Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 10 - Evidence - June 3, 2009
OTTAWA, Wednesday, June 3, 2009
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 6:29 p.m. to study on the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples; and on other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada (topic: issues pertaining to Indian Act elections).
Senator Gerry St. Germain (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Senators, I call the meeting to order.
Good evening. I would like to welcome all honourable senators, members of the public, and all viewers across the country who are watching these proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, which is on CPAC or on the web.
I am Senator Gerry St. Germain from British Columbia, chair of the committee. The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada generally. On April 1 of this year, the committee decided to launch a study to examine issues related to Indian Act elections.
The committee is looking at outstanding concerns related to the Indian Act election system, including the two-year term of office for chiefs and council, as currently prescribed by the act. We, as a committee, are seeking the views of First Nations leaders, Aboriginal organizations and First Nations people, as well as experts in this area, regarding whether and what changes should be made to the Indian Act elections regime in order to provide better governance for First Nations, including strengthening political accountability for the leadership of First Nations citizens.
For our viewing audience, it is important to note that 252 Indian bands, roughly 40 per cent of all Indian bands in Canada, hold elections in accordance with the Indian Act. This study on elections processes focuses on those First Nations. The other First Nations bands select their leaders by way of custom or as a result of their self-government agreements.
[Translation]
Before hearing what our witnesses have to say about Indian Act elections, allow me to introduce the members of the committee who are here this evening.
[English]
I have on my left, Senator Daniel Lang from the Yukon; next to him is Senator Yonah Martin from British Columbia; next to her is Senator Sandra Lovelace Nicholas from New Brunswick; next is Senator Lillian Dyck from Saskatchewan; and next to her is Senator Elizabeth Hubley from Prince Edward Island. On my right I have Senator Sharon Carstairs from the province of Manitoba.
Senators, allow me to introduce the witness who will address us this evening from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, which describes its constituency as including the Metis, nonregistered and off-reserve First Nations people throughout Canada. We have the Interim National Chief, Kevin Daniels. In 2008, Mr. Daniels was elected to serve a four-year term as National Vice-Chief of the Congress. He assumed the position of Interim National Chief when the former National Chief, Patrick Brazeau, was appointed to the Senate in January of 2009.
Sir, we welcome you to our committee. We are pleased that you could make the time to join us and share your views on the elections held under the Indian Act. Your presentation will certainly be followed by questions from the senators.
Kevin Daniels, Interim National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples: Good evening, Senator St. Germain, honourable senators and participants. Thank you for inviting me to attend this meeting on issues regarding elections held under the Indian Act regime. It is a pleasure to be here on the traditional territory of the Algonquin people, and with Senator Patrick Brazeau from the Kitigan Zibi reserve. It is also a great honour, and probably the first time in history, that a national leader will be addressing a senator as Auntie Lillian Dyck, who is from Saskatchewan. I am also from Saskatchewan. I wanted to point that out.
The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples represents the interests of status and non-status Indians living off reserve and Metis peoples. We were established in 1971 and have been a participant in all of the constitutional negotiations. It was Harry Daniels who negotiated the Metis peoples into section 35(2) of the Canadian Constitution.
I am Cree from Saskatchewan. I grew up on the road allowance on the outskirts of the Gordon First Nation. My family was part of the first wave of off-reserve Indians to move into north central Regina, which now has the distinction of being the worst neighbourhood in Canada.
In 1951 the census of Canada reported that 6.7 per cent of Aboriginal people lived in cities. In 2006 the census reported that 60 per cent of the ancestry-based population now reside in urban areas and 80 per cent live in non-reserve areas.
The migration of Aboriginal peoples into urban centres is the most significant Aboriginal demographic for anyone looking at revision of the Indian Act. Federal policy seems stuck where it was 50 years ago;. 90 per cent of the $10 billion that Ottawa spends each year goes to Indian Act reserves.
This is an enormous mismatch of resources to people. In June of 1969, the White Paper on Indian Policy was tabled in the House of Commons. The Indian Act was to be repealed, and the department itself phased out over a five-year period, with services being transferred to the provinces. These ideas were opposed by Indians from across Canada who wanted the Indian Act to remain, but with significant changes.
Today, the Indian Act continues to be the principal instrument of federal jurisdiction over the lives and affairs of status Indians living on and off the reserve. The guiding star of the Indian Act has always been paternalism. It is essentially the same policy that has been in existence for the last 138 years.
In our view, the use of the term ``First Nations'' is inappropriate when referring to Indian Act reserves. Professor Bradford Morse has told you that the Indian Act resulted in a breaking down of the historic nations into ever smaller parts. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report referenced the historical First Nations in Canada, not Indian Act reserves.
When this Senate committee speaks about seeking the views of affected First Nations and other interested groups, we trust that you are talking about the historic First Nations, and not referring to off-reserve persons as part of the a category of ``other interested groups.'' I agree with Professor Morse that looking at the Indian Act in a piecemeal fashion is an exceedingly difficult task. I do not agree with Professor Morse when he recommended to you that a bill be drafted jointly by Canada and the Assembly of First Nations for changes to the Indian Act. This would be a recipe for social conflict.
Over the years, many INAC ministers have attempted to change the Indian Act without much success. In 2000, the government of the day revisited the Indian Act and proposed a First Nations governance act. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples was very active on this file and took a leadership position on the issue of governance and self- determination.
We believe that our right to self-determination are a fundamental human right. Article 21 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: ``(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.'' It also states: ``(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.''
In order to achieve these rights, John Corbière had to go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Without his determination and will, status Indians living off reserve would not be involved in the governance of their bands.
As of today, there is no consistent understanding of the impact of the Corbière decision on custom elections. Back in 2000, band councils who had moved to custom elections were required to demonstrate Corbière compliance. Today, some bands allow off-reserve members to vote; others do not.
There is no way to determine the number of custom elections that are in compliance with Corbière. As you have heard from INAC officials, the department does not even have copies of the current custom electoral codes for all band councils. INAC officials cannot tell you whether a band council is complying with the Corbière decision or not.
This committee has heard testimony from officials that 54 per cent of Indian Act reserves elect their leaders through customary codes outside the Indian Act. During 2007-08, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples undertook a study of existing customary codes. The study reported the following: Many of these codes have fundamental flaws in either their substantive or procedural elements. These flaws constitute potential violations of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Privacy Act, the Personal Information and Electronic Documents Act and the Corbière decision, as well as the principle of natural justice and international legal standards.
The potential for social conflict is high in regards to custom election codes. We all recognize that many codes rely on concepts and policies that might have been acceptable at one time but are no longer reflective of modern democratic principles and practices. These custom codes should not be frozen in time and need to be updated. They need to be harmonized with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Corbière decision and other justice elements.
The realization of democratic rights for off-reserve members, including our own right to participate in band councils, is a matter of justice. Voting rights are human rights, and they must be guaranteed to all with no exceptions. Where there is a conflict between fundamental rights and custom election codes, human rights must prevail.
I was surprised to read the transcript of your May 13 meeting, which showed that the Atlantic chiefs are interested in balancing councils to better reflect the needs of the community. The underlying message here is that the vote of a status Indian on reserve is worth more than the one off reserve. We would never accept this and stand on the principle of one person and one vote.
During discussions with our constituents in information sessions, we learned that the custom electoral system is not working well for off-reserve band members. Many participants were not aware of what electoral process the band was even using. Because urban Aboriginal Peoples come from different bands, there is confusion over the various practices and rules. They develop the impression that band councils are making up the rules as they go along.
The outcome of this situation is that many off-reserve members have lost faith in band governance and the electoral process. The result of this lack of participation and representation for off-reserve members has resulted in a lack of access to programs and services. We found that people are either very angry about this or apathetic.
In one focus group, with our Aboriginal youth, we discovered they were enthusiastic to vote and make the right choice. However, they were frustrated with the lack of information about candidates, issues, notice of elections and the election process. Many thought that there was a need for impartial guidance and training.
For the overwhelming majority of Aboriginal people, there is a common complaint about the lack of information, election timing, rules, procedures and issues. People have advised us that they are being excluded from voting and have difficulty keeping their names on the band voters' lists. Many people have told us that they do not vote because they do not have access to local polling stations or the mail-in ballot system. What this means is that in order to exercise their right to vote, they need to spend their own money to travel back to the reserve.
We have also talked with INAC regional officials to understand some of the issues involved with custom elections. They were concerned about the impact of electoral conflicts in communities and the challenge of managing the department's response.
It is remarkable that INAC has no policy in place to ensure it is up-to-date and has accurate copies of custom election codes. We cannot accept that once band councils move away from the Indian Act election regime, the department is no longer involved and there is no necessity to secure updated or amended election codes.
We are fully supportive of Senator Brazeau's view that there is a problem with the department washing its hands, not dealing with custom codes and not having any enforcement powers over those codes. Like many of the members on this committee, we are concerned with the lack of consideration of custom code elections and the link to reserves that are under third party management.
The potential for abuse is self-evident, and the fact that the only remedy available to off-reserve members is a court challenge. That does not strike me as a fair process.
Dysfunctional councils result in loss of economic opportunities. The functional problems related to custom elections revolve around voter and candidate qualifications, unwritten codes, lack of community review of revisions and amendments and the lack of appeal or redress procedures.
The lack of progress in this area is impeded by the fact that 30 per cent of band councils using custom elections do not have written or community ratified election codes. As members of this committee are aware, section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was repealed, and there is a 36-month reprieve for reserves to prepare for potential outcomes. There has been no discussion about the potential impacts to custom elections.
This means that off-reserve people will need to seek redress from the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Distrust of INAC and the Indian Act by off-reserve status Indians is recognized by members of this committee. The Indian Act, both directly and indirectly, is the foundation for discrimination against the majority of Aboriginal Peoples in Canada. The legislation is outdated and inadequate in providing direction on band council governance systems.
When the suggestion is made to extend the term of office for chiefs and council, we know this means that accountability will be delayed. We would not be opposed to fixed election dates and removal mechanisms being in place. When I notified our affiliate leadership that I was presenting to this committee, many felt that this would be a waste of time. I remain optimistic that the members of this committee will understand the discrimination taking place against off-reserve status Indians. We agree with Senator Brazeau that our constituency, as well as the general public, want to know that custom codes are compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
We recommend that this committee highlight the fact that off-reserve band members are being denied their inherent Aboriginal right and their human right to meaningful participation in governance of their bands. Decisions made by band councils that exclude such a large percentage of band members cannot be seen as representative of the collective. They are contrary to Article 18 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
We believe that there are best practices among many custom election codes and we have identified some of them. The Government of Canada needs to ensure that the basic human rights of Aboriginal people are protected and legislate minimum requirements for custom election codes. Band council elections need to reflect the distribution and residency of band members.
Our constituency needs to be assured that they have both the right to vote and the right to be elected in band elections. The right of all citizens to vote underpins the legitimacy of democracy. It is a fundamental human right and must be guaranteed to all with no exception. As off-reserve Aboriginal people, it is our duty to question the state of Aboriginal democracy. With our rights and obligations fully protected, we can truly prepare for the future of the next generations.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Chief Daniels.
Senator Lang: I have a couple of questions. I am new to this committee. I simply want clarification for me and others as well. Are off-reserve members of a First Nation counted in the population when the First Nation negotiates financial agreements with the Government of Canada?
Mr. Daniels: We basically do not have any say as an off-reserve Indian in any of those negotiations. As an off- reserve Indian myself, I do not have the right to vote for tribal council leaders, for our provincial leaders or for our national leaders. I do have that right within the Congress. I would love it if I was given the opportunity to be able to negotiate with the federal government on those financial requirements.
Senator Lang: You are getting ahead of me. For the purposes of financing from the Government of Canada to a First Nation in Saskatchewan, for example, are financial agreements predicated on the full membership, whether they are off- or on-reserve?
Mr. Daniels: First and foremost, our Aboriginal population in Saskatchewan is not even recognized by the Government of Saskatchewan.
Senator Lang: I am talking about the Government of Canada.
Mr. Daniels: The Government of Canada recognizes us, but not the Aboriginal population in Saskatchewan. That is the problem currently. Many of our affiliates are not being recognized by the provinces. There is a large number of Aboriginal people being excluded from any negotiations, whether financial or for programs and services.
Senator Lang: That is not my question. My question is whether or not off-reserve First Nation members are counted in the full population for the purposes of financing for the reserve. I did not ask if you voted. I want to know if you are counted so your membership is that much larger and your reserve may be eligible for more money.
Mr. Daniels: Yes, we are always counted. Our numbers are always being used.
Senator Lang: What is the national membership of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples?
Mr. Daniels: We have 10 provincial-territorial organizations across the country that all have their own membership.
Senator Lang: How many members would be off-reserve First Nation people?
Mr. Daniels: All of them are off-reserve Aboriginal people.
Senator Lang: Do you have a number? Are we talking about 10,000 people?
Mr. Daniels: I do not have an accurate number. I can take that under advisement and respond back to you at a later time as to the exact number in our membership if you would like.
Senator Lang: How many complaints or inquiries do you get on average over the course of a year from First Nations people with respect to elections as an organization?
Mr. Daniels: That is a very good question. I will take that under advisement as well and I will respond to the committee in writing with the exact numbers of complaints.
Senator Lang: How do you resolve it or what steps do you take to try to resolve it when you get a complaint?
Mr. Daniels: Personally, I request meeting when I have a complaint and I always have complaints with my First Nation. For example, the Kawacatoose First Nation was given a $26 million treaty land entitlement deal. We were asked to participate as off-reserve band members. Once the agreement was agreed and ratified, they no longer had any use for us as members.
Senator Carstairs: You indicate that you represent the registered, non-registered and Metis. Do you use the ``registered'' in the sense of status?
Mr. Daniels: No. Normally we use status Indians, non-status Indians, Bill C-31 Indians and Metis peoples.
Senator Carstairs: Can you tell me why you represent the Metis people? I thought the Metis Federation represented the Metis people.
Mr. Daniels: We have a number of organizations that do not fall under the criteria of the Métis National Council. They call themselves Metis and we do not dispute that. They can call themselves whatever they wish as Aboriginal people.
Senator Carstairs: In terms of the numbers that you gave us, you said that 60 per cent of Aboriginal people lived in urban areas and that 80 per cent live in non-reserve areas. Are the other 20 per cent those Aboriginal people who live close to or around reserve communities or in rural communities?
Mr. Daniels: Yes, they live in rural areas and small towns. There are many small villages occupied by a majority of Aboriginal peoples.
Senator Carstairs: In terms of membership, how are you elected? You were obviously elected as vice-chief and then became chief. How are those elections conducted? How is the voting list developed? What is your average rate of participation of eligible voters in your election?
Mr. Daniels: Each provincial-territorial organization elects 16 delegates. We operate on a delegate system. Each PTO must have a variety of delegates from urban centres, rural and northern regions. They must also be representative of youth, elders and women. Each 16 delegates come to an annual general assembly where they have the right to vote for their national leadership, which is the national vice-chief and a national chief.
Senator Carstairs: Thank you. Residence status is what we will hear about from the other side, as you know: They are non-residents, therefore why should they vote?
There is a residence requirement for municipal and provincial elections. How do you respond to the argument given by the other side that there should be a residence requirement for you to vote for the band in band elections?
Mr. Daniels: When I take a look at my territory, which is Treaty 4, I belong to that territory and I should have the right to vote within that territory. The right to vote should not be restricted to the Indian reservation, as it is now. I should have the right to be able to vote in the entire Treaty 4 territory.
Senator Carstairs: Therefore, do you take your definition of ``residence'' from your treaty and not from the actual location of the band?
Mr. Daniels: Our treaty 4 territory is the territory in which I live and it just so happens that our reserve is situated within that territory. Regardless, I should have the right to vote. Even though I live in Regina, Regina is still a treaty 4 territory, so I should still have that right to vote.
I should not have to go to court in order to fight for that right. That right should be given to us by those who are the leaders of that reservation.
Senator Carstairs: Finally, what about the case where there are no treaties?
Mr. Daniels: In those cases, you have individuals like John Corbière, who had to go to the Supreme Court to win his right to vote. I am glad I did not have to go to the Supreme Court to do that. I do not think we should be treated as outsiders within our own territory.
Senator Carstairs: Mr. Chair, I will go in the second round in order to defer to others.
Senator Dyck: Mr. Daniels, we just discovered this evening that we are related. I am his aunt, and from the same territory. I am a member of the Gordon First Nation and am an off-reserve Indian. I vote in the Gordon First Nation band elections.
My experience is apparently quite different than yours. Senator Carstairs was asking about the CAP elections. I have never been contacted by CAP with respect to elections. I do not know when the elections are held or whether I am eligible to vote. Those are the same sorts of questions you were saying that applied to the custom code elections. I could say the same thing about the CAP elections. Although we are related, we are kind of on a different side of the fence here, I think.
Within my immediate family, there is a very strong emphasis about treaties. You mentioned it, as well. Treaty rights allow Treaty 4 people to set up their own system of self-governance. Therefore, it is hard to have your statements with regard to custom code elections being inappropriate because, with your treaty right, you should be able to set up your system of governance as you so choose.
You are saying you thought the custom code elections were a violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and maybe the UN Declaration on Human Rights. How could they be a violation?
Mr. Daniels: As I mentioned earlier: Yes, we are in different situations. As a matter of fact, I will be requesting membership to Gordon First Nation because all my family is on Gordon and it is difficult for me to go to my Kawacatoose First Nation. I am more comfortable with Gordon because all my family is buried in Gordon. I very much want to be part of Gordon First Nation.
Unfortunately, I live off-reserve and I am stuck in that dilemma. I hear your concerns regarding the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. I will give you an example. In Regina, we have what is called the Aboriginal Peoples' Council of Regina. They are a local affiliate of the Aboriginal Affairs Coalition of Saskatchewan, which is the provincial body. Those who want to get involved in the political processes in terms of voting or leadership within the urban centres or in terms of voting for provincial leaders, do so by becoming members of the Aboriginal Peoples' Council. Then you become a member of the Aboriginal Affairs Coalition of Saskatchewan. This gives you the right to participate in the election process of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples because the Aboriginal Affairs Coalition of Saskatchewan is a provincial-territorial organization of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples.
I lived in the city and I was very upset about the way Kawacatoose First Nation was treating my people. I decided that, for me to change that, I had to get into another political arena in order for me to come to this political arena, in which I am able to bring my concerns forward. That was how I could change those attitudes and that discriminatory way of the Indian Act being imposed upon those of us who live off the reserve. In this way, we can begin ensuring that all our peoples who do live off reserve benefit from the treaty rights they belong to.
I do not know if I am answering all your questions at the same time, but I am doing my best. If I do not answer something, I will try to get a response to you.
Senator Martin: Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Daniels. I have a question regarding your relationship with the Assembly of First Nations, AFN. I see how you have a different constituency — you are representing the off- reserve Natives and others — and that should be a very good working relationship.
What is the relationship between CAP and AFN at this time?
Mr. Daniels: At this time I have a very good relationship with Phil Fontaine. I try to have a good relationship with all national Aboriginal leaders. We all have legitimate concerns we need to bring to the table and we all need to support one another.
Senator Martin: I am glad to hear that.
In terms of addressing the right of the off-reserve First Nations people in being able to participate in band elections, what conversations have you had with them in trying to advocate for the rights of the off-reserve First Nations people?
Mr. Daniels: We have not really had any kind of conversation with AFN regarding those issues. It is important that we do in the future. It would be wise that all national groups come together to discuss the Indian Act and how we can all come together to formulate and bring some solutions to the table. That is very important. I do not see anything wrong with that.
Senator Martin: At this time, what would you suggest as the most effective means of fixing this issue? If you were to have that dialogue, what are some key things you would highlight?
Mr. Daniels: I would put out an invitation to develop an Aboriginal summit on the Indian Act and get the views of all chiefs, all congress leaders and all Native women leaders across the country. These issues are affecting all of us, and it is important that we actually sit at the table and begin putting the solutions on the table. Otherwise there will be chaos when Supreme Court decisions change the Indian Act every now and then. It is important that we all try to work together to bring those solutions to the table and deal with them.
Senator Martin: Do you have a fixed term of office for your leadership?
Mr. Daniels: I am the interim national chief for one year. There will be an election for national chief in the fall. I will step back to national vice-chief to finish my three-year term.
Senator Martin: Is it a three-year term?
Mr. Daniels: Yes.
Senator Lang: My understanding is the Assembly of First Nations did not support the First Nations Governance Act, the former Bill C-7. Is that correct?
Mr. Daniels: I am not sure.
The Chair: Are you referring to the self-governance act that never went through?
Senator Lang: Right.
Are you familiar with that?
Mr. Daniels: I am not familiar with it, but I am sure we have that documentation.
Senator Lang: I want to go to something else that you spoke to in your opening remarks, and that is the question of custom codes. You said that there had been a review done by your organization of custom codes throughout Canada.
Can you provide us with a copy of that?
Mr. Daniels: Yes, we can send you a copy of those results.
Senator Lang: You said there were quite a number of custom code elections that did not allow off-reserve members to vote. Do you have any idea how many that would be?
Mr. Daniels: That would all be part of the package that you are requesting. That information is in there. We will provide that to you.
Senator Carstairs: In your comments, you said that of the $10 billion that is essentially spent by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, 90 per cent of it goes to reserve. I think it is fair to say to say that 90 per cent of that money does not go to reserve, because about 50 per cent of it stays within the bureaucracy of INAC across the country.
Having said that, very little of it goes to your people. Can you give us an outline of what kind of services you do receive from the Government of Canada?
Mr. Daniels: I can only comment on the situation in Saskatchewan, since I am a from there. Being a member of the Aboriginal Peoples Council and the Aboriginal Affairs Coalition of Saskatchewan, we only run one program, and that is NARDA. That is the only service we have.
Senator Carstairs: The Friendship Centres are paid.
Mr. Daniels: We have no friendship centre in Regina. We have tribal councils, but they get elected outside. For the services there, if you are a cousin or a relative of those who work in the tribal council, then you will get services, whereas I do not.
Senator Carstairs: That amazes me, because we have a very active —
Mr. Daniels: Saskatchewan has a protocol agreement that only recognizes the two organizations, the Metis Nation of Saskatchewan and the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. That leaves out a whole group of Aboriginal people, which is Bill C-31 Indians, non-status Indians and Metis people who do not belong to the Metis Nation of Saskatchewan. That whole group of Aboriginal people is completely left out of any kinds of services whatsoever.
Senator Carstairs: There are no health services; there are no prescription services; there are no dental care services. Nothing of that nature is available, is that correct?
Mr. Daniels: Our treaty card allows us to get those services.
Senator Carstairs: What if you are a non-status Indian?
Mr. Daniels: If you are a non-status Indian, you have to pay like everyone else.
Senator Dyck: You mentioned that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples had done a report and a review with regard to custom elections.
Mr. Daniels: Yes.
Senator Dyck: In that study, how many codes did you study to get an idea of what was being done?
Mr. Daniels: I am not sure; but again, we can provide all that information to the committee.
Senator Dyck: I do have a report here that looks like it is prepared by your group, called Justice is Equality. It looks like you have only sampled 60 of the custom codes in use. I guess there would be 330-some-odd codes available, but you were only able to see 60, which may not necessarily be reflective of the complete picture.
Mr. Daniels: I am not really familiar with that particular document, as it was done before my administration. I am still studying it. I have been in leadership now for six months. I have a whole desk full of information I am studying. I will have a look at that. Is that document recent?
Senator Dyck: It says April 2008.
It also indicates that you conducted focus groups with off-reserve status Indians — 10 focus groups attended by 100 status Indians. Does that include the youth group that you were talking about? You probably do not know.
Mr. Daniels: I was at the one focus group in Regina. The majority of the people in that group were youth and status Indians.
Senator Dyck: Again, the number sounds pretty small. If it is 100 in total or even 1,000 in total, that is not a lot compared to the total Canadian population of status Indians, which is probably about 350,000. It is not a very large sample on which to make pronouncements.
Mr. Daniels: I know it is not easy going into a First Nations group asking those questions. We could only get so many answers out of those leaders and those communities. Again, what is there is there.
Senator Dyck: Do you foresee trying to go back to this and expand this study or is this study complete?
Mr. Daniels: No. I am sure we will continue to work in that area to get more input by Aboriginal peoples living off reserve in this country. However, again, the resources are limited and we can only do so much.
The Chair: Senators, as you know, in regard to status and membership, the federal government announced yesterday that it would be bringing forward legislation to amend the Indian Act in response to the McIver decision that came out of the B.C. Court of Appeal. That will hopefully clarify who is status and non-status. It could clarify an awful lot because this is a landmark decision by the court.
Senator Lang: I want to follow up on the custom codes. If you do not have the information, that is fine. Following up on Senator Dyck's question, I think over 300 First Nations have custom code elections. Apparently the document says that there were 60 codes reviewed.
When your organization requested codes to examine them and have a look at them, how many First Nations refused to provide you with that information?
Mr. Daniels: I am not sure.
Senator Lang: I would like you to get it for me.
Mr. Daniels: I was only in leadership for six months and I was not part of that study. I came in in November of 2008 and that study was done in, I believe, April of 2008.
Senator Lang: I understand that, but I am asking you, as the spokesperson, if you could find out about the requests that were made and how many were denied.
Mr. Daniels: We probably could find that out.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: Where did the funding come from for this study?
Mr. Daniels: I am not sure, but INAC probably funded that particular study. Again, I am not too familiar with it.
Senator Lovelace Nicholas: The reason I ask is because I think you mentioned that you do not get any monies at all.
Mr. Daniels: We barely do get any monies; but when we do have opportunities to do these kinds of studies, we engage in them.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Daniels. You have taken several questions under advisement, and there will be a transcript for you to follow up on. It would be nice if the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples could supply the answers to the questions that were posed by senators, because it will help us formulate a comprehensive report when we are putting a report together.
Colleagues, this brings to an end this particular meeting. I would expect that we will see each other next Tuesday morning. If there are no other questions or comments, the meeting is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)