AANR Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Monday, January 27, 2003

¹

1540

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

¹

1545

The Chair

Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

¹

1550

¹

1555

º

1600

º

1605

º

1610

º

1615

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Robert Nault

º

1620

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Robert Nault

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

º

1625

Mr. Robert Nault

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

º

1630

Mr. Robert Nault

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

Mr. Robert Nault

º

1635

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

Mr. Robert Nault

The Chair

º

1640

Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.)

Mr. Robert Nault

Mr. Gérard Binet

Mr. Robert Nault

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

º

1645

Mr. Robert Nault

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.)

Mr. Robert Nault

º

1650

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

º

1655

Mr. Robert Nault

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Robert Nault

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

The Chair

Mr. Brian Pallister

»

1700

The Chair

Mr. Robert Nault

The Chair

Mr. Robert Nault

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. Robert Nault

»

1705

»

1710

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

---

NUMBER 014

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Monday, January 27, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹  (1540)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)) Order. Good afternoon, everyone.

    Before proceeding to the official part of our meeting, I'd like to congratulate and welcome our new parliamentary secretary, Charles Hubbard. I'd also like to congratulate and welcome Nancy Karetak-Lindell, parliamentary secretary to the natural resources minister.

    Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

¹  (1545)  

    The Chair: On your behalf, the clerk was kind enough to send a card, and I invite you to duplicate it, to Inky Mark, who had surgery. I understand he's doing well. Hopefully he will be back with us soon.

    Are there any other announcements? Any new grandfathers or fathers or...?

    Mr. Minister, we are here today to start the perusal and investigation of Bill C-7, an act respecting leadership selection, administration and accountability of Indian bands, and to make related amendments to other acts. We welcome your being with us today. You're always so cooperative. Any time we ask you to be with us, you accept on the date that we ask, without discussion, and I want to commend you for that.

    Colleagues, I will have lots of things to say as we go. The calendar is out. Our schedule is in place for at least four or six of the weeks, so you will know exactly what to expect weeks ahead of time. If all goes well, we should complete this bill before Easter. That is not an absolute; you will be the judge of that.

    Mr. Minister, we invite you to make your presentation and to take the half hour or 35 minutes that you need.

    Hon. Robert Nault (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

    I as well would like to congratulate our new parliamentary secretaries on their added responsibilities and roles here in Parliament.

    With me today is Brenda Kustra, Warren Johnson, and Andrew Beynon. They are members of our department who have special responsibilities for certain areas relating to first nations governance.

    As has been mentioned, Mr. Chairman, I will take about 30 minutes or so to lay out as best I can the vision and direction of this government as it relates to improving the lives of first nations citizens. I will commence with my opening comments and certainly will be pleased to take questions from members of the committee.

    Mr. Chairman, imagine what Canada would be like if we in Parliament decided, for reasons known only to ourselves, to rearrange the furniture of government. What would Canadians say if we eliminated the requirement for an Auditor General? What would they say if we did not require government to publish financial statements regularly, or allowed the government to keep the budget a secret? This would certainly cut down on the commentary from the members opposite; however, it would also eliminate all that we have gained since we established responsible government almost two centuries ago.

    As you know, Mr. Chairman, Canadians would never accept that, not for one moment. As citizens, they would rightly say that we are rolling back some of the most fundamental aspects of our citizenship, of who we are and how we govern ourselves. And yet this situation that I have asked you to imagine is the reality facing many first nations today. Archaic laws and legislation prevent them from governing effectively.

    I believe modern government should practise the politics of empowerment if they are to help their citizens to thrive, to grow, and to fulfill their dreams. I believe any of us who hold office to serve our fellow citizens must serve them all with the integrity they deserve. I believe it's possible for reasonable people to debate even the most sensitive issues so long as they agree to listen to each other, to learn from one another, to discover the possible, and to do, in the end, what's right.

     Mr. Chairman, in my riding there are 51 first nations. Geographically, my riding is bigger than France. It is home to more first nations than any other riding. So when the elders of these first nations speak, I listen very closely and I learn.

    The elders in my riding tell me that quality of life is linked to the quality of government. Leaders should make decisions that benefit their communities so that the people can find opportunity and sustenance today and work together to strengthen the community for tomorrow. The elders clearly see the link between good governance and improving social conditions. They tell me that governments should focus on education and health care and issues that affect children.

    Since becoming Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I have met with elders from all across Canada. The elders across Canada tell me very much the same things I've learned from the elders in my own riding.

    Mr. Chairman, it's time that first nations gain the means to develop economies, to select the policies that will improve their lives, and to decide for themselves how their future might unfold. Our government has recognized this need. We are working with first nations to promote economic development. We are acting as I speak. We have addressed the immediate issues of access to resources through Bill C-19, on first nations fiscal and statistical management. This bill will ensure that chief and council have the powers to make their own decisions and to finance their own infrastructure projects without coming to Ottawa to ask permission.

    We've also greatly expanded the powers of first nations to manage and control their own lands. We did this by opening up the First Nations Land Management Act. Just for your information, almost 100 first nations have requested to enter the act since it was passed in 1999. As well, we are reforming the specific claims process. Bill C-6 aims to speed up the resolution of specific and treaty-based claims. It also introduces new and important independence in the validation of claims and on the determination of settlements.

    These measures are essential, but they're not enough. We must address the very heart of the matter. We must focus on how first nations choose their leaders and how they hold their governments to account. We must ensure that band governments have the tools that are essential to any government. We must also ensure that these governance measures are adopted by measuring either the fallback provisions set out in this bill or the governance system adapted by a first nation to suit the particular needs of its citizens.

    Let me give you an overview, Mr. Chairman, of the bill that's before you now. This bill will help to build the strong foundation for a first nations economy and a solid relationship between first nations and Canadians. The proposed First Nations Governance Act will equip first nations with more effective tools of governance. It sets the legislative framework for first nations to reform their own governance structures as they see fit, and it removes the department, myself included, from the daily lives of first nations people and their governance.

    The legislation proposes to do this by enabling first nations to codify their rules for elections, for administration, and for financial management and accountability. It does all this according to standards that are common to all governments in Canada, but it also remains flexible enough to accommodate the unique cultures and traditions of first nations.

    Mr. Chairman, this is not a one-size-fits-all approach, as in the Indian Act. A first nation must be enabled to adapt its own government operations and ways of doing public business to its particular needs, traditions, and aspirations.

¹  (1550)  

     When I say a “first nation”, I mean the entire first nation community, all of its citizens. As I said earlier, our goal is to empower first nation citizens so that they can shape their own governments and hold them to account. This is what the first part of the bill is all about.

    The second part of the bill deals with the authorities or powers that first nation governments will need to build a brighter future for their communities. The bill clarifies the legal capacity of first nations. It will ensure that any first nation can enter into contracts and agreements. It modernizes law-making and enforcement on reserve. These tools are essential to any government, but they're not in the Indian Act and they are needed today. In other words, this part of the bill will put first nations on a more secure legislative foundation in their dealings with all their citizens, on and off reserve, and in their relationship with the private sector and other governments.

    Mr. Chairman, parts 3 and 4 of the bill deal largely with regulatory authorities and technical amendments--for example, the authority of the governor in council to put in place fallback provisions that the community can use if they wish. They also lay out the two-year transition period for the communities that choose to craft their own governance codes and procedures at the outset. And finally, this is the section that brings the Indian Act under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

    This legislation fits within our overall policy approach, which aims to achieve two very fundamental goals. First, we aim to improve daily life. These are the bread and butter initiatives. As you have imagined, the finest institutions of governance, the most sophisticated fiscal tools, mean little to people without clean water, adequate housing, or an education, yet these are the hard realities faced by many first nation people. These are the daily challenges and the lifelong struggles. Unless we deal with them we will raise false hopes. That's why we have embarked on an ambitious agenda of social and economic reform. As we said in the throne speech, it is an agenda aimed at making Canada a place of ever-widening opportunity for all who live here.

    Our second goal is to achieve self-government, which we recognize, as does our government, as an inherent right. Let me be clear: I reaffirm our commitment to self-government. This commitment will not change. However, no matter how deep our commitment, no matter how many negotiations we conduct simultaneously, we must recognize that it may take years for some first nations to reach self-government. The reality is that nation-building takes time, resources, and political commitment. As the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recognized, first nations are often composed of multiple communities. Often they have members on reserve as well as off reserve. These divisions within first nations communities must be bridged in order for self-government negotiations to advance. This bill before you plays a major role in this great task.

    Mr. Chairman, let us also be clear that some first nations people have their doubts that self-government will work in their interest. The committee may wish to explore this dilemma. For example, many first nation women have doubts about putting more power into the hands of their leaders and officials. It's interesting that in the consultations this group was the most vocal in stating that first nations citizens need real measures to seek redress and to hold their governments accountable. In my view, this bill will help to address this problem. It provides a practical transition to self-government.

¹  (1555)  

     As Joe Gosnell, president of the Nisga'a Nation, has said publicly, this bill could have cut years off the negotiations around their self-government agreement. It will also provide solid institutions and real governance experience for first nations so that communities and the people who live there benefit.

    Let's look at the reasons this bill has come before you now. The first and most significant reason is the inadequacy of the Indian Act. It was passed, as we have said many times in front of your committee and in public, in the year 1876, and was last amended on governance over 50 years ago. The Supreme Court told us in the Corbiere decision that parts of it are unconstitutional. First nations people have told us that the Indian Act is out of touch with their rights and aspirations.

    Mr. Chairman, our aim is to provide a foundation for self-government. The bill before you now is a step toward that goal. We want to ensure that first nations governments and the people they represent determine the content of self-government agreements. Another generation of first nations youth cannot afford to wait. The time has come to enable first nations people to shape their own future.

    There is another compelling reason to act now, Mr. Chairman. When the Supreme Court of Canada ruled on Corbiere, it called on Parliament to act. There are dozens of other cases before the courts. Sooner or later the court will again turn to us and require us to act.

    There's another way to look at this matter. By acting now, chief and council will have decision-making authority in most legislative and executive decisions. They will not have to seek my approval any longer. First nations members will control who gets to vote, who gets to run for office, and how often elections are held. Band budgets will be passed in public. First nations people will know if their government is in debt or in surplus, and will have a say on how their money is spent.

    The legislation will make it easier for bands to enforce their own laws, whether they be on the environment, land use, or even simply speed limits. The band council will develop both the capacity and the legislative basis to maintain a professional public service and share responsibility for their day-to-day activities. Business, always attracted to a stable environment where they know who they are dealing with and what the rules of engagement are, will invest with greater confidence.

    The First Nations Governance Act offers these benefits. They are real. As I've said, the act will remove ministerial powers, including the power of disallowance. The minister should not have the power to disallow the laws passed by an elected and fully accountable first nations government. As well, to my great satisfaction, the bill will ensure that the Canadian Human Rights Act will apply to first nations and their citizens.

    I should also note that this idea has very broad support from first nations and from National Chief Coon Come. The bill will introduce extensive new powers for band members to design their own constitutions or codes of governance and set out when, how, and in what numbers leaders will be chosen. The bill will provide for clear enforcement capacities for first nations. It will empower bands to develop redress protections for their members. It will set out a common standard of requirement in such areas as conflict of interest and the approval and publication of band budgets and accounts.

    In short, Mr. Chairman, this bill puts the power back where it belongs, into the hands of first nations people. I believe it's important to proceed in this way. The ability to pursue economic development, to create healthy communities with adequate infrastructure, and to develop the skills and potential of people all depend on good governance. First nations people understand the connection between effective governance and economic progress.

    Mr. Chairman, I think I told you the last time I was here that this minister found it quite surprising that governments, both mine and those in the past, never did any polling just on reserve. In fact, it was members of the general population who were asked for their views on what the policy should be for first nation citizens.

º  (1600)  

    In our on-reserve survey last May, we found that 86% agreed that good government in first nations communities is the best way to attract business investment and jobs.

    Mr. Chairman, we did a further poll to allow us to have a better understanding of what first nations citizens were thinking about their goals and aspirations for the future. I would certainly like to share those polls with you as they are a matter of public record. You will find, as I have, that what we've heard in the polling is very consistent with what we've heard in the consultations, that first nations citizens themselves agree very strongly that governance is important and needs to be dealt with, and we need to move away from the archaic process that has governed their lives, called the Indian Act.

    Mr. Chairman, this bill will benefit from your scrutiny, and I know that many witnesses will come before you. Like you, I look forward to what they have to say.

    At the same time, you should know that this bill was not created by the government in isolation. The department has consulted widely with the people most affected by the Indian Act. We have spoken with many leaders--chiefs and councillors and political leaders at the tribal, regional, and national levels. We have heard from first nations people--elders, youth, women, men, those who live on reserve and off reserve. We've had a real dialogue with first nations people.

    As many of you know, after we began this initiative the Assembly of First Nations asked us to stop so that we could accommodate some of their concerns. As you also know, we had already offered the AFN a major role in designing this initiative as well as the consultation process. You should know by now that our offer was declined. Even so, I agreed to this second opportunity for dialogue and improvement. By November 2001, after three months of negotiation, the entire national executive of the AFN and I reached an agreement. We had no abstentions and no objections. As you all know, the agreement collapsed a few weeks later. A minority of first nation chiefs voted against the national executive's work plan.

    Mr. Chairman, in practical terms I could not and did not bring the whole process to a halt a year ago. The government has an obligation, I believe a duty, to work with first nation leaders and citizens on proposed change. That is what we have done. With the assistance of individual first nation people and many leaders, nationally and regionally, we have brought this effort to a constructive conclusion. A total of 10,000 people participated in the most extensive consultations Canada has ever held with first nations people. To ignore their views, in my humble opinion, Mr. Chairman, would be irresponsible. We have listened, and I believe we have learned.

    The bill has been drafted with the particular aid of the joint ministerial advisory committee, the JMAC, as it is called. It is made up of ten representatives with a wide range of first nation and government experience. I want to take this opportunity to applaud the JMAC and thank them for their dedication. I understand that you will be hearing from a number of the members of JMAC. For your information Andrew Beynon is a member of that group, who represented the Department of Justice, and he would be very interested in giving you his comments, I'm sure, as time goes on.

    While many clauses and provisions are virtually word for word as advised by the JMAC, some matters were altered as a result of other discussions. I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, that I accept the responsibility for the result.

º  (1605)  

    As I have said many times, and I want to repeat it again here today, the First Nations Governance Act is not carved in stone. I'm open to suggestions as to how it might be improved. You will know, as parliamentarians, it was delivered to you on first reading rather than second reading so that you and the witnesses who appear before you will have a great opportunity for open discussion.

    I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you and the members of the committee, who have in some cases been advocating more involvement by members of Parliament in the drafting of legislation, will take the opportunity of a minister sending a bill to committee before second reading to give me advice if you believe, and through the discussions with witnesses, this bill can be strengthened.

    As you are aware, some first nation leaders do not agree with our direction. They describe the Government of Canada as colonialist. They would prefer to work immediately on implementing the inherent right of self-government. Often they demand that we return to the constitutional table, or demand a simple acceptance that all bands under the Indian Act have a fully empowered inherent right of self-government, or that we ought to be pursuing section 35 instead of section 91(24) of our Constitution.

    Mr. Chairman, this is important, because some of these leaders will come before you with the view that this legislation is a detour on the road to self-government. I expect you will be asked to disregard the constitutional framework of aboriginal rights as you consider this legislation.

    Often critics misinterpret the constitutional provisions as an either/or proposition: either section 91(24) of the Constitution Act of 1867, or section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982. Often they call our approach colonialist because we use section 91(24) as the basis for passing legislation instead of simply recognizing or implementing section 35.

    Mr. Chairman, section 91(24), as you will recall, gives Parliament the power to pass laws relating to Indians and lands reserved for Indians. Section 35, on the other hand, confirms that aboriginal and treaty rights exist. As you are aware, these provisions are part of the same constitution. I'm advised that these provisions operate together and must be read together so there can be no question of choosing one over the other. Whether we in Parliament are passing a law to bring Bill C-7 and interim governance into effect or if we are passing the Nisga'a Treaty legislation, our jurisdiction arises from section 91(24).

    More importantly, there's no conflict between these two sections, section 91(24), which is federal lawmaking power, and section 35, which is aboriginal and treaty rights. They must be read together and reconciled. Our laws, including the First Nations Governance Act, must, I want to repeat, respect section 35 rights.

    But Parliament, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, still may pass laws. To say otherwise would be to deny Parliament the ability to carry out the role it is assigned in the Constitution. This is our view, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure you will be presented with other interpretations. I will follow your work in this area with great interest. But I do ask one thing of the committee; that is, constructive criticism and constructive advice for change. First nations people, in my view, deserve your best as it relates to the work and the topic in front of us.

    Mr. Chairman, we have covered a great deal of ground, and I invite you to consider what I have said. This legislation is about building effective, accountable governments that represent their people and work on their behalf. This legislation is an essential step towards improving the daily lives of first nations people today and helping to bring forward self-government in a realistic way.

º  (1610)  

    The benefits of this legislation are clear. First nations will gain governance codes that meet the standards set out in this legislation and, more importantly, that meet the test of community support. These codes will address leadership selection, the administration of first nations government, and the structure of financial management and accountability. In short, this legislation will empower first nations to govern themselves in a way that improves on the outdated Indian Act and that carries them forward to our mutual goal of self-government.

    Above all else, Mr. Chairman, this legislation is about fulfilling the promise of first nations citizenship. Improved governance will create better conditions for economic development. First nations will be better able to attract investors, who will understand better the legal status of first nations and their legal capacity.

    Let me, Mr. Chairman, take this a step further. I think you should ask your witnesses how this legislation will make any first nations person worse off than he or she is now under the Indian Act. In my view, every element of this legislation improves on the current situation, and for that reason alone this legislation should be passed into law.

    Mr. Chairman, we have a rare opportunity. First nations people are engaged in the debate and working with the Government of Canada. On the political front, the environment, I believe, is ripe for change.

    Mr. Chairman, we also have a challenge. Each of us around this table and each of the witnesses that comes before you has a responsibility to the first nations people. Together we must do what is right, and we must do it now. Anyone who has travelled to reserves across Canada knows that fundamental inequities persist. Allowing this to continue will mean allowing injustice to prevail. Whether they live in cities or remote areas, citizens must know that their governments are working in their interest to improve their quality of life and to build a better tomorrow. We can do better, and we must, Mr. Chairman, for we have allowed this challenge of improving first nations governance to linger for far too long.

    The bill before you will put power back into the hands of people who want to decide for themselves how to build their future and how to fulfill the promise of first nations citizenship. Mr. Chairman, we owe it to them to pass this legislation.

    With that, I want to thank you. I look forward intently to your deliberations. I will be making myself and the officials available at any notice to discuss any matter as it relates to this bill, because I think that, fundamentally, it's probably the most important work of this committee for years to come.

    Thank you very much.

º  (1615)  

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

    I can say to you and to those participating in this meeting that this committee is prepared to do the work that has been asked of it by the Speaker of the House. In the spring of 2002 this committee spent three months getting itself educated, consulting with the leaders of the first nations communities and the experts specifically on the Indian Act. So a great amount of work was done by this committee, and I commend it for having done that preparation.

    You made reference to the JMAC committee. They will be appearing Thursday of this week.

    Colleagues, I need ten contributions to do two rounds. If we follow the time limit, I may be able to do three rounds. That is, provided I can start with a round of five minutes, which would allow the official opposition seven minutes. Are we agreeable to that?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Therefore, for the official opposition, seven minutes. Who will start?

    Mr. Pallister.

    Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage—Lisgar, Canadian Alliance): Mr. Minister, thank you for being here. Happy New Year.

    You have asked for constructive advice, and by way of some questions and comments, I'll begin the process of advancing what I hope will be some very constructive advice to you.

    Ostensibly, this bill is about providing good governance. But we recognize that when power is concentrated very heavily in the hands of a few people, good governance is very difficult. We see that here all the time. We know that it's a challenge in this place, but it is an even greater challenge in many of the first nations communities across Canada. When power is concentrated, it in fact can best be offset, I think, by the existence of professional providers of services, who then remove, or reduce at least, the impact of political influence on decision-making. Such is not the case on all reserves in this country, and all bands do not benefit equally from good government.

    I'd like to mention something that I and the Alliance are concerned about. Given the small size of a lot of our first nations communities, the small population--I think 80% of our bands are under 2,000 people and a third have 100 or fewer people--and the tendency that's already there to be, shall we say, kind of overweight at the top--most of the jobs in many of the first nations communities are administrative, service provision jobs, that type of thing--when you are advancing a model that empowers an already powerful group, that being the community leaders, are you not concerned that may magnify the imbalance that already exists between those who are governed and those who govern?

    I'll give as an example the new powers that are being given to appoint redress officials, enforcement officers, to establish codes and the like. Many of the concerns we have expressed to our office, and I'm sure your office as well, from first nations people across Canada relate to accusations--many times, I'm sure, spurious, but many times perhaps not ungrounded--of an abuse of power, whether it's by government officials here or regionally or by first nations officials, chiefs, and councils on reserves.

    Are you not concerned that by putting more powers in the hands of first nations community leaders without offsetting protection you may create a situation where the perhaps most marginalized Canadians are even more marginalized?

    Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I think that's an extremely important question.

    To my colleague, it's the position of this government that in fact we're doing just the reverse. We're rebalancing the power to give the power back to the people. The way the structure rests today there is no requirement for involvement of the citizens within a community on things that we as parliamentarians and members of government take for granted. There's no requirement for a professional public service that has an administrative code and the checks and balances to make sure there's no influence on decisions that are made by the bureaucracy within a first nation. There are no conflict-of-interest guidelines for first nation governments. And the list goes on and on.

    The codes and the fact that codes already exist that were built by first nations and that are not recognized in law will give us an opportunity and will allow us to understand that with the proper tools those balances and imbalances will be corrected. I am confident that first nations people, given the opportunity to play a role in their community, will be able to keep their governments accountable.

    The member has mentioned to me privately on a couple of occasions and again today the fact that there are many small first nations. I happen to be a member of Parliament who has that very situation in Kenora--Rainy River with the 51 first nations. The majority of my communities are under 1,000.

    Under paragraph 18(1)(b) this bill gives first nations “the delegation to any person or body of any of the council's powers under this Act or the Indian Act, other than its powers under this section”. The objective of that portion of this legislation is to allow the communities to aggregate together as nations for the first time without having to get into self-government negotiations.

    If we believe in allowing first nations communities to become larger groups so they can fulfill, as the royal commission has suggested, as nations, then we should make it very easy to do so. The legislation was constructed to allow that to happen at their own pace. So whether it's four communities coming together, five communities, or twenty-five, you will now be able, for example, to enter into educational or other particular initiatives with larger groupings without having to enter into negotiations.

º  (1620)  

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Okay, I appreciate your comments. I don't want to cut you off, but you know the deal with time.

    Mr. Robert Nault: Well, I was a lot briefer than you were.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Yes, I know.

    I think we can agree on the outcome. A lot of the first nations people I've talked to are very clear on the outcome, as you've stated it, but the question is, can that actually happen? It's been my experience that once bureaucracies are created, they tend to fight like hell not to be un-created, they tend to fight very hard not to cooperate with one another. Again, it's not a small point. Once these bureaucracies are created with each band, it's going to be difficult to achieve the ultimate goal of greater cooperation, I think, based on my experience with any bureaucracy.

    The Chair: I need a 30-second answer.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: I've not even asked a question. I'm going to ask one now, though.

    The Chair: Well, you've got to allow a bit of time for a reply.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Mr. Minister, you just used your powers, and I'm concerned about your reducing your powers, believe it or not--I like you that much, Mr. Minister. You're abdicating your power, in a lot of respects, except in the case of financial mismanagement, to actually intervene. You've just intervened, for example--and I agreed with your intervention and will support it--in a band in my own riding because of the violence that was going on there.

    I'd ask you--

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

    Mr. Brian Pallister: In the future will you be able to protect people?

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Loubier, you have five minutes.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the minister will have the opportunity of responding to Mr. Pallister in his reply to my question because I too have a very simple question for him.

    Minister, we will be travelling for more than a month to meet with people interested in the governance bill. Up until now, what I have heard from those who are directly concerned by this bill, that is to say, aboriginal representatives, has not been positive. On the contrary, they have generally expressed virulent opposition. I do not want people to be able to say right from the outset that they are for or against it. At this time, I myself am not convinced. I am neither for nor against the bill; I am waiting to be convinced either by you or by representatives who are opposed to your bill.

    I only have one question for you. If after our month-long trip, during which we will have a vary heavy schedule which will allow us to meet dozens and dozens of people, we come to the conclusion that your bill is misguided and is not the proper solution to attain aboriginal self-government in Canada, would you, in spite of your own positive remarks about this bill, be humble enough to recognize that certain things have to be changed, that another process may be necessary and that before this happens aboriginal nations have to be more closely involved in the development of this process?

    Since you introduced the bill on the regulations concerning compensation and territorial regulations, we note that criticism bears basically on two aspects. Firstly, you are being criticized for abusing your power, since you have a great deal of power in both bills to decide on cases. Secondly, people are under the impression that aboriginal nations are being infantilized, in a way, when they should be considered as true partners.

    Even here the Liberal majority refused to adopt a working procedure that would have allowed the committee to have many more aboriginal representatives to assist it in order to gain the best possible understanding of their needs.

º  (1625)  

[English]

    Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chairman, I said in my opening remarks and I'll repeat now, this minister and this government have the view that they want this committee to work in depth on what has been presented, and if you don't believe it's been done right, you can make amendments to the legislation of a significant matter. That's why it's been sent to you before second reading.

    I am very interested in your trip in your region and the comments made by the leadership. I'm very interested in the leadership's opinions as to what particular section of the bill they find offensive. So far, I have to admit, I have found most of this to deal with process. There are always complaints, as you know, in government about whether we consulted enough with the general population. There are always people who have differences of opinion on matters of legislation brought before Parliament, brought before provincial legislatures, and brought before first nation governments, if I can frame it in that context. I am prepared to look at constructive amendments I believe and the government believes will improve upon the legislation. I'm very interested, Mr. Chairman, in knowing which particular sections of these codes that we are prepared to allow first nations, through enabling legislation, to develop themselves we're opposed to.

    That's the issue I pose to you as the chair and the committee members. This legislation was crafted with 10,000 people's advice, including JMAC, which gave us the advice that it should be enabling and should allow first nations to make their own decisions. If that isn't reflected in the bill, we've got a problem, because I firmly believe it does allow first nations to develop their own governance without interference. If I accept your argument that we believe in a partnership, I think that's reflected in the bill, because we are allowing for the first time in legislation first nations to go and develop their own codes, which will be recognized in law. I find that to be exceptional in its own beginnings. It's the first time we've ever attempted that.

    The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

    Mr. Martin, five minutes.

    Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you as well, Mr. Minister, for being here.

    I acknowledge that the government is genuinely interested in meaningful amendments to the Indian Act, and I'd frankly like nothing better, in what short time I have as a member of Parliament, however long that may be, than to be able to support meaningful amendments to the Indian Act. You noted in your speech that it was 50 years ago that we undertook to open the Indian Act to make meaningful changes, so it's a very rare thing that we can get the cabinet and Parliament interested in this venture.

    That's why a lot of us aren't satisfied. If this is the one kick at the can we have for this decade, or this generation possibly, with the amendments brought forward in Bill C-7--and maybe you can enlighten us--when there are so many urgent and pressing issues with the social tragedy that exists in first nations communities, why did we end up dealing with administrative details, especially when the empirical evidence doesn't even back it up? We watched for 18 months as the Canadian Alliance tried to build the case that every first nations community is either corrupt or incompetent. There were isolated incidents of financial mismanagement across the country, and they made an attempt to thread them together into a theme that first nations shouldn't have self-governance--because they're opposed to self-governance--because they're all corrupt or because they don't know how to count money. The evidence is that out of 633 first nations 96% submit their audits on time, and very few need to have any actual third-party intervention. In fact, the Auditor General herself said first nations communities are over-audited. The problem is that no one does anything with the information gleaned from this plethora of audits that take place.

    We're confused, and I share the frustration of the first nations leadership in this country. How did we arrive at this particular package if this is going to be this generation's one kick at the can to eradicate the evil that is the Indian Act?

º  (1630)  

    Mr. Robert Nault: First of all, Mr. Chairman, I think it's extremely important to recognize that if I have a difference of opinion with the member and his comments, it's that the fundamentals and the tools of good governance that are necessary to make sure we develop an economy...and that first nations citizens are on equal footing with other Canadians. If he is suggesting that this already exists, I would be very interested in seeing the construction of that in some form of document, because I don't believe for a minute the modern governance tools necessary to run a community presently exist.

    Now, if the member is saying that everything is fine on reserve today, then he obviously doesn't come from the same part of the country I do. First nations communities are falling further and further behind.

    If the member is suggesting that he has a process we can enter into that will get us to the same result of improving the quality of life for citizens today, then I'm prepared to hear him out and listen to what that means.

    I'll just give you this last comment. As we're doing this work for those first nations that are under the Indian Act, and may be doing for many years to come, we are also at 80 separate self-government negotiating tables as we speak. I wanted to make it very clear in my comments that we have not backed away from our commitment to self-government. What we're doing is recognizing reality. If people do not want to recognize reality, that's their choice, but it's my firm belief...and many first nation citizens have made the comment to me, over and over again, not to expect them to get to self-government anytime soon, because they have a lot of work to do to get there. In the meantime, what are we going to do about getting first nation citizens at the level and quality of opportunity that we as Canadians take for granted for our own children?

    I think that's the issue you as a committee are going to have to face head on. If you decide that somehow, because there is opposition, no matter what goes on in Parliament, we were going to stay with the status quo....

    The status quo, Mr. Chairman, is that we will continue to negotiate self-government. That is a commitment from this government and will be a commitment, I assume, from other governments. But as you can tell, we're not moving very quickly in those negotiations.

    The Chair: Mr. Godfrey, five minutes.

    Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Thank you, Minister, and welcome back.

    I think the committee, like you, wants to have success on this, particularly if we're going to be investing an amount of time on the road and in this room. Therefore, I share some of the concerns of Mr. Loubier about process. I know you've heard a lot about process.

    I'm intrigued by something. On the cover of your speech, like all speeches, it says “Check against delivery”. I did, and I saw that on page 17 the one phrase I found encouraging was omitted. You said, “On the political front, the environment is ripe for change.” Then the written text reads, but you didn't say, “For the first time, the First Nations leadership is sitting at the table, drafting legislation.” If you hadn't omitted the phrase, I was going to look around, not seeing any....

    I'm wondering, first of all, if the sentence stands, and second, if what it means stands. Third, I guess I'd make the observation, or ask, as I have here before, whether you as minister would have any objection if we actually reverted, not for the first time but for a second time, to a process that would involve, on a non-voting basis, leadership--

    The Chair: That issue has been dealt with.

    Mr. John Godfrey: But I'm allowed to ask the minister, surely, a question.

    The Chair: You can ask it, and the minister can respond if he wishes, but it's been dealt with.

    Mr. John Godfrey: I guess my questions are, first, why was the sentence dropped, and second, what would your view have been if we'd been allowed to discuss it in an open committee?

    Mr. Robert Nault: I took it out because I didn't want to give the people the false impression that they were drafting, because that's against the law. The member will know that in Parliament there is no ability for people outside to draft legislation on behalf of governments. It was incorrect, so I had it taken out.

    We are at the table, though, with first nations citizens, as you will hear from JMAC, who will give you a very clear indication of the representatives of the first nations who were at the table. So in my view, we are listening and consulting more than any other group, and rightfully so, because we have a unique responsibility to first nations to involve them.

    On the question Mr. Godfrey has put, if he's prepared to let aboriginal leaders who are not elected by the general public sit around this table and set a precedent.... He's incorrect, because this has never happened before with a piece of legislation. The last time first nations citizens sat at this table, as I understand it, was on the Penner report, which was a report of the committee and not a piece of legislation presented by the Government of Canada.

    I'll ask this question to answer his question. Are you prepared to let first nations citizens sit as regular members on all committees of the House? Every piece of legislation that passes through this House affects first nations people. In my view, it's a precedent that you would best ask the House leadership about, because this minister, of course, does not have the ability to change the rules of the House.

º  (1635)  

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Loubier, it is Mr. Godfrey's turn.

    Mr. Godfrey, you have one minute.

[English]

    Mr. Pallister is next for a three-minute round.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: [Technical difficulty--Editor]...things go off the rails in terms of local governance, and that will perhaps happen, unfortunately, in the future as well, in spite of the good intentions of this act. So when you are giving away your ability to intervene, except in a very narrow field of strictly financial criteria, I'm concerned about whether you'll be able to protect the interests of vulnerable people in small reserves such as that one.

    As I said earlier, in a situation like that one, I don't see how governance would be enhanced by having a chief of a reserve of 85 adults able to appoint a redress person. I don't understand how that model would work. You say there could be cooperation, but there hasn't been much cooperation in the past in that particular instance.

    If you're delegating the responsibility for protecting the best interests of these vulnerable local people on reserves--women, members of minority clans, things like that--and just nine months ago you intervened to protect those very people against discrimination and against an uncomfortable situation, which you now can't do under this act, how do you propose that those people will be protected in future? And don't tell me they will be protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act. You and I both know that won't work, because it is a red herring. The Canadian Human Rights Act can't be invoked except for specific gender equality issues, and so will not protect those people. So what's going to protect those people if you won't, and if you're not able to?

    Mr. Robert Nault: I'll make some comments for a minute and then allow my official to take the other 30 seconds.

    The objective of this is to make first nation leaders legally responsible for and accountable to their people. Therefore there will be legal remedies under this act to deal with issues the community members in Dakota Tipi face today that we can't deal with. That's the objective of this exercise: to give governments the legal basis to be responsible for their actions.

    I have to disagree with you that this legislation will leave people in some sort of situation where they won't be protected, because in fact it will be the reverse.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Binet.

º  (1640)  

    Mr. Gérard Binet (Frontenac—Mégantic, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good day, Minister.

    Mr. Minister, you said that this bill was an interim step in the process leading to self-government. What do you mean exactly by that?

[English]

    Mr. Robert Nault: I have continuously stated, on behalf of the Government of Canada, our solemn view and position, which is held highly by all members within the government I work with, that we will get to the inherent right to self-government. But in the meantime, because of the archaic Indian Act that first nations people are forced to live with, there are many holes we can fill to build capacity, to make going from where we are today to self-government a much easier journey.

    The comment I made about Joe Gosnell and the Nisga’a is a very true one. If you don't have responsibility for your education system, your health authority, or the everyday workings of government, including building a professional public service, it's a stretch of the imagination to believe that communities can go from where they are today to self-government.

    The objective of this bill is to be an interim step to build capacity to transfer powers, so we can move in that direction. I believe that's how we will get to self-government much quicker than we have been able to before.

[Translation]

    Mr. Gérard Binet: You in fact mentioned the importance of education. Can you tell us what your department is undertaking currently in that area?

[English]

    Mr. Robert Nault: As I said in my opening comments, you and I have been told on many occasions that the government should not be spending all its waking hours on governance, when there are many bread-and-butter issues.

    I have received the report of the special committee and group of experts on education, which we announced in June. This report and recommendations will be made public. It's our position and view as a government that we will be moving toward a consultation to improve the outcomes on education. If there's one area of government that needs to be improved, it's the institution of education; if there's one thing we as parents expect our governments will give, it's the opportunity for our children to be successful.

    I will just make one comment related to this. The statistics are showing so far that 70% of first nations children are not finishing high school. If we think about what that means in the next generation, those of us who have spent time here know you need a minimum of high school to be involved in our economy today. So it's our objective in the next couple of months to move forward with education as a priority, to strengthen that institution. That's another area where we believe we're falling deeply and further behind, and we need to make some changes.

[Translation]

    The Chair: Mr. Loubier, you have three minutes.

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Minister, don't you think that for all bills concerning the First Nations it would be easier if there were a continual association between parliamentarians and First Nations representatives? This is what I mean.

    For instance, to study the Bank Act, there are committees made up of elected representatives, members of this Parliament, and of Senators appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada. Why could there not be joint committees made up of parliamentarians and aboriginal representatives who would be appointed by the Crown? It seems to me that it would be very easy for us to work together. We might arrive at a result more quickly. This result might not be unanimous, but it would be the result of a consensus.

    What difference is there between an appointed senator and a First Nations representative who would be appointed to sit with us on a joint committee in order to analyze bills, to improve them right away and to see to it that our work does not end in failure? Everyone could work either on the process, or on certain parts of the bill, depending on the First Nation, whose realities are all different.

    Why do we want to set aside completely the possibility of such a representation, which could allow a common cause to progress very rapidly? You seem as enthusiastic as we are about this cause. Why are you rejecting this formula, which had already been proposed in the past? I think it would be worth a try. Why discard it out of hand, when we know that in the Upper Chamber there are people who are not elected, who work with us and who have their word to say on bills, a situation we accept as normal?

º  (1645)  

[English]

    Mr. Robert Nault: I want to repeat what I said. I didn't reject any of the member's comments, I was just making it clear that he's talking to the wrong minister. If you're talking about parliamentary reform, that is not my role and responsibility as a minister. In fact, he would be better talking to the House leadership about the whole issue of parliamentary reform. If he's talking about having non-elected representation of first nations peoples in all the committees of the House, if you were to set a precedent here in this committee, I would say very strongly that one of the problems I have encountered day in and day out is that people have the view that only Indian Affairs deals with aboriginal people.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Chair, on a point of order, we're debating this in the wrong place. The minister's here to present. The committee is master of its own destiny. We as a committee could decide to approach the House, but it's not for the minister to decide, it's for the committee.

    The Chair: I understand your position, but it's not a point of order. This is a consultation, and it could lead to other discussions.

    I will give you an extra 20 seconds to sum up.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I do not mean that there would be aboriginal representatives sitting on all committees, but on committees that are of capital importance. You were talking about self-government. If you speak to us about self-government it is because you consider aboriginals to be adults. We are talking about representatives from nations who aspire to sovereignty, to self-government. Why not involve them immediately in the committees that are studying bills as important as the one on governance? It is the springboard that will lead to self-government.

    The Chair: Thank you very much.

    Mr. St. Denis.

[English]

    Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Thank you, Minister, for visiting with us today. I, like yourself, have an Ontario riding. You certainly have the greatest number of first nations in your riding, over 50, but I think I'm second in Ontario, with about 25. I appreciate very much the importance of anything the federal government does in relation to our first nations. When we consider the relative population increase of our first nations communities, the fact that federal budgets have indeed increased from 1993 till now, instead of decreasing, all of these come to bear on the subject before us.

    Even though in my own area it's my perception that the first nations leadership have done a good job and the management has been very effective, I can see the importance of raising the very important questions you have and taking the interim step of empowering those community leaders to get in synch with the latest governance measures that can be provided and brought to bear on the situation. I'm wondering, Minister, if it's possible for you to put this interim step in a bigger context, maybe even bigger than you've been able to provide. Can you see what this relationship might look like in five, ten, even twenty-five years? I agree with you that we need to emphasize the improved quality of life for individual first nations communities and their citizens. This is a step. Can you help us imagine the long-term and mid-term future?

    Mr. Robert Nault: I can put it in very succinct terms for you and the members. If we accept that first nations people are people who have entered into treaties and that they have a special and unique relationship with our government, and if we're negotiating self-government, we would have to accept, all of us around this table, that we're moving, and legitimately so, towards a recognition of a third order of government. What does that mean? It means it would be a government protected under our constitution and part of our constitutional family. If you're part of the constitutional family, you must have a constitutional base, a legal base. So if we're going to recognize a third order of government, which is where we're headed, in my view, we will have to develop the legislative structures around these communities, so that they will be like other governments, they will be intertwined with our constitutional system.

    If people have a different view of how that works, I'd be very interested in hearing it, because in my view, that's the only direction we can go in and the only position that governments who are prepared to honour their own constitution would accept. That's certainly the vision I see in the future. This is the first step towards recognition of a third order of government.

º  (1650)  

    The Chair: Mr. Martin.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Mr. Minister, you would have to admit that most first nations leadership boycotted the whole consultation process. I would certainly challenge, and I will continue to challenge in other places, the number of people who were consulted and the quality of the consultation. But I'd like to ask you what your reaction is to the allegations of political retribution on those who wouldn't cooperate and the allegation that there was financial bullying, in fact, punishing those who wouldn't cooperate and rewarding those who would.

    In your own riding, Chief Stan Beardy and the Pikangikum First Nation, which I visited recently, were put under third-party management, when in fact they were in a surplus position, and the courts forced you to reverse the third-party management. They view that as punishment for not cooperating with the whole first nations initiative. Chief Jourdain from the Treaty 3 people makes similar allegations. In your own cabinet memorandum it says “The Native Women's Association of Canada opposed the initiative; as a result, the National Aboriginal Women's Association was created to participate in the FMG.” In other words, one women's group won't cooperate, they get dismissed, and a new group gets formed, with a massive, multi-million-dollar budget, so that you can say native women cooperated.

    I don't have time to go through the many other allegations that there's a direct link between financial security and core funding and cooperating with an initiative they are opposed to. How do you deal with those allegations?

º  (1655)  

    Mr. Robert Nault: Very simply, they're false and have no merit. I've been asked by members and by the press on a couple of occasions about the spin that's been put out that somehow people have been punished if they don't support the government's legislation or any other piece of work of the Government of Canada.

    Stan Beardy, of course, is the Grand Chief for Nishnawbe-Aski Nation, not Pikangikum. In fact, their budget has never been cut and hasn't been part of this discussion. Pikangikum is a very sad story, and I'm a little surprised that the member would bring it up. Pikangikum has the highest suicide rate, the most social issues of any community probably in the country. I wonder how the member can sit here and suggest that this community is in excellent shape, even though I am their MP and have been for the last 15 years, when in fact it's completely at a loss as to what it can do. In fact, one of Mr. Martin's NDP buddies has been on this file, so he would know how it all works.

    The reality is that Pikangikum is in a crisis. We asked about two years ago for Pikangikum to work with us in co-management--it's very similar to Mr. Pallister's question. We did that because we very much wanted to work with the community, and we were turned down. In fact, if you'd like, I could give you information to refute Mr. Martin's argument. This community has serious financial problems.

    The Chair: I must interrupt, but you will be given an opportunity for closing remarks.

[Translation]

    Mr. Serré.

[English]

    Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    If I may respond to comments made by my colleague, John Godfrey, I had the same impression when I came to this room today. We're discussing first nations, and I can't see anybody from first nations in the room. However, if you look at the list of witnesses only in Ottawa here, I think you have some 17 or 18 different first nations coming to Ottawa, and that's not counting all the first nations we'll be seeing throughout the tour, so I suspect we'll have ample time to discuss this bill with first nations leadership.

    I stress leadership, because that brings me to my point in question, the issues that were raised by Mr. Loubier and Mr. Pallister, and again by Mr. Martin. I've talked to a lot of first nations leaders across the country, and the opposition seems to be very strong. But when you go down and you talk to people who are directly affected, which means the members of the communities of the first nations, you get a different story. I suspect we will be hearing a lot of opposition to this bill from first nations. Therefore my first question, which I put to the committee itself: is there a mechanism for us as a committee to hear from the grassroots?

    My question to the minister: during your consultations, how were the grassroots consulted, and do you have any specific data on the numbers and how it was done? I'm really concerned here that we'll hear only about the leadership.

    I can understand why the leadership of some first nations communities--and I'm treading a fine line here, I think, but it has to be said--would be opposed to such legislation, because I've seen it throughout the country where first nations were not accountable to their members and members of the communities and the band council did not know what was going on and they don't know where the money goes. In other words, the governments of those communities are not accountable to the members they represent, which is how it should be. And I can see resistance from the leadership, because they understand that under this legislation they're going to have to open up the books and be accountable.

    I don't know how far you want to go on that route, Mr. Minister, but I'd like to have your comments.

    The Chair: You won't have time to go very far, Mr. Minister; you have 40 seconds.

    Mr. Robert Nault: I'll ask Brenda Kustra to clarify the consultations. Unfortunately, one of the members has suggested that there weren't a lot of consultations and information sessions, but in fact they were extensive. I'll just turn it over to Brenda.

    Ms. Brenda Kustra (Executive Advisor, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development ): Yes, thank you.

    Throughout the phase one consultation, we held 135 information sessions across the country. In addition to that, we hosted 335 community consultation sessions where over 8,500 people came out to share their views on the issues around community governance. All of the summary reports from all of these meetings are posted on the website for everyone to look at, all of the details of the consultations.

    Since the tabling of the bill we have also offered 317 information sessions in communities right across the country to make sure that people who are interested have an opportunity to learn as much as they can about the bill.

    During the consultation sessions, first nations expressed a clear desire for chief and council to have the power and authority to respond effectively to the local community needs. Individuals also said it was important that they had an opportunity to participate in the governance in their community, and they felt that effective decision-making was important in the community and that leadership must be held to account.

    All of these findings are in the consultation report, which is posted on our website.

    The Chair: Thank you.

    That information is in our blue binders, by the way.

    We will do a third round. It will be a one-minute question, and if the minister wishes he can integrate it into his closing remarks, which will be about ten minutes.

    Mr. Pallister, one minute, and I will be strict on the one minute.

    Mr. Brian Pallister: Thank you.

    Mr. Minister, I said earlier, and I repeat, there are a number of first nations people who have told us they're very concerned about the new additional powers of appointing redress officers, chiefs appointing enforcement officers, and so on, and the potential for their rights to be threatened by that mechanism in the absence of other protections. So with regard to your comments about whether any aspect of this will do more harm than good, yes, potentially that could if it's not addressed.

    Also, the model is one that could cost a great deal, in spite of the fact that it might not work. So let me ask you, what will it cost for the implementation of this act? What will it cost on an annual basis, and how much of that will be transferred to the bands directly, for example, for hiring enforcement officers and a redress person in each band? What would that cost?

»  (1700)  

    The Chair: We'll deal with—

    Mr. Robert Nault: Mr. Chair, can I just make a comment—

    The Chair: Very briefly. Keep it to 15 seconds.

    Mr. Robert Nault: —with the indulgence of the committee?

    These questions, I assume.... Are you going to be asking the officials to come back to give you details on the individual areas being asked about? I think it's extremely important that the committee become aware of exactly how we see the governance structure working. They're important questions, and I certainly can't answer them in a minute or half a minute. I wouldn't even want to try. But I want the members to know we are going to be back to answer those in detail, because doing so is important for the debate.

    The Chair: The committee may also re-invite the minister at any time that we wish.

    Mr. Martin, please.

    Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is about funding in a more general sense.

    The minister convinced cabinet to accept Bill C-7 by promising that the implementation costs would be paid for by reallocating funds within DIAND's A-base and that no new funds would be sought to pay for it. On the $110-million figure, first, is that true, and second, is this $110 million really Canada's next gun registry? Many people believe we're talking about $1 billion to really implement this thing.

    The real question is whether or not you contemplate getting the resources from within DIAND's A-base, and whether or not it's true no new funds will be sought to pay for it.

    The Chair: Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

    Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): It's just a very quick question. I remember that, in an initial treaty hearing, some women...[Technical difficulty—Editor]...more control being given to the band leaders. I just wanted to ask a question about that. How do you think this piece of legislation will help their future?

    The Chair: Mr. Hubbard.

    Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    In your example, we hear of administrations. As part of our responsible government, we have votes of confidence in leadership. How would first nations address a loss of confidence in leadership? Presently, they apply to the department or to the minister, but in terms of this bill, how would they deal with a loss of confidence?

    The Chair: We'll get one last question from Mr. Godfrey.

    Mr. John Godfrey: Just for clarification, in responding to both Mr. Loubier and me, you used the term “unelected official”. We would want to be cautious about involving such people, but would he consider the national chief of the first nations to be an unelected official? How would he classify people who had gone through an election process under the existing rules, be they elected or unelected?

    The Chair: Mr. Minister, you have 10 to 15 minutes to—

    Mr. Robert Nault: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    Just to respond quickly to Mr. Godfrey, I would see a national chief similar to how I would see a member of a provincial parliament. They are elected in their own forum. You certainly don't--and I certainly don't--invite the provincial members of Parliament on a regular basis to involve themselves in legislation at the federal level.

    I again relate what I said before: this is a matter for another forum. I know Mr. Godfrey is very interested in parliamentary reform. I suspect he should take that up with those who are involved with that.

    On the whole issue of loss of confidence, Mr. Chairman, the objective of the electoral code is to allow first nations, for the first time, to have the electoral codes reflect their traditions--that's the first thing--and also have basic principles that democratic elected governments would have in place. For example, there would have to be an appeal process developed that would allow first nations citizens to appeal the issues dealing with elections outside of the work of appealing to the Minister of Indian Affairs and the department. So the codes would have to reflect that.

    When the officials come back, Mr. Chairman, I'm convinced they will be able to explain to you in detail in much longer format how we are approaching that and what we have seen on the ground in first nations already.

    One of the members asks about women. Mr. Chairman, there are two major issues within this bill that are important. One is that we are finally bringing it to reflect the charter and the Human Rights Act. I think that's fundamental. I'm not of the view, as some members are, that this won't make a difference to aboriginal women. At the same time, there's the whole issue of having women no different from men or community members. It has been suggested by one of your members that they will play an active role in citizenship engagement in their government, that they will be involved in the budget process, that they will be involved in lawmaking at the community level. On all those issues, women will have a role to play, and those checks and balances will exist.

    Mr. Chairman, obviously governments make decisions on funding. I can make it very clear to my colleague that the funding necessary has been earmarked, somewhere in the neighbourhood of $110 million. As you know, this is going to be money that's within our budget and that we will be given every year. So the money will move toward building good governance and developing a professional public service.

    I have said to you and I have said to many members before that if there's one weakness of first nations governments, it's the lack of a professional public service. You're only as good as the people you surround yourself with. The objective of this work is to build capacity of governance, which includes the abilities for first nations to have more financial resources to do their job.

    Yes, it will take more money. Our preliminary estimates are that it will take about $110 million a year. We are certainly working on some initiatives to firm those numbers up, and I want to tell you how we're doing that.

    Contrary to what some members have said to you today, almost daily now I am meeting with first nations leaders who are very actively pursuing starting to work on governance. They're coming to see me about “Can we start to develop our codes now? Why do we have to wait for Bill C-7 to pass? We want to do it. We believe it's important. Are you prepared to entertain those kinds of discussions?”

    I have asked the officials to look at a number of pilots right across the country to start this work now, because I do believe every first nation agrees with me that good governance will have a major impact on their abilities to develop an economy.

    So as we're having this political debate, many are meeting with the minister on a regular basis, asking for the tools to start the work. To me, that is an indication, as has been mentioned by one member, that in the communities there's great support for the work we need to do.

    Mr. Chairman, in the short time that I have I want to go back to make a few comments. One is that I put this bill on behalf of the Speaker, transferred this through the Speaker, as you've said, and to this committee with one objective, and that is to get your best advice.

»  (1705)  

    If in fact in the discussion it is proven, and it shows that somehow we have not put our best foot forward to improve the lives of first nations citizens, please give me recommendations as to how we might do it differently to move this bill forward to its final conclusion through this House and through the Senate.

    As well, I think this is a great opportunity to prove to many who have a differing opinion that members of Parliament can be good legislators by having the ability to make fundamental change at committee at first reading, instead of sending it to you, as you know, at second reading, where you've already agreed in principle and there's virtually little that you can do except tinker on the fringes of a particular piece of legislation.

    This is a unique responsibility that I think you have, as members, to see that we do the right thing by this piece of legislation. I will give you my assurances that I will look at all amendments with the intention of trying to improve on what we've already accomplished.

    I also want to make it clear that this is the beginning of what I have phrased “the second phase of consultation”. There are some who say we've not done a very good job of consultation in the first phase. Let's assume for five minutes that we accept the argument. Go ahead then and do a better job in the second phase. I ask you to do it on behalf of first nation citizens. Thirdly, as you well know, we will have a third phase of consultation on the regulations, which is the building of the structures we need for governance to operate in an effective way.

    We're really at the beginning stage of our discussions with first nations; we are not at the end. I want to repeat that we're at the beginning of the discussions. We need to look at this as a continuum because governance is a continuum of a relationship between one level of government and another.

    Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I said to you on many occasions that I represent 51 first nations. If I didn't believe strongly that this piece of legislation would improve the lives of the people I represent, as a member of Parliament, I wouldn't be sitting here. I have to admit I tend to get offended by those who think that somehow there's nothing I should be concerned about.

    Politically, Mr. Chairman, I can't get re-elected if I don't have the support of the first nation citizens. I can assure you, as I assure my colleague of the NDP, that I think I will get re-elected. This is what the elders and the community members have told me is necessary as a first step down the road to a third order of government.

    I leave this in your hands with a final message. If there's anything that I, or my department, can do to clarify any particular issue, I would very much want to suggest to you that we will make ourselves available to do so. I wish you all the best, because this is extremely important to this country. This is extremely important to first nation citizens.

    If we are accept that the status quo will exist for the next 10, 15, 20, or 30 years, I can assure you, if we stay with what we have now, there are many communities that will be put in that category. I question the role a member of Parliament would play where in a country like ours, which is so successful, we still expect first nations citizens to operate under a piece of legislation that was passed in 1876. I can't imagine how anyone could think it's acceptable.

    It's now up to you. I hope you do the right thing. I look forward to our discussions in the next number of weeks.

    Good luck out on the road. I hear it's cold now. Make sure you wear your hats and you'll be happy.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

»  (1710)  

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

    I can share with you that the plan of the committee is to address attention to this bill on a four- to six-day-a-week basis for the next nine weeks. We plan to give it all the attention that it merits--and it does merit that type of attention.

    When I say nine weeks, that means we would hope to do it before Easter. If we need to consult more and to meet more times, we will do it after Easter. We will give this bill the attention and the respect it deserves. And I can say of the committee members that this is a good committee because of the members. They are committed to doing the right thing.

    I would ask you to give a directive--I think ministers are entitled to give directives to their departments--because we will be travelling four weeks. There will be representatives of the department on the charter planes. That's how we pay our bills: we sell seats to additional members. I can tell my colleagues that the four weeks of charter planes is within budget. So we will have department people with us. We will have good communication. We will have access to the information.

    I would hope that you would give a directive that the department not show up in the last 15 minutes of clause-by-clause with a list of amendments. Too many departments do this. I'm not signalling one out, but it's unfair to the committee.

    I would hope that any improvement we could make to the bill, especially due to the fact that it's after first reading, we do together. It doesn't matter to me if the amendment comes from a Liberal, NDP, Alliance, Bloc, or Conservative member; what matters to me is that we return the bill to the Speaker of the House improved and improving the lives of the people we are here to serve.

    So I ask that little favour of you, and I commit the committee to doing the right thing for you.

    Thank you.

    The committee is adjourned.