who have already gotten substantially into or completed self-government agreements, such as the Nisga'a. In its simplest terms most observers agree there is a very large jump between their experience, procedures, law-making base, etc., under the Indian Act and where they need to be under self-government. There are a variety of exercises, but this clearly is an important one. The minister frames it as a cornerstone. If exercises like this can provide more modern tools for first nations that are closer to the type of experience they are looking for under self-government, then that helps to close the gap in that transition.

    A lot of first nations are involved in negotiations on self-government. Those negotiations take some time. There is a lot of detail to work through. They are starting so far away from where they need to be in the end that there is a major gap in terms of both the experience and the practical short term situation. It is hoped that this and some of the other initiatives the minister referred to, such as first nations financial institutions and the expansion of the First Nations Land Management Act, all first-nations-led, will help to close that gap and will build building blocks, if you will, so that first nations can move in transition toward self-government.

    The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): I'm just looking through this, and my question is probably very general. In looking at all the different treaties from one end of the country to the other and into the north...you talk a bit about customized elections and how different bands elect their chiefs differently. Under this new governance act, will there still be room for customizing, let's say, eligibility and the way they elect their chiefs now and have done so for hundreds of years, or are we trying to get standard eligibility criteria throughout the whole country? Will there be an opportunity for a balance of what there is now but within a legalized structure?

    Mr. Warren Johnson: The committee will appreciate that I can't speculate in any detail on what's going to be in the act until it's available before this committee--

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: But is there room for that in this process?

    Mr. Warren Johnson: I can tell you that all of the results of the consultations and all of the references the minister has made thus far in terms of his expectations of the style and type of legislation are that it would be enabling.

    There are certain standards, principles of good governance, things that if we thought about it for a minute we would all recognize in terms of transparency, redress, access to information, and involvement in decision-making, that all citizens expect. But beyond those standards, however they are framed and however they would be completed in the legislation, first nations should be enabled to develop their own procedures, codes, and approaches in terms of how they want their communities to govern them.

    Obviously, if that's the style of legislation--and the minister has said that's what he would like to see come forward to the House and to this committee--then we'll have to provide fallback provisions or structures for first nations, or transition periods to be able to develop that. But this is the concept of enabling legislation that I think is at the heart of this, and certainly at the heart of all the consultations and all the references our minister has made to date in terms of this kind of legislation.

    I think the simple answer to your question is yes.

  (1250)  

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: My second question is a bit of a follow-up to Mr. Thompson's.

    I am very familiar with how difficult it is to get communications to everyone, and sometimes the responses you get are from the ones who are very active and know how to work the system, for lack of a better word. So how are the consultations set up so that you do reach some of those people who might not have the proper avenues of getting their ideas across, as well as the ones who know how to get their ideas across, know how to get to the media, know how to do their letter-writing campaigns?

    How do we know the consultations are also reaching those people who, due to no fault of their own, have great difficulty in accessing ways and means of getting their opinions across?

    Mr. Warren Johnson: As I've described, we've completed what would be one of three stages of consultations that would be necessary to see this through to the end, and we have tried, as I was referencing earlier, to provide every avenue possible. We need to take stock at each of these stages, not just for this exercise but for other exercises too, for exactly the problem you've talked about.

    We need to take stock of what has been more or less effective and how we can improve it, and we're determined to do that at each stage. All we could do in the first stage was try to seek advice of first nations and other consultants in this area, the media folks, and the rest, and use a variety of mechanisms. We'll want to continue to improve on that. But our answer at the outset was to provide every possible avenue we could.

    The Chair: Mr. Godfrey.

    Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): In the package, on page 9, you set out various academic considerations about legislated accountability. But you left out one that's extraordinarily important, which has quite an illustrious academic background as well. That would be a theory that says if you want effective government--effective democracy, citizenship, and accountability--and you want economic development, throughout the history of government there is one factor that separates effective from ineffective government and accountable from unaccountable government, and that's taxation.

    If you examine the problems of foreign aid, or the problems of Argentina, or the problems of anything else, unless citizens actually have to vote for people on the basis of how that money is going to be administered, you will never have effective governance. You can't finesse it. You can't say, we're not talking about that because it happens to be in another part of the Indian Act. If you accept this nexus--and I think it would be pretty difficult not to accept it--then you're not going to have success until you recognize it and do something about it, even if it comes down to taking all of the money we currently send to band councils, divvying it up for every citizen, and then taxing it back, so the people who are elected have to be responsible for the quality of the government.

    Mr. Warren Johnson: You are correct that the taxation powers and authorities of first nations are quite limited under the Indian Act, to property taxation. I think it's characterized as gathering money for other local purposes, which has had a very narrow legal definition.

    What we can deal with here and what I think there's a clear call for in terms of the consultations is the whole financial and accountability side, the expenditure side of that, so that irrespective of the source of funds--and first nations have a variety of revenue sources--their citizens are looking for the normal process of expenditure management, budgeting, disclosure of budgets, and audits at the end of the year, all of those other characteristics that I think you were describing. They are topics that this legislation will be looking at.

    Mr. John Godfrey: So we may not get there. It may not work. This may be the fatal flaw. I will end with that as just an observation.

    The Chair: Mr. Thompson, five minutes, then we'll go to three-minute questions.

    Mr. Myron Thompson: I certainly hope this isn't the end, the fatal flaw.

    Nancy, I thank you for following up on what I was getting at. Thank you for answering that question. That's the part I'm referring to.

    There's nothing I'd like better than to see the people who are going out into the field in consultation drive past the administrative buildings on the reserves and go directly to the people, to those who are living in these situations that need to be dealt with. I think people who are out there getting consultation should open the avenue of direct individual contact at the point of where they're at. I think some of the bureaucracy would be shocked to see what I've seen. I don't think they realize just how serious some of these situations are. I wish they'd get out and look and see for themselves.

    One thing I had the pleasure of in two provinces was that provincial MLAs and legislators who heard I was coming joined me in these ventures. They were quite interested in what was taking place.

    I don't see provincial legislators involved in the list of partners, so to speak. Were they left out? Indeed, what is the provincial role? What's their involvement? Should they not be involved to a greater degree? If they aren't, why not?

  (1255)  

    Mr. Warren Johnson: On the first part of the question, the partners we're referring to here are those first nations organizations, councils, etc., that we were working with to actually hold the consultations in their communities.

    In terms of provincial and other involvement, other than on the information side, they haven't been involved to this stage, as with all legislative initiatives. This will come later.

    The first stage has been to seek the views of first nations and first nations citizens on how this legislation should be framed in terms of the kinds of topics they were looking for. In a number of these areas, obviously, we have had recurring discussions with the provinces. We haven't asked them for their input specifically on this legislation, but there are themes here that are part of our day-to-day discussions with our provincial colleagues.

    Mr. Myron Thompson: Thank you.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Marceau, three minutes.

    Mr. Richard Marceau: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    The fiduciary link between the Crown and the aboriginal nations was mentioned twice in your presentation. To your mind, how do you reconcile this fiduciary relationship with the inherent right to self-determination? Do those two things fit together? I am also trying to connect that with your mention of the idea that it is not a third level of government. It seems a bit fuzzy and I would like to know how you see all that.

     Mr. Warren Johnson: I hope I understood the question correctly.

    I think in terms of the last reference, the point that was being made there is that the intent of this legislation is not to try to define rights or change the fiduciary relationship.

    In terms of the relationship between the inherent right and those rights and the fiduciary relationship--from my perspective the term “fiduciary” is used in a variety of contexts. In its simplest perspective there is a broad fiduciary relationship; it's the relationship of the crown to first nations. It's in treaty, it's in history, it's in the royal proclamation, it's part of our country.

    But there are more narrow and practicable implications of fiduciary in terms of the operations of government. One does relate to the inherent right, or the rights issues, and that is because when those rights were entrenched in our Constitution they were not defined. So there is one aspect of the fiduciary relationship that is more defined as a duty, and it's been in a variety of court references--Sparrow and Delgamuukw, to give examples--that when government is potentially intruding on that right there is an obligation to consult. Then it goes on in terms of other obligations that may flow from this, and that's the issue of a potential intrusion, inadvertent or not, on an existing aboriginal right. But that's far away from this initiative because of its nature.

    One thing that is closer to this initiative is the third aspect of fiduciary that people use, and that is the definition of fiduciary relating to when you are, as a fiduciary, making decisions on behalf of another person with respect to, in our case under the Indian Act, the management of first nations resources, as an example. That's not the specific topic of this piece of work. The reference here is to the court cases, in Guerin and other cases.

    That's not the specific topic of this work, and we're going to have to be careful when we're framing this that we don't inadvertently get into that area, and make it clear where we do. The intent is not to alter the relationship in terms of fiduciary relationship, and we're being careful that with respect to those types of specific fiduciary duties we may have under the Indian Act, those aren't affected, or, where it looks like we may be, that we've made those clear and people have a chance to look at that.

·  (1300)  

    The Chair: Mr. St-Julien, three minutes.

    Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    You talk about consultation. According to the schedule of consultations, is your group going to hold information sessions and community consultations in the 9 Cree communites of James Bay, in the 14 Inuit municipalities of Nunavik and the 3 Algonquin communities in the Abitibi? It is important that we know the answer.

    Which languages are the consultation documents in? Are they in English, in French, in an aboriginal language, in Inuktitut? Several community leaders in the riding of Abitibi-Baie -James-Nunavik only speak Inuktitut and some leaders only speak Cree.

[English]

    Mr. Warren Johnson: All of our formal documentation was in English and French. I don't think we did any formal translation of the complete documentation in other aboriginal languages, although in our sessions we attempted wherever we could to ensure that we had adequate translation for those languages in the communities and at the sessions.

    My colleague Brenda Kustra may be able to respond in more detail. I don't have the specific information. We could either forward it later or perhaps look it up, because we brought some material here with us, in terms of what happened in exactly those communities.

    But the simple answer to the question was we asked, through our regional offices, through direct calls and letters, and through a variety of letters from the minister, for each of those communities to invite us either on reserve or to a group session near the reserves, and we went to every one we were invited to. But in terms of the specific response, if you like I could have my colleague try to look it up.

    Ms. Brenda Kustra (Executive Adviser, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): There was information available in some of the aboriginal languages across the country. Where communities indicated that they wanted participation from their elders, for instance, some of the key information was translated into aboriginal languages. The entire package, though, was available in English and French only.

[Translation]

    Mr. Guy St-Julien: Thank you very much.

    Have you had any consultations in Nunavik? It says here that there are 612 First Nations and 49 Inuit communities from one sea to the other. We know that Nunavik is large. We know that Nunavut covers about three million square kilometres. Did you consult? I think you have consulted some national and regional groups. DId you take the trouble to consult in the Makivik Corporation and the Kativik Corporation, in Nunavik, who take care of 14 communities made up of about 12,000 Inuit spread over some 500,000 square kilometres? Did you take the trouble to consult them on the subject of the Indian Act?

[English]

    Mr. Warren Johnson: These consultations did not involve Inuit communities because they're not affected by the Indian Act. In terms of the communities you've referenced, I don't know whether we have that specific information in front of us. Perhaps we can forward that later in response to your question.

[Translation]

    The Chair: You can answer Mr. St-Julien directly as this is a question that mostly applies to his territory, unless the others also want to have it.

    Are there any more questions?

·  (1305)  

[English]

     Thank you very much for your presentation and for assisting us in this work. I'm sure we'll see you again.

    Thank you.