Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for coming before us today.
I want to take this from the theoretical to the practical and give you a specific example.
In 2004, the Auditor General did a report saying that the K to 12 school system on reserve was in a lot of trouble, and the department was going to respond with a framework agreement and a policy agreement. I understand that the policy work is essentially stalled and that the collaborative funding formula process that was ongoing has halted fairly recently as well.
When the minister came before the committee in March, he talked about the repeal of section 67. He said:
That's why I think that the repeal of section 67 is so important, because we want a country where all citizens are in that position where they can call upon governmental authorities to defend their actions and to defend—whether it's in the education system, the health care system, allocation of resources within the community—decisions by governments and ministers of the crown.
Now, in the department's own briefing documents, they highlight a huge inequity. They say, “Based on the above described analysis, there is a national comparability funding gap of $64 million in the band school system for the year 2004-2005.” So in the department's own material, they acknowledge that there are some inequities.
The bar association, when it came forward, said there could be an inadvertent effect from taking apart the Indian Act without any real transparent process. Given that the department says that, for example, band schools are seriously underfunded, I could anticipate that we could get appeals. And the minister says that the repeal of section 67 is a mechanism to deal with inequities in education.
Have you anticipated or examined circumstances where you could anticipate a complaint under the tribunal—based on the department's own data that there are inequities—against the government, from either band councils or band members who feel they don't have access to education like other Canadians do?