I appreciate the question.
I'd be happy to take this up with the other committee. There are about seven issues in there, at least. If you would bear with me, Mr. Chairman, I will try to pick it apart as best I can.
Government is not moving to fee simple land on reserve. That's not on the agenda. There is an initiative coming out of first nations country, lead by Manny Jules and the First Nations Tax Commission, looking at a form of property ownership and property tenure that would not be fee simple. The government is not going to pursue that unless there is some evidence of some first nations support in that area. It's an intriguing area that's being driven from first nations country. I certainly commend it to parliamentarians, that they inform themselves on it. We're certainly not trying to dump responsibilities on the provinces.
I was going through the tripartite agreements last week. The intention is simply to bring to bear the expertise and the networks that are in provinces on issues like kindergarten to grade 12 education, child protection, municipal infrastructure, and so on, because the only people who really know about that are in the provincial governments—not in my department. In working with first nations governments and institutions, we of course we have a significant responsibility arising from our core responsibilities, including funding. Bringing those three ingredients together does seem to cause some momentum and progress in these areas.
These are things that first nations would freely enter into, and if they don't want to, they don't have to. Nobody would be coerced into a tripartite agreement, or into dealing with the provinces if they don't want to. We come across less and less resistance among first nations communities to at least having conversations with the people who work in provincial governments in these particular areas, such as education, child and family services, and those sorts of things. If they don't want to, they don't have to. But these conversations are sometimes taking place by themselves, whether we invite them or not.
On the duty to consult, I have to go on the record that the section 35 duty, in the view of the Government of Canada, is fairly narrow. It's when the crown is thinking of making a decision that would potentially impact on treaty and aboriginal rights. That would include a regulatory approval, a land disposal, and things that directly impact on definable section 35 rights of a definable community. There is a lot of jurisprudence on that. It doesn't extend to every piece of policy, programming, or administration the government takes on—at least, that is not our view. I know there are different views in some first nations circles. As a matter of practice, going back decades, governments consult with first nations people on changes that would potentially affect them. Sometimes you get support, and sometime you don't. That's the history of reform in this area. There isn't anything that would come before Parliament where there hasn't been extensive engagement with some constellation of first nations groups. The art in it is that between the national and regional groups and the specific communities, what combination would you deem to be enough consultation?