[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 4, 1997
.1227 
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): The meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development is called to order.
The clerk must read the order of reference from the House.
The Clerk of the Committee: This is an extract from the journals of the House of Commons of Wednesday, February 19, 1997:
- That Bill C-79, An Act to permit certain modifications in the application of the Indian Act to
bands that desire them, be referred forthwith to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs
and Northern Development.
Mr. Anawak (Nunatsiaq): Just before we hear from the minister, I wanted to raise a point of order on an issue we dealt with a couple of meetings ago.
I am in receipt of a press release issued by the Assembly of First Nations naming me and my colleague Elijah Harper as having voted against a committee motion on which the debate was an in camera debate. Therefore any vote that took place, whether it was a recorded vote or not, should have remained within the committee room.
I raise this point because the Assembly of First Nations makes it look like my colleague and I are working at odds with the first nations people. I guess when you're number two you try harder. I know it wasn't the Liberal members who went out and told the Assembly of First Nations that we did this, so it's either members of the staff or members of the opposition. I'm not going to point any fingers, but I think it should be recorded that in camera meeting votes are not for the public.
I want to raise that point and maybe debate it further down the road - not at this meeting, because the minister is here. It puts Elijah and me in an awkward position with the first nations people. Thank you.
.1230
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Thank you very much, Mr. Anawak, for putting that on record.
I want to welcome Minister Ron Irwin to the meeting and give him the floor. We will have a round of questions when the minister finishes, and the assistants at the table can be called upon at any time with respect to your questions or answers.
Welcome, Mr. Minister.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you,Mr. Chair.
Might I introduce the people at the table. We have Barbara Craig, the director of band governance; Gordon Shanks, assistant deputy minister for policy; and Al Broughton, legal counsel from the Department of Justice.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for giving me this opportunity to discuss the Indian Act Optional Modification Act, Bill C-79.
Before I begin my remarks, I want to thank the committee for all its hard work, not only on this particular bill but on a wide range of issues of concern to aboriginal people across Canada.
Mr. Chairman, Bill C-79 is one of those bills that have taken on a life of their own. There is confusion over what it is and what it is not, there is some uncertainty over what it does and what it does not do, and there is misinformation about both its purpose and intent. This morning I hope to clear up some of the confusion and uncertainty and provide you with the facts. Armed with a clearer sense of what this bill is all about, this committee will then be in a better position to improve it where you believe changes to be warranted, and to make it more understandable where you find it to be unclear.
First, let me emphasize that this bill does not amend the Indian Act. This is a completely separate, stand-alone bill that provides an alternative to many parts of the Indian Act but does not amend the Indian Act itself.
Another one of the persistent areas of misunderstanding is the consultation process. Some members of this committee have expressed their concern about the amount of consultation involved in the creation of this legislation, and I want to address those concerns directly.
The first thing we have to do is put this legislation and the consultations that preceded it into historical context. This bill is the latest in a series of actual or proposed reforms going back to 1985, and it reflects what first nations have been saying for nearly 40 years. There were the 1959-61 joint committee hearings, the 1968 Indian Act consultations, the Penner report hearings in 1983, and the land, revenue and trust review consultation in the late 1980s. In fact, I think one would be hard-pressed to come up with a piece of legislation that has been more studied than the Indian Act.
It is not surprising, then, that when our government came into office in 1993, one of the earliest and clearest messages I received as I travelled across the country was ``do something about the Indian Act''. This message came from first nations in every part of Canada.
So let's be clear: this bill did not originate at the desk of some bureaucrat sitting at the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It reflects parliamentary hearings and departmental consultations going back nearly 40 years.
Let me also say, Mr. Chairman, that the optional nature of this bill is also in keeping with the approach to reform the act has taken over the past 12 years. When you go back and look at the major amendments to the Indian Act over that time, you can see that nearly all of them offered first nations the choice to participate or not.
This was true of Bill C-31 in 1985, which among other things gave bands the option of controlling band membership but did not require it. This was true of Bill C-115 in 1988, which offered the bands the choice to levy taxes on reserve lands but again did not insist that they do so. Some first nations have chosen to levy taxes and to control their membership; others have not.
I might add that this way of proceeding with changes to the Indian Act was also the approach favoured by the Indian-led Indian Act alternatives process in the early 1990s, which proposed legislation in several areas, every single one of which, like the bill before you, would have been optional for the first nations.
So let me repeat: the legislation before this committee not only reflects the latest consultations conducted by our government since 1993, but it also reflects the decades of consultations and studies that went on before us.
.1235
Let me emphasize - because this sometimes gets lost in the shuffle - that there is almost nothing in this bill that has not been put forward at one time or another by first nations themselves or that has not arisen as a result of their concerns or their complaints. In fact, some of the suggested changes, such as the extension of terms for chiefs and councillors and the repeal of the section requiring a permit for prairie first nations to sell their produce, go back as far as 1961.
We could no longer postpone these changes. It was time to get on with it. That is why we proposed Bill C-79.
Mr. Chairman, another of the concerns raised in the House was that this bill would end up creating two classes of first nations. This conclusion is wrong. We have to remember that the Indian Act has never treated all first nations exactly the same. Section 32, dealing with the sale of agriculture, for example, applies only to the first nations of the prairies. The Governor in Council has had the power since 1876 to exempt first nations on reserves from most sections of the act. You only have to look at the Canada Gazette to see the list of bands and reserves exempted from this or that provision of the current act.
The Indian Act also allows for a wide variation among bands as to how they choose their band government. For example, some are subject to the sections of the act dealing with elections, while others select their leaders using traditional or customary methods.
There is even a wide diversity of powers exercised under the current act. Some bands manage surrendered and reserve lands and others do not. Some bands have taken over control of their own revenue moneys while others have chosen not to seek that authority.
The point, Mr. Chairman, is that it would be a mistake to say that all first nations are the same under the present act, or that Bill C-79 will suddenly create a new, separate class. The fact is, many differences already exist under the Indian Act, and nothing in Bill C-79 will affect that.
I don't necessary see this as bad. One of the problems we ran into in the past was the attempt to make all first nations fit into one mould. Being flexible is the only way to meet the aspirations and needs of particular bands. That is why we are negotiating self-government agreements, which can be tailored to suit the particular circumstances of individual first nations.
Let's be clear. I am not pretending that the flexibility of the Indian Act and the optional changes to it since 1985 are substitutes for self-government. What I am saying is that they will have to do until the first nations can replace the Indian Act altogether.
Some members have objected to Bill C-79 on the basis that it is paternalistic. I must say, I find this objection very hard to understand.
To be sure, the whole concept of the Indian Act is paternalistic. That is why first nations are working so hard to replace it with self-government agreements. But as long as it exists, we have to operate within its confines. The question is, what are we doing within those confines? The answer is, Bill C-79 would give first nations greater control over, and greater responsibility for, their own lives and their own communities.
Moreover, we would do so by reducing my powers as minister while at the same time maintaining the special responsibilities of the federal government towards first nations.
Let's look at the facts. Under the current Indian Act the minister's powers are set out in 87 provisions. Of these powers, 11 would be lost in whole or in part. The minister would be given six new powers, but these are largely gained at the expense of the Governor in Council, not first nations. They are designed to speed things up and make for more efficient administration.
For example, under section 53 of the Indian Act the minister already makes the decision as to whether a band may manage its surrendered or designated lands. Under this bill, the minister, not the Governor in Council, will be able to make the same decision regarding reserve lands under section 60. This will greatly shorten the approval process, to the ultimate benefit of the first nations.
In fact, of the 28 powers currently exercised by the Governor in Council, three would be transferred to the minister in order to minimize delays and to improve service to first nations.
.1240
Bands, on the other hand, which currently have ten powers under the act, would see that number nearly double, with nine new consent and ratification powers added to their list. Band councils, which have ten consent and 32 by-law-making powers under the Indian Act, would gain more than 12 new powers.
You see, Mr. Chairman, what we're really talking about here is the opposite of paternalism. It is empowerment. It is putting more tools for the daily management of their own affairs into the hands of first nations themselves. It is getting the minister out of areas he had no business being in in the first place.
Let me address some of the other concerns that have been raised with respect to Bill C-79. Some colleagues, especially our friends in the Bloc, have said this bill goes too far. Others, such as our friends in the NDP, say the bill does not go far enough.
Let me just say, to those who feel we've gone too far, that these modifications are relatively minor. No one is pretending that this would fundamentally change the application of the Indian Act or dramatically improve the lives of first nations. We're not naive about its impact. But the proposed Indian Act Optional Modification Act does address some of the long-standing issues of the first nations and does offer alternatives to some of the most offensive provisions in the Indian Act. At the same time, it would not disturb the special relationship between the Government of Canada and first nations.
Finally, it must be remembered that the entire bill would be optional. Even where it is adopted by individual first nations, six of its provisions would require band membership approval before they came into force.
To those who argue that we have not gone far enough, let me say that I agree. I think that was echoed by Mr. Erasmus at one of the AFN rallies. We could have, and should have, gone further with this bill. I firmly believe that. We could have and should have. But I have to face the political reality of what is happening out there in the first nations. To have gone further might have affected the special protections afforded by the Indian Act and diverted us from our broader reform efforts.
I think fairness requires that we look at the whole picture. This is only one small part of our government's wide-ranging efforts to bring justice, dignity and opportunities to first nations. Whether it is treaty renewal or progress in implementing the inherent right of aboriginal self-government or settling land claims, we are working hard to bring about that day when the Indian Act can be scrapped and first nations will stand as equal partners in this great country.
That is the goal of this government. We have no intention of wavering from it - not for a day, not for an hour, not for a minute.
I listened with interest two weeks ago to the comments in the House by the honourable member for Yorkton - Melville. I can only say that I hope his remarks do not reflect the Reform Party policy. As I understood it, the honourable member feels that this whole exercise is a waste of time, that we should just abolish the Indian Act, and that we should integrate first nations into the social and political framework of Canada. Assimilation is, and was, his answer.
With respect, this is a view that misrepresents history, offends justice and ensures inequality. Time does not permit me to set the historical record straight, but let me just remind those who hold such views that our Constitution holds a special place for first nations and assigns special responsibilities to the federal government.
Let me also remind them that while first nations too may wish to see the Indian Act abolished one day, this cannot be contemplated until they are confident that their special constitutional status has been given meaningful and enduring protection. They will tell us when that day has arrived.
The Reform Party would like to see rights removed without remedies being provided. They would like to see constitutional protections ignored without guaranteeing to protect those rights in some other way. I can say without hesitation that this is an approach this government, and this minister, will never endorse.
Let me deal briefly with some of the other concerns that have been raised with respect to this bill. The first is on the issue of opting in. The bill requires that a band council must meet and pass a formal band council resolution before it may access the provisions in this bill. But this is not intended to prevent band members from participating in the decision of their elected representatives. The decision is left in the hands of the band itself.
.1245
Many bands already operate under procedures calling for the participation of the full band membership in band council decisions. Others may choose to hold referenda or seek the views of their members in more traditional ways. This bill in no way discourages first nations from following whatever procedure is most appropriate to them.
A first nation cannot choose to be governed by some provisions of the new act but not others. Once you're in, you're in. That being said, it must be recalled that six provisions are not automatic. It is up to the band members to decide whether the powers they contain will be exercised. There is no ``one size fits all'' philosophy underlying this bill.
The bill would also prohibit a first nation from opting out once it has opted in. There are good reasons for that. In the first place, the Indian Act Optional Modification Act would make changes in the areas of wills and estates which, if implemented, would affect the rights of individual members of first nations. Those rights would be adversely affected if we had bands bouncing back and forth between systems, each with its own set of rules. Similar considerations apply to other areas, such as the grant and registration of rights-of-way over individually held lands on reserve.
In the second place, once first nations begin entering into agreements with other governments or with departments under the authority of certain provisions in this bill, it would be both dangerous and irresponsible to allow opting out of the very powers under which these agreements were entered into. That would also introduce a destabilizing element of uncertainty into commercial and other relationships.
It is worth remembering that there would be no time limit for first nations to make their decision about whether or not to opt in. There would be no need to make a hasty decision, and no one would be forced to do anything they didn't want to do.
As a final point on opting in, there would be no penalties for choosing not to opt in and no prizes for choosing to do so. This would be totally open. Of course, there would be benefits to opting in: greater freedom from ministerial control, more power to manage resources and other aspects of daily life in first nations communities. But I want to stress that there would be no requirement to choose one alternative or the other.
We are confident that once first nations have had the chance to fully assess and debate the merits of this bill, they will see the advantages of opting in and will do so.
Finally, let me clear up some of the other misunderstandings that are out there. First, this legislation does not reflect nor is it part of the government's response to the report of the royal commission on aboriginal peoples. I have offered some initial thoughts on that report, but more time is needed to digest its findings and consider its many recommendations. In fact, an interdepartmental committee of senior public servants is studying the report in detail and assessing its implications across the government with a view to proposing responsibilities in the many areas of national life it touches.
The other point that must be made - and it is perhaps an obvious one but worth making - is that many first nations may not yet have had the opportunity or taken the time to study this bill in detail. I don't need to tell members of this committee that this is a complex and technical bill, one that will take time to read and digest. That is why we refer it to this committee prior to second reading, so that you may examine it from a broader perspective, free from the limits normally imposed through second reading debate, and enter into meaningful discussion with witnesses and among yourselves regarding its many provisions.
That is also why we have left it totally open-ended as to when first nations can opt in. We want them to give it careful consideration, taking as much time as they need. I believe that once they've done this, many more will see its benefits and choose to become part of it.
Mr. Chairman, this government has introduced Bill C-79 because we believe that the endless debates about the Indian Act have to end. We all agree that it contains many inappropriate and oppressive elements. First nations have endured the overly heavy hand of the Indian Act for too long. This bill tries to lighten that heavy hand in a measured and responsible way.
.1250
The problem has always been, as I said in the House, that to move out from under the oppression of the Indian Act, one has also had to move out from under its protection. A new way had to be found, a way that left first nations' rights intact and their options open.
Does Bill C-79 solve all our problems? No. Are its proposals modest? Yes. But modest steps in the right direction are better than staying put in a situation that pleases no one.
It is far better, we believe, to act on the long-standing complaints and concerns of first nations and to transfer powers back to where they belonged in the first place. And it is far better to let first nations study these proposals at their own pace, leaving the ultimate decision to opt in or not with the communities themselves according to their own process.
Mr. Chairman, I have imposed on the committee's patience for too long, so let me again thank you for this opportunity to appear before you. I look forward to your questions.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Minister. That was a very thorough and well-ordered presentation, if I might add.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand.
Mr. Bachand (Saint-Jean): Why impose a bill that the main stakeholders do not want? Five hundred and fifty out of 610 communities wrote to us saying they did not want this bill. And you are moving ahead despite that.
I would like to make a brief aside, Mr. Chairman, on the paternalism you referred to earlier and which was raised by the members of the Bloc Québécois in the House of Commons. What is the difference between what you are doing and what your predecessors did, including the Minister of Indian Affairs 100 years ago, who told Aboriginals that he had to do what was good for them and that it was up to him to decide? What is the difference between then and now, when you tell 550 out of 610 Aboriginal communities that you know what is best for them and you are going to force it upon them?
Why impose a bill that major stakeholders do not want and why break the Red Book promises? I have two of those promises in front of me and I will read them for you:
- A Liberal government will develop a more comprehensive process for consultation between
federal ministers and Aboriginal representatives with respect to decision-making that directly
affects First Nations, Inuit, and Metis peoples.
- It does not make sense for the federal government to be unilaterally making policy or budgetary
decisions that affect the lives of Aboriginal people, without their involvement.
Finally, why go against the trend set by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples? Even Mr. justice Dussault and Mr. Erasmus, who appeared before you on February 11, said you should not go against the Commission's philosophy, which is what the Minister is doing. They said that Bill C-70 went totally against their recommendations. I see you object to virtually everything that is happening with Aboriginal issues in Canada, and even disregard what the main stakeholders may say. Could you perhaps explain your position to us?
[English]
Mr. Irwin: I'll deal with some and I'll let Mr. Shanks deal with some.
I assume you are talking about what Mr. Justice Dussault said, but I haven't heard that. I did hear Mr. Erasmus say at an AFN meeting that the bill could have gone further. I agree with that.
Mr. Shanks will deal with consultations, but let me tell you this. In the last 20 years it was difficult to get figures on just how many consultations there were. But we can substantiate that since 1987 we've spent $15 million on consultations. We had done really nothing since 1951.
.1255
I think it would be a tragedy - because I think this is a non-partisan approach we want - that we do nothing or continue to do nothing because it may be to our political advantage.
Now, why are we proceeding when there are 105 that don't want it? In my own opinion, I think there are probably a couple of reasons. First of all, at the point when there was a groundswell of opposition because they needed further time to look at this, we were making this mandatory bill. We changed after the consultation process to make it optional. Many people had said they didn't want this because they thought it was going to be mandatory, that they were going to be forced to live under it. I think the fact that it is optional has not really sunk in completely. We have to go out there and make that point over and over again.
The Bloc has made a suggestion. The Bloc member has been one of the more positive, affirmative, and proactive members I see in the House. What are his suggestions on the Indian Act? What does he want to get rid of? Does he want it to stay the same? I mean, I haven't heard any suggestions from any opposition party as to where they want to go on this. I'm disappointed, quite frankly, with the NDP, who say it's not enough. That's an easy way of copping out.
I've been through this process before. I was there when we passed the Charter of Rights. Eventually Bill C-31 became part of it, because under the Charter of Rights we had to amend all of the various discriminatory legislation. I remember people coming forward who were vehemently opposed to Bill C-31. But in fact if we hadn't moved ahead there might be many Indian leaders in this country, chiefs, men of position, who wouldn't be there, because they'd still be considered white people under our act. There was tremendous opposition to Bill C-31 and the Charter of Rights, but we went through.
I was there when we put in the Charter of Rights and put the word ``aboriginal'' in the Constitution, and there was tremendous opposition. We spent nine months on it. Now everybody praises the Constitution and say this is such a great thing. We were there collectively when we brought inherent right in. Remember the opposition to that? And now it's getting accepted. So we have things like aboriginal in the Constitution and inherent right being accepted. Some day we'll probably have spirit of intent of treaty being accepted.
I've seen too many politicians and too many bureaucrats reach a point and just freeze for one reason or another - just freeze. The ones who have frozen and have not gone ahead and cured these inequities in our system have not done their jobs as leaders, either in bureaucracy or politically. The ones who said this is part of democracy, part of the debate, and there will be people opposed, and then moved ahead are the ones who are doing their jobs.
So in the long term that is why we're proceeding, because this is the right thing to do. I'm sick and tired as a minister and as a Canadian hearing about the bondage and chains of the Indian Act, and yet we wind up with people saying it's got bondage, it's got chains, but let's not do anything about it.
On consultations, maybe Mr. Shanks can deal with that.
Mr. Gordon Shanks (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Strategic Directions, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Thank you, Minister.
I will run through the consultation process, which goes back about two and a half years. It started November 14, 1994, when Minister Irwin wrote to the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations seeking the views of the AFN with respect to reforming the Indian Act. He did not receive a response to this.
On February 28, 1995, the minister again wrote to Mr. Mercredi to reiterate his request for the views of the AFN, and he received no response at that point.
In March of 1995 the minister raised the idea of amending the Indian Act publicly, at a meeting of the chiefs of Alberta, at their summit. Following that, on April 4, 1995, the minister wrote to all chiefs and councillors and first nation organizations in the country, asking them to provide him with specific proposals for amendments to the Indian Act. He put the caveat that the proposals were not to affect aboriginal or treaty rights or alter the federal government's fiduciary relationship with first nations, nor were they to involve contentious matters such as taxation, Indian status, and band membership, or impact on the crown's duty for the protection of reserve land. The attempt at this point was to find the most innocuous and grievous sections of the Indian Act.
.1300
On May 8, 1995, the minister met with National Chief Mercredi, seeking to form a working group with the AFN to work with Indian Affairs officials on reviewing proposed amendments. The AFN did not respond to this request.
Meanwhile, the regional offices of the Department of Indian Affairs contacted each and every first nation in the country, to ensure that they had received a copy of the minister's April 4 letter seeking their participation. They were also told we would answer any inquiries, and any comments or suggestions could be communicated directly to the minister. In some cases, meetings were held between first nations and regional officials.
A 1-800 number was installed at the Department of Indian Affairs, so that anyone with questions about the project would have them answered promptly. The number was advertised widely in the aboriginal media. Personnel at Indian Affairs headquarters answered most of the inquiries over the phone, but in some cases correspondence was sent to first nations.
By July 1, 1995, 61 responses representing 214 first nations were received. Over 75% of the responses were supportive of incremental reforms to the Indian Act, and less than 10% were opposed; the rest requested a bit more time to respond to the proposal.
On September 1, 1995, the minister wrote again to National Chief Mercredi to reiterate the offer to work with the AFN on the amendment project, and again the AFN did not respond to this request.
In the same month, a list of suggested changes received from first nations, plus others that had arisen over the years or had been repeatedly suggested to departmental officials in the course of day-to-day business, were sent by the minister to, again, all chiefs and councillors and first nations organizations in the country. Again, regional officials followed up directly with all first nations and offered to consult directly and answer any questions. Additional suggestions were received and further analysis was done.
On March 7, 1996, the Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs met with National Chief Mercredi to discuss participation of the AFN in the amendment project. At that point it was agreed that a cooperative process would be established.
On April 22, 1996, the deputy minister wrote to Mr. Mercredi, seeking to meet to develop a mutual work plan. The AFN indicated that they had hired some staff to review the amendment package.
In April of 1996, the deputy minister and National Chief Mercredi decided that a forum would be developed, comprised of some chiefs who were favourable to amendments and others who were opposed. National Chief Mercredi was interested at that point in striking a balanced committee. A federal official was assigned to work with the committee. The work of this committee was to be done in time for the AFN's assembly in July of that year.
As a result of the ongoing consultative and analytical work of the department, additional amendments were proposed and a few were dropped, to respond to concerns raised by first nations. The minister mailed a revised set of proposed amendments to first nations and their organizations with a third letter on June 4, 1996.
A government official was invited to make a presentation on the Indian Act amendments at the AFN's annual assembly. However, this did not take place. The minister did appear and spoke to the assembly on a range of issues.
On July 10, 1996, the AFN passed a resolution rejecting the proposed amendments and the process used for consultation.
In September of 1996, the minister wrote again to all chiefs and organizations, providing them with a plain-language version - that is, an explanation in common language instead of legal terms - of the proposed changes. In keeping with the commitment to avoid any fundamental impact on the broader fiduciary relationship between the crown and first nations, the proposals focused on streamlining procedures, increasing local control, repealing unused sections of the act, and fostering economic development on Indian reserve land.
On September 20, 1996, the minister wrote to Mr. Mercredi, accepting an invitation to discuss the amendments in ``the spirit of achieving consensus'' at the AFN's special assembly in Winnipeg. The minister did make a presentation, explaining the proposed changes. That meeting lasted a whole day. At the same meeting, the AFN passed a resolution reaffirming opposition to the amendments and the process.
.1305
In the course of the day-to-day business and the many meetings both the minister and officials have had with chiefs, the minister has been presented with numerous requests and suggestions for changes to the act. He used these opportunities to consult with the chiefs about the proposals.
That, Mr. Bachand, briefly recounts the consultation process that has taken place over the last couple of years.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Thank you very much.
Any questions? Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan (North Island - Powell River): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and minister and staff.
This package we have, the bill, really doesn't tackle what I consider to be the three key items: democracy provisions, financial accountability provisions and putting in place arm's length appeal mechanisms. Any appeals currently in place in the Indian Act are essentially the same, or certainly don't implement anything arm's length from either the band or the minister.
So those are three litmus tests certainly I would place on any new legislation dealing with the way Indian Affairs is currently constituted in Canada. That's my starting point.
My second point is that I can tell it's election year. I'm not going to respond to the baiting statements about Reform in the presentation.
In terms of the specifics of the bill, there is a section on sale of agricultural products. We currently have some legal challenges going on in the native community in terms of jurisdiction of the Canadian Wheat Board, in terms of the sale of agricultural products from the prairies and their being transported across the international boundary. We have similar challenges in the non-aboriginal community, of course, about the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board.
I would like to understand how the Department of Indian Affairs is dealing with that jurisdictional issue in terms of this bill. It seems to me you're creating a potentially very significant problem for the Department of Justice. I can only assume they've offered some opinion on this, but I'd sure like the committee to have the benefit of whatever background information you have in that category.
In terms of the roads and bridges section and the removal of a need for ministerial authority on maintenance and repair and replacement of roads and bridges, I'm concerned once again about the lack of clarity in terms of liability. If the department takes itself off the hook and the minister takes himself off the hook in terms of liability through these changes, then there should be commensurate new responsibility moved to the band. Of course, the bands are essentially still ``suitproof'' under this modified act.
.1310
Once again, I'm looking for background from the Department of Justice as to how that new provision would be workable.
A broader question related to the bill is the question of whether this is challengeable. I don't know of parallel legislation precedents. I haven't done a great study on it, either.
Do we have precedents in the federal government for opt-in parallel legislation in any department other than this? If this is the only instance of parallel legislation, what's to say it's not quite challengeable under the Constitution or the charter or some other provision? I'd like to have some Justice-style rationalization on that question as well.
I'll leave that as my final question for the first round, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Irwin: In terms of agricultural products, we've been consistent - and I think the law is consistent - that the Wheat Board takes precedence over anything we do here. For one thing, those are international sales. Right now the act says that aboriginal people can't even sell their wheat off reserve without my approval. But I don't exercise it. I just don't do it. I mean, I didn't even know it was in there.
On roads and bridges on reserves, we negotiate the budgets, but again, to my knowledge not once have I been called upon to go in and direct a road or a bridge - nor would I. It's part of their governance as to what roads and bridges are necessary. It's one of those sections that are just not used, nor would they be used.
Mr. Duncan makes a good point on arm's length. When we started this process I was hoping that more power would be taken over, taking it out of the hands of my ministry and having an arm's length tribunal set up. An example would be the elections. Many of the appeals in the elections are the loser appealing because a non-resident voted, or there was this or that. It's then blamed on the Indian Act, or on me, when I won't even know what happened in that election.
I know Saskatchewan at one point was prepared to take over that process and have a provincial body, with elders and structure. I think a decision from a body like that would carry a lot more impact than a decision by me, and there'd be less disruptions on elections.
In terms of finance and accountability, you don't see that in the Indian Act, but we've been trying to do that, with difficulty, over the last two or three years. For instance, the Indian Taxation Advisory Board set out criteria very similar to what most provinces have. If there's a conflict the person cannot vote or take part in the discussion and is subject to removal, by anybody, for doing so. It's the same as non-aboriginal boards, or municipal councils. If a conflict arises there are very simple rules. You have to remove yourself from the discussion, and you could be kicked off the board. I'm hoping those types of conflict rules will eventually evolve into most of the processes.
In terms of financial accountability, again, 80% of the 600-odd first nations give us no problem. They come in on budget, on time. We're working with about 75% of the remaining 20% with one type of management scheme or another. There are only a few - and they're usually the same ones; I'm getting to know them now - that have the same financial problems year after year. But we've said that if it's tax money, it has to be an open process. There has to be accountability.
.1315
I didn't understand the question on democracy, Mr. Duncan. Maybe you could rephrase that.
On the opting in.... As Mr. Shanks points out:
- Subsection 81(1) of the Act shall be read as including the following after paragraph (p.4):
Those are the regulatory sections. They will have the power to make by-laws.
Mr. Al Broughton (Legal Counsel, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Let me start by indicating that as a Department of Justice representative, I'm not in a position to give legal advice or opinions to the committee. But just by way of background on your questions about opting in, considering the charter of rights and the potential for challenge, I would look at the optional nature of the bill.
As you say, there may be differences between how certain first nations and others are treated, but that difference in treatment would be as a result of their choosing to opt into the provisions of this bill. Those are the kinds of considerations that I think would be looked at when considering the application of the charter.
I'm not in a position to give you a legal opinion on it, but I think that's the nature of the inquiry we would conduct. So I'm not overly concerned about the charter.
If I can briefly go back to the question about roads and bridges, there was mention of the potential liability. The courts have in fact already found that the federal government is not liable for roads and bridges on reserve in at least one case, the Brick Cartage case, I believe it was. So I don't think the repeal of section 34 for the purposes of those bands that choose to opt in would have any impact on the liability question for the federal government with respect to roads and bridges on reserve.
Mr. Duncan: But there is no clarity in this change to make the bands responsible from a liability standpoint either.
Mr. Broughton: No, you're right.
Mr. Duncan: So it creates a vacuum, an absolute and total vacuum.
Mr. Broughton: There is no explicit mention of liability in that provision. I think there is something in the by-law provisions of the current act that makes it clear that first nations have the ability to make laws respecting local works, roads and bridges.
Mr. Duncan: But they're suit-proof.
Mr. Broughton: They have the protection of the section 89 exemption in the act, yes.
Mr. Duncan: Does it not concern the Department of Justice that there's an area of Canada in which we have roads and bridges where, if some issue comes up with the public using them, there's no clearly responsible party? Does that not concern the Department of Justice?
Mr. Broughton: First of all, I don't think I'm in a position to concern myself with the policy alternatives in this situation. But under the law of Canada there would be, in the situation you describe, a responsible party. It's not a question of whether they can be sued and whether there can be a judgment against them. The question that I believe you're getting at is section 89, which is an exemption from seizure. That makes realizing on judgments difficult but not impossible.
Mr. Duncan: May I pursue an earlier response? I realize I'm running over.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): You are, but just one. The minister has asked you a question too.
Mr. Duncan: I didn't recognize right away that we had a Department of Justice official here. But in terms of the response I received on the Canadian Wheat Board, there is ongoing litigation now with Indians exporting to the U.S. from the province of Alberta without Canadian Wheat Board permits, saying there is no jurisdiction for the Canadian Wheat Board.
.1320
There is no clarity whatsoever in this thing about where we sit with the Canadian Wheat Board. I'm not sitting here defending the Canadian Wheat Board, but if we're going to modify an act, do we not want to create clarity? Does this bill create clarity on that issue as you see it?
Mr. Broughton: No, I don't think it creates clarity. There is an issue that has been raised, as you point out, in the courts. In fact, the first nation member that is in court has raised this particular provision in his defence, I understand. So that's an area of litigation where I don't think we can go into any detail about the opinions on the law. The question in this bill, repealable at the option of the first nation, is the one that's being used in the defence of the individual in the case you're speaking of.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Are there any questions from the other side? Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault (Kenora - Rainy River): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It's a pleasure to be in front of the committee and to listen first-hand to what the minister has to say.
First, Minister, I think we'll get to the big, broad question. I think it's important to deal with this. I can tell you that as a representative of 51 first nations - I think the most of any MP in this room and even in Canada - as you well know, I'm something of an activist in my own right in the first nation communities that I represent.
I have spent some time talking to them in detail about this bill. I spent a number of days of my break not too long ago up north, hopping up and down in small charter planes and getting a feel for what people think. I am having difficulty following some of the questions from some of the members opposite simply because of the view that there's opposition, to the point of every single first nation being opposed to this. It's not there.
I can tell you first-hand that Treaty 3 does not have a position on this because they're into the inherent right policy negotiation, and they see that as exempting them from this in the first place. They're very thrilled about that particular policy initiative.
I have talked to a number of first nations in Treaty 9, face to face with the chiefs, and I'm getting the same sort of response: if they can opt in or opt out, it seems like a pretty good way of improving the Indian Act.
Based on the fact that I'm not getting the same vibrations as other people or as suggested by the grand chief himself, I wanted to ask you about the obvious. If in fact it were so disliked out there in first nation communities, based on your track record and the fact that you've done a lot of work for first nations in your term, why would you jeopardize things by putting out a piece of legislation that would make you at odds with your track record? In fact, the easy option for you would be just to drop the whole thing.
I think it's important to get that clarified. If I were to ask every single chief I've come across in my travels what they thought of you as a minister, they would say that you've probably moved the agenda further than any minister in recent memory. It's important to know why you would jeopardize your reputation if you think there is that much dissension out there related to the first nation communities.
Mr. Irwin: I hate to admit it, but even I have to make political decisions sometimes.
We came to a point in the process where there were basically three groups. There was a group of leaders who had the ability, skills and commitment to take their people to the next century. There was a large group behind them that didn't have all the skills but had enough knowledge to realize who out there was moving ahead - the Matthew Coon Comes, the Joe Nortons, Joe Gosnell, Charlie Fox, and Eli Mandamin - and they were willing to go with them. Then there was a group that had a mindset in the past. They were wearing the Indian Act much like some people wear the Plains of Abraham in our country. It's there, and you could sense it was there.
.1325
There was a large group of bureaucrats, myself.... And it came to the point where we said, is this worth the effort? You ask yourself the question. These powers will be transferred and they'll have control of their own destiny. We were wavering.
There was a Mohawk woman named Roseanne Morris sitting there, and she was very quiet. After everybody left, I asked her what she thought. She said you have to move ahead, even if there's opposition, because if you don't - it had been 1961 since we had really done anything - no other minister or no other bureaucracy will follow a minister into this process again. I thought, she's right; let's go. It was a woman really who did it.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Mr. Nault.
Mr. Nault: Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the whole issue of consultation. I know first-hand that consultations with first nations are very different from consultations with non-natives. At times it takes a lot longer, and there are some culturally significant issues that have to be dealt with when you are consulting with first nations.
I'm trying to get a sense of what seems to be the big problem with the consultation process for which you're being criticized. I know you sent those letters to all of the first nations because I get copies of them. I know that this has been going on for a number of years, since this particular party has been in power, so it didn't start yesterday. I am aware that people have been talking about it for a number of years, never mind a number of months.
What I am more concerned about is the fact that there is a perception that there was no consultation, or it's being portrayed that way by the national organization. In fact, when Mr. Shanks reads out the chronological order of all the discussions, meetings, and suggested processes your department and the AFN could get involved in, I'm starting to get the sense that there may be a little more to this than meets the eye.
Minister, you weren't in Parliament when we went through the Charlottetown accord. As you recall, that was one that the grand chief who is presently there was heavily involved in. A tremendous amount of money was spent on the Charlottetown accord's consultation processes in first nations communities - millions of dollars. I was told at that time that there was no consultation at the end of that process either and that in fact the grand chief was told that was not a legitimate process. If you recall, the majority of first nations people voted against that. That was part of the debate at that time, the whole issue of the lack of consultation.
I'd like to get from you, if possible, a political perspective of what you would consider to be the ultimate consultation. If it's possible, I'd like to know how much money has been spent on consultation. I bring this up because I come from the province of Ontario, where we don't consult with the province at all. As you know, the Premier of Ontario doesn't believe in consultation. It's just, here is what I ran on and here's what we're going to do. Quite frankly, I think consultation can be done to the point where you drag an issue on ad nauseam and don't really get anything done. Sooner or later you have to make a political decision.
I'd like to get a sense from you if you think it should have been done differently, how much money has been spent, and your own political view of the consultation process after this committees hears -
The last question to the minister, if I can slip it in, is this. Do you think other changes are going to be brought forward from first nations that could be built into these changes, or is it going to be the other way around: that in fact this committee may be reducing some of those amendments that you have brought forward because there's a fear that there's not going to be enough time for consultation because of the unique consultation processes first nations expect?
.1330
Mr. Irwin: On consultations, the bill is fairly simple. As well as what we did by letter on the three-year terms, most of the chiefs.... About half the bands are on custom, approximately. Most of them are on three-year terms. The others are on two-year terms, and are saying this is not long enough: we're only getting one year of proper administration, six months to break in a new member, six months of election. The band membership didn't like the idea of four, which many of the chiefs were pressing for. I said we can sell three, similar to what the municipalities have in Ontario, similar to what you have under band custom.
Again, over and above the consultation, because I'm dealing with this every day, in Saskatchewan we have one million acres of land that have been bought over the last decade for treaty land entitlement, shortfalls in the treaty, which should be transferred to bands but can't be because of third-party interests. Anything can be a third-party interest. A trapline can be a third-party interest. Really, you wind up paying double and triple the value when the people know that you have to buy them out before you can transfer it over. There's pressure on the government, pressure on the chiefs. So the change they want out there, which they see as valuable, is to make the transfer, subject to the third-party interests, and then when it comes available on an open market it's acquired.
The chief section, that a chief must be a band member, I think that arose in your riding, where a white woman is a chief of a small band. What's the name of that band? I forget.
Mr. Nault: Washagamis.
Mr. Irwin: Yes. There's a white woman, chief of a small band. It wasn't even her fault. She was a band administrator and the people wanted her. There's a chief and only two councillors. But generally, across the country, first nations do not want to have, as a principle, which is now allowed, a white chief in a band. As a matter of fact, I was nominated for chief of Batchewana. If I had left my name there, I would have won just on the protest vote, because you only needed 90 votes to win.
The trespass section: if you recall, earlier in the term the Reform asked several questions on this, very legitimate questions, of what happened to the Stoneys out in Alberta, when $30 million approximately - no one can put a handle on it - of wood was just cut off the three Stoney reserves. So I said they should lay a trespass charge. They came back and said the fine for trespassing is $50. So we raised that to $5,000. That should be raised to the maximum of $100,000.
Mr. Shanks: In forestry, it would be the value of the loss.
Mr. Irwin: Oh, yes, right, $5,000 plus the value of the loss, per incident.
On estates, that was fairly obvious, because there's nothing in there on estates, just a little bit on the wife's preference, spousal preference, which we brought in, I think, in 1988 - but not much. So intestacies are quite a problem.
And then on laws on land and environment, what they could do as far as their by-laws, many of these things we've done already, and even more profound, with the land management legislation you're looking at. This allows a faster way of getting there, if they want to, through this process.
Again, through consultation we removed any reference to mortgages. We only had mortgages on chattels in the first draft. They said this is a move to mortgages on freeholds. That was removed. On the earlier drafts, there was a registry system to be put in place, which is expensive. They said they didn't want that, that's a white man's step. So we removed that.
Then we put in a section after consultation with Phil Fontaine of Manitoba and Blaine Favel of Saskatchewan - especially Saskatchewan. They wanted the non-derogation clause: that nothing in this act will take away from treaty, inherent, or aboriginal rights. And then at the end, again because of Mr. Fontaine and Mr. Favel, we said we'll make this whole thing optional.
We had these things going on almost on a daily basis, while this letter system was in play. And the national chief, quite frankly, squandered two years. When he could have been taking his people into the future, he decided to make this his last hurrah. He squandered actually six years, but especially the last two years. But that's his choice, not mine. It's not my job to interpret what he does.
That's about it.
.1335
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Minister.
Mr. Anawak.
Mr. Anawak: Thank you.
In terms of consultation, I know that letters have been written to every band. But again, as was pointed out earlier by my colleague, consultation could be quite different. The interpretation of what consultation is could be quite different for aboriginal people and others, as we just recently found out in the eastern Arctic.
I wonder if there is any majority of the bands that have said they disagree with the bill. Is there any indication that what the AFN is saying and what the people out there are saying is different? That's what I mean by consultation. I don't necessarily take AFN's word that everybody's against this. So I'd like to know basically what percentage out there would be against this particular bill. Is there any idea of what that percentage might be?
Mr. Irwin: It's a tough question. I'll tell you why. The chiefs want to get on with their lives. At the same time, they want to support the AFN. The national chief has put it to them almost like you have to support the AFN. So I understand that balance. You have to support the AFN, but in the meantime they want to get on and get out of the act.
I mean, I couldn't even get.... You know, what Mr. Shanks said, in my first letter toMr. Mercredi saying chiefs are asking for this extended term, so can you poll the chiefs and just let me know - a simple amendment to the act, just to amend that act, go to three years, whatever. That's over two years ago, and he didn't even bother responding to me. I said poll your chiefs and let me know.
I can't put a percentage on it. Time will tell. I think once they have a chance to look at it.... No one's forced to opt in; there's no time limit. Some may not opt in because they might think they're undermining the AFN. It's a possibility. Others may opt in because.... I think in Saskatchewan especially they'll want to get on with transferring that million acres of land. So this is a very beneficial section to them.
Mr. Anawak: I'm not too concerned about what the Chief of the Assembly of First Nations is saying; I'm more concerned about what the people out there might be thinking. I can understand that when you're losing your clientele you want to jump up and yell as loudly as you can so you can be heard.
I guess the point I'm trying to make is if the bill is explained to the people it affects and basically it takes away some of the restrictions that are placed by other acts, why would there be any...? I can understand the opposition based on some misunderstanding. What would be the purpose of trying to delay a bill that would in some ways not necessarily have a negative impact, but could have a positive impact?
Mr. Irwin: I think each chief's going to have to answer that. I think if we get through this process and we have a bill passed and it gets hung up in the Senate or the chiefs or the national chief oppose it, they will have to explain to their grandchildren why, when they had the chance and the empowerment and the government wanted to move, they said no.
As a government, our conscience is going to be clear. If you want to get out from under the act, here are the proposals, which we've made optional. It's your decision. You have to explain it to your grandchildren.
.1340
There's no logic to it, Mr. Anawak. You're dealing with human nature and emotions. There's just no logic to this whole thing.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Mr. Murphy.
Mr. Murphy (Annapolis Valley - Hants): No questions.
Mr. Irwin: There's a question on finance that I didn't get to.
Mr. Shanks: To answer the question on the specifics of financing, about $93,000 in cash has been spent in actual outlay of dollars. The method here was really for departmental officials to go to first nations so that we would minimize costs and piggyback meetings onto others. So we provided, we thought, the opportunity for every first nation to have as much consultation on the technical detail as was possible. It was open, and it continued for two years.
Mr. Irwin: Does that count the $90,000 we give to AFN?
Mr. Shanks: Yes, $93,000 was provided to the AFN.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Thank you.
Have you another question?
Mr. Bachand: Yes.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): All right. Second round.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: Let me get back to the consultation process. I have already said that 550 out of 610 communities objected to this bill. Just like my colleague, I presume the missing 50 communities are in his riding and are all pleased with the Minister's reform. However, I would be pleased to send every committee member copies of the letters from the communities that are opposed to this.
Dear colleagues, you also mentioned the costs that would have to be absorbed by our fellow Canadian citizens. Mr. Shank, why do you not want to publicly disclose the outcome of that consultation? We have asked for that a number of times and you told us it was a secret and you could not disclose it. I would think it was a good consultation and you should therefore simply show us the letters that were sent to you so that we can, together, confirm the veracity of what you are saying.
My second question is for the Minister. You mentioned the name Ms Roseanne Morris and said she has clarified the matter a great deal for you, that she had in fact, Mr. Minister, encouraged you to go ahead with it. I would like to know whether that statement was made prior to, during or after she went to your office or whether she always held the same view, before, during and after she went to your office.
Finally, you asked me what the opposition members would do. Let me tell you what the Bloc Québécois would do. First of all, we would recognize Canada's First Nations, as Quebec did; it recognized 11 of them. When you know who your counterparts are, things work better. In fact, the Commission identified between 60 and 80. The first step would be to recognize them.
Secondly, we would stress self-government and negotiations on self-government, as the Crees did for James Bay. It can be used as a model. I think that is what should be done.
As for the Indian Act, they see it as just a form of temporary protection. There should be a negotiator to represent everyone so that they do not get divided and so that you don't get a piecemeal collection of what is best for the department and then force people to swallow it. There should be a principle negotiator who represents a lot of people. By that I mean the Assembly of First Nations. And most importantly, I would listen. If I were Minister of Indian Affairs, I would listen and I would not force people to accept a reform that directly affects them and their daily living conditions.
You asked me what we would do. If I were Minister of Indian Affairs, that is what I would suggest the Bloc Québécois do.
[English]
Mr. Irwin: Mr. Chair, this is more of a statement than a question, and I accept it as such.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Thank you very much.
Mr. Bachand: and Roseanne?
Mr. Irwin: Yes. A good lady. If you're looking for the Mohawks, though, watch out. She's back working for the Mohawks issue.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I heard the minister say there's no time limit on this exercise. I don't know if the minister is aware, but we got a notice from this committee last week that gave any interested band until Wednesday of this week - tomorrow - to respond to this committee as to whether or not they wanted to appear. That was the cut-off. I find this most time-constraining. I was only able to get it to the bands in my riding yesterday.
.1345
The minister also mentioned the squandering of time by the national chief. I find it highly interesting that you could give the national chief so much credit for having that much power.
On an earlier occasion at the committee, describing the role of the Assembly of First Nations, I challenged the funding of the Assembly of First Nations wholly by the federal government and was told that this was a very convenient set-up for consultation. Given the latest set of circumstances and given that the aboriginal senator, soon to retire, Len Marchand, has said it's time for AFN to be de-funded by government and have the national issues come from an independent body, not one that's captive of the federal government, I wonder if the minister would like to comment on that.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Mr. Duncan, I'm sorry, I'm not going to ask the minister to comment on your first question because that's the business of the committee. The news wires were sent out last Thursday across this country and a letter was mailed to every band last week. When you saw your band yesterday, they should have already known. If they didn't, then thank you for letting them know.
Mr. Irwin.
Mr. Irwin: We try to stay at arm's length from the work of the committee. Your witnesses are your witnesses.
It's opting in. There is an unlimited time to opt in. There's no time limit to what I was discussing.
I see where Senator Marchand has said that. I think this is something that first nations will have to decide themselves. It's not something I either support or espouse, because I've consistently said that the AFN has to be strong. I didn't say he was squandering his time. I said he has been squandering his mandate over the last six years. I believe I said it that way.
Mr. Duncan: When I asked earlier about the fact that there are no real measures in this bill regarding financial accountability, you did respond. I'd like to be able to give you a specific example in order to fully explain my concern.
I asked for band audits, just the management letters to band audits, and under FOI I was turned down because these are considered by the department to be private, corporate, third-party audits not subject to release. The net result is that the 80% of department funding transferred to bands and other aboriginal organizations that is audited as a consequence of department policy by third parties is not available for public scrutiny, and because only the department is scrutinizing itself, there are no checks and balances. I guess that's what I'm trying to say. It's an area of government expenditure where the taxpayer has no assurance that they're getting value for money other than for the department to say they're getting value for money. I see nothing in this legislation to fix that.
.1350
Mr. Irwin: Now that I'm getting to the end of the mandate, Mr. Duncan, as minister, I see things that get screwed up across the country. Sometimes I'd like to stand up as minister, when those questions are asked, and say, what do you think, that I checked my brains at the Peace Tower? I know things go wrong out there.
On the other side, of these 600 first nations, when one goes bad there's a perception that all first nations are bad. That's the way the media spins around here. But if I were mayor of Sault Ste. Marie and I screwed up, they'd say the mayor of Sault Ste. Marie screwed up - not all mayors across Canada.
First nations feel, and rightfully so, that when their funds are made public the media and politicians will use it against them. They're really touchy about that. It's there. When we get to a level table - because I've been pushing for accountability and transparency - I think you'll see it. But right now the first nations are highly suspect of how non-aboriginals use their audits and their budgets.
Mr. Shanks: You're right, Mr. Duncan, that the audits are not available to a member of the public through access to information, because they are deemed to be private information, but they are available to all band members. Each band audit that deals with the particular finances of a band are available to a band member upon request. So the accountability for those band moneys is available to the membership.
Mr. Duncan: They're available to the membership if the chief in council will give it to them. If the chief in council refuses, there's nothing anybody can do.
Mr. Shanks: No, my understanding is that -
Mr. Duncan: The rank-and-file aboriginals at the reserve level are of as big a concern to me as any non-aboriginals wanting to know what's going on at the band level. Those people are disenfranchised the way no other Canadians are disenfranchised in knowing about their own governance.
Mr. Shanks: Of course the minister is accountable to Parliament through his annual reports to Parliament and to the committee in his estimates and public accounts. So federal money is accountable to the population through that route. But as the minister said, we are continuing to work with first nations to enhance the accountability issues and deal with what you've raised. I think this is a serious matter. Clearly a great deal has to be done to improve it.
Mr. Duncan: There's more than $3 billion in that envelope.
Mr. Shanks: Yes.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Thank you, Mr. Duncan. Mr. Bachand.
Mr. Bachand: I want to point out that I'd put forward two questions that weren't answered on getting that consultation public, consultation that was paid for by Canadians.
As well, in terms of Roseanne Morris, was it before, during, or after you hired her that she declared she wouldn't help you out and you should push forward with that?
Mr. Irwin: It was while she was working with us. She was a very quiet woman, very reflective. It makes no difference whether she's working for the Mohawks now or was working for us then.
On the letters, when we first started out I suggested to National Chief Mercredi that we.... When we wrote to the chiefs we said it would be confidential. We wanted an open type of debate. I was prepared to give the letters to Chief Mercredi as long as we had the consent of the first nations. I didn't see any problem. I said we should share this. I was hoping that through this joint process that never materialized between the government and the AFN that at some point we would have that in play. But because it never clicked in between us and the AFN, what you're suggesting didn't come into play.
I think it's a good suggestion. It was what we wanted to do originally. In the end, we were stuck with the confidentiality that we had suggested in our letters to the chiefs.
Mr. Shanks: We did, however, release the letters to the AFN in a method to ensure that the confidentiality of the first nation was protected. So the AFN did receive the complete package that the minister received.
.1355
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Sorry about that, Mr. Bachand.
One very short question, Mr. Anawak.
Mr. Anawak: This is not so much a question as advice for my colleague from across. Did he change his way of thinking once he became a member of Parliament, and will he change it after he ceases to be a member of Parliament?
Mr. Bachand: May I respond to that?
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): As long as we don't have a ten-minute speech.
Mr. Bachand: No, I'll be very short.
[Translation]
I think it is important to know whether the person who made that statement works for the Minister or not. If I asked my researcher what he thought of my viewpoint or my bill, it would be in his best interest not to say that my bill was bad, because then he might not have a job with me for very long. I just wanted to make that clarification. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain things a little, Mr. Anawak.
[English]
The Vice-Chairman (Mr. Finlay): Mr. Bachand, if he were working for me and he always said the right thing, I'd fire him.
The meeting is adjourned. We'll meet on Thursday again.