Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 3rd, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I open the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development of Thursday, May 3, 2007.

Committee members, you have the orders of the day before you. Today, we are continuing our review of Bill C-44, An Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The witnesses today from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs are Chief Viola Eastman; and Irene Linklater, director, research and policy development. From the MKIO, we have Grand Chief Sydney Garrioch; and Michael Anderson, research director, natural resources secretariat. From the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs Secretariat Inc., we have Chief Lawrence Paul, co-chair; and John G. Paul, executive director. From the Manitoba Southern Chiefs' Organization, we have Grand Chief Chris Henderson, who I think will be a little late in attendance.

Welcome to all the presenters. We'd like to have opening statements from each of you for close to ten minutes, then we'll proceed with questions.

We'll begin with Madam Eastman or Madam Linklater, whoever will present the submission.

[Chief Viola Eastman, Canupawakpa Dakota Nation, Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs]

Perhaps I could ask for clarification. Is it only opening remarks or my whole presentation?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Opening remarks, or a presentation for 10 minutes.

[Chief Viola Eastman]

It's my 10-minute presentation, okay. That's good, thank you.

[Witness speaks in Dakota Sioux]

It's a great honour for me to be here today on behalf of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and Grand Chief Ron Evans. I'm here representing my people, and I carry with me timeless values, the teachings of my culture, my language, and the laws to guide me in my role as chief of my community and my role as co-chair of the AMC First Nations Women's Council.

Today I bring a message to convey both concern and optimism: concern for the limits of the draft legislative amendment as it is, which raises a range of issues for first nations people, and optimism that the recommendations spoken today are heard, listened to, and respond to our concerns so that improvements be made.

AMC's presentation seeks to honour the Crown. Crown-first nations relations recognize that we each hold benefits together with responsibilities in order to sustain lasting nation-to-nation relationships. Our nation-to-nation relations have been formalized by some of the nations by treaty and formalized by others who have not concluded treaty, because as Dakota nations we didn't sign treaties with the Crown.

Canada's legislative review must discuss a balancing of first nations' individual and collective rights on the issue of human rights, and full and meaningful consultation with first nations. First nation fundamental and natural laws include our world balance for the individual and collective in spirituality, culture, language, society, lands, government, justice, and all other relations. We are party to Crown and first nations law-making relations. To proceed otherwise is to repeat historical mistakes. Unilateral actions have ended in disasters. Canada's laws and policies for justice and human rights have not made positive change for both of us. This submission raises serious concerns and also brings ideas on ways and means to seek redress, to resolve differences, and to move forward.

Now I have the submission. Everybody has a copy of that. I'm going to turn to certain sections of our submission.

First of all, AMC is a politically representative organization of first nation citizens, regardless of their residency, whether they're living on-reserve or off-reserve or in rural areas in Manitoba. In accordance with the AMC constitution, the AMC grand chief, who is Ron Evans, is elected spokesperson by the chiefs of the 64 current first nation member communities situated in Manitoba by the vote of each member chief, who in turn is duly elected by the citizens of their first nations.

Treaties and continuing nation-to-nation relations exist in the spirit of coexistence, mutual benefit, and full respect. However, this relationship remains at risk due to continued unilateral actions by the Crown's federal department through the adoption of legislation and policies by its federal cabinet without consultation with indigenous first nations in Canada. Canada's unilateral efforts have failed miserably.

During our early nation-to-nation history and relations and treaty negotiations, the parties considered the question as to which nation's law would apply. The understanding of the elders is that each nation and their governments, the indigenous governments and the new Canadian government, would pass laws together, not against each other as adversaries. It is clear that in the beginning there was a true nation-to-nation partnership. These interpretations are based on oral history, documented recordings of treaty negotiations, court cases, and Canada's legislation.

I'll just skip now to AMC's position.

Man-made laws on fundamental human rights must be consistent with a first nation world view, for without acceptance they will not be successful. Canada's laws on human rights must be consistent with customary international law in order to be valid. Indigenous human rights laws that are consistent with customary international law cannot be extinguished by Canada and cannot be displaced or repealed by either the CHRA or the charter.

Notwithstanding that the CHRA and charter are Canadian laws, the repeal of section 67 requires free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous first nations peoples. AMC agrees with the Canadian Bar Association's observation that the application of the CHRA to the Indian Act should not prevent a full-scale and properly funded first nations-directed replacement of the entire Indian Act regime—this is linked to page 8 of my submission in the legal review—and should support the transition and the consultation for 18 to 30 months. That prepares a solid foundation for the first nations and the governments in terms of the Canadian Human Rights Commission administration of the act and the Human Rights Tribunal adjudicative functions.

AMC supports deferred legislation with a first nations consultation period of 18 months that prepares a solid foundation, with a six-month transition period to first nations and governments, on the Canadian Human Rights Commission administration of the acts and the Human Rights Tribunal adjudicative functions.

The interpretative clause must be part of the legislation, not a policy or guideline to the CHRA, to guide its application to the actions or omissions. Capacity-building and resources need to be confirmed

From there, we'll go to consultation.

AMC agrees with the findings of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. On March 9, 2007, it stated the following:

The Committee urges the State party to engage in effective consultations with aboriginal communities so that mechanisms that will ensure adequate application of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) with regard to complaints under the Indian Act are put in place following the repeal.

AMC developed an approach to consultation—set out in the position paper—that is meaningful and constructed in the context of equality and respect for both parties in all decisions, policies, and legislation that affect the Manitoba indigenous population and its lands, territories, resources, and communities. AMC is supportive of a consultation that adheres to free, prior, and informed consent relating to first nations peoples.

On human rights, AMC indicated its concurrence on many of the recommendations proposed by the Human Rights Commission report, recognizing that first nations have a unique status and constitutionally protected rights and interests, and that a statutory interpretive clause relating to the application of CHRA in a first nations context is required for both first nations individuals and the first nations governments.

With regard to implementation issues, the proposed federal amendment right now is short and vague, which raises a large range of issues of concern as to the meaningful implementation of the legislation intent as is.

I know at home the concerns raised by the First Nations Women's Council, of which I am co-chair, during the information forums on the perspective of first nations on matrimonial real property on reserves. They were not being consulted. These concerns, communicated to the Department of Indian Affairs minister in a letter of January 10, illustrate as well the need for a well-thought-out implementation.

As expressed in the March 5, 2007, letter from the AMC grand chief to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Manitoba first nations women gathering on MRP and Bill C-44 does not support the tabling of legislation without prior first nation consultation.

The AMC analysis in part reads as follows: “The scale of this fundamental change nationally requires immediate joint Canada-first nations oversight and ongoing collaborative review during the first 18 months, and phased stages during the remainder of the five-year period.”

Given the decreased regional allocations and operations of the department, there should be a financial commitment identified. Reliance on the CHRC to address all necessary implementation elements will overextend the role of the CHRC.

On aboriginal authorities, the meaning of that is silent. The term requires a definition specific to first nations institutions.

Capacity and financial support are essential for first nation governments to be able to establish that institution, and capacity and financial support are essential for first nations individuals. We require enabling development of an interpretive clause in consultation with first nations.

An independent body needs to be created to review the impact of INAC challenges that might negatively affect first nations individually and first nations governments collectively.

AMC supports the application of the CHRA to first nations and related institutions, with a transitional period of between 18 and 30 months in order to allow consultation on and enact the proposed interpretive provision; and preparatory actions to ensure that first nations and the commission have in place the measures necessary to do the following: effectively, efficiently, and quickly resolve complaints within 30 months; review policy implications for first nations; take preparatory measures required; and perform a legal review of the implications to the Indian Act itself.

Duty to consult. First nations participation will be included as a distinct and separate process that is first nation specific on any consultation processes generally, and consultation respecting the interpretive provision, to achieve a sustainable solution for all first nation citizens.

Collective and individual rights balanced. The amendment must not undermine inherent rights or abrogate or derogate from the constitutionally protected individual and collective rights. AMC supports consultation that will address the proper balancing of collective and individual rights through community-based solutions that strengthen first nations institutions.

The interpretive clause. AMC agrees with the AFN's recommendations that Bill C-44 be amended to include an interpretive clause so that the Human Rights Commission tribunal and court will be guided in their application of the CHRA to the unique collective inherent rights, interests, and values of first nation peoples and communities. An interpretive provision is necessary to more specifically guide an adjudicative analysis in order to strike an appropriate balance between individual and collective rights.

Confirmation of first nation institutions. Human rights are fundamental to first nation societies. Therefore the function of human rights institutions should be governed by first nation institutions and peoples jointly engaged from time to time.

In conclusion—I'm finally concluding—the AMC, on behalf of the first nation citizens and governments, looks forward to fundamental human rights access to all in concert with individual rights and traditional collective and constitutional rights of first nations people.

That's my presentation, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you, Chief Eastman.

I note that the next brief is in English only, and I want to advise our Bloc members of that.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Has Chief Eastman been advised that we did not receive the French version of her submission? Is this the document in question? It didn't seem to correspond to the references she mentioned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We'll distribute that now.

Thank you very much, Chief Eastman.

We'll move to Chief Sydney Garrioch. Welcome, Chief. We'll give you 10 minutes for your presentation.

[Grand Chief Sydney Garrioch, Manitoba Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin]

Mr. Chair, bonjour, good morning to everyone. I'd like to thank the standing committee for having us present in regard to proposed Bill C-44, an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

We did give a written submission to the clerk and we apologize for not having a translation. I'd like to introduce Mike Anderson from MKIO, as well as Richard Hart, executive director, Manitoba Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin, who is here as an observer.

We are representing the 53,000 first nations in the 30 northern Manitoba first nations communities as an MKIO presentation. I must say at the outset that the MKIO first nations oppose Bill C-44. MKIO does not accept that the Canadian Human Rights Act should apply to the review of the acts and decisions of the first nation governments, their people, officials, and our employees.

MKIO also rejects the principle that the Canadian Human Rights Commission or the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal should have jurisdiction over the actions and decisions of the elected leadership on behalf of their first nations governments.

MKIO wants to share four principles that are important to the committee's consideration of Bill C-44: the treaty relationship and the joint commitment to nation-building; our laws are in our language; Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin; and consultation and consent.

The treaty-making process acknowledges and recognizes our Creator-given sovereignty and authority within our traditional homelands. Each MKIO first nation continues its jurisdiction on the law-making process in accordance with its customs, traditions, principles and beliefs. MKIO first nations have also entered into other treaties and agreements with governments, including a modern-day treaty known as the Manitoba Northern Flood Agreement.

MKIO first nations and MKIO are working to fully implement the intent, the terms and provisions of those treaties and agreements and to establish the governing process and its structures provided for within these treaties and agreements. MKIO first nations exercise community decision-making processes based on our customary laws, culture, and beliefs. For example, the Pimicikamak Cree Nation and other MKIO first nations have passed very comprehensive laws regarding elections, development, passage of laws through direct community involvement, the management of lands, wildlife, and other things.

Collectively, the MKIO first nations exercises its authority of the Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin, which translates from the Cree language as “northern people's government”.

MKIO first nations cannot and will not accept that Her Majesty or the Government of Canada has or ever had the capacity to unilaterally alter or terminate our sacred relationships through subsequent domestic legislative and constitutional enactments. The MKIO first nations do not recognize that the Government of Canada acquired any rights through the treaties or Constitution of Canada to make or impose a system of foreign laws upon our people, whether through the courts, commissions, or tribunals. Her Majesty consulted with our nations in order to reconcile our aboriginal titles and sought our consent to share ancestral lands and resources with settlers.

Consultation must take place and our consent is required before changes to the terms of our treaties or the imposition of Canada's domestic laws will be accepted by our nations or our people. Consultation and consent are the binding principles of the treaties, and the treaty relationship can only be modified or affected through following consultations with the joint consent of the treaty signatories.

I will pass this to Mike, and I will finish with the recommendations on the last page.

[Michael Anderson, Research Director, Natural Resources Secretariat, Manitoba Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin]

Thank you, Grand Chief.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

In respect to Bill C-44 the Manitoba Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin must advise the committee that after analysis and review we believe Bill C-44 does not recognize the inherent sovereignty of the MKIO first nations as described by Grand Chief Garrioch.

Bill C-44 does not reflect the sacred and joint relationship established by treaties entered into between the MKIO first nation and Her Majesty's government.

Bill C-44 infringes, interferes with, and does not recognize the contemporary systems of government, decision-making, and community organization established in accord with the customary law, principles, values, and beliefs of the MKIO first nations and which systems we continue to exercise and develop on our own terms.

Bill C-44 does not recognize and leave room for the exercise in further development of first nation government authority, as reflected in the existing system of laws established by individual MKIO first nations, through government-to-government agreements involving first nations and through the continuing development of Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin.

Bill C-44 represents an unjustifiable infringement of rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982, in part through the Crown's failure to engage in a Crown consultation in accordance with the doctrine established by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Bill C-44 will impose Canada's vision of human rights and Canada's standards for reconciling human rights with government and corporate actions. It will arbitrarily narrow timeframes during which the elected leadership of first nations must prepare for consideration and resolution of complaints by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and tribunal. It will impose an uncertainty in first nation authority and community decision-making processes through the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal over matters that would otherwise be addressed by elected first nation leadership and through community-based decision-making processes. Bill C-44 will impose a review of customary laws, beliefs, values, and principles of first nations by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal without a statutory requirement to take into account how the MKIO first nations perceive individual and collective human rights as well as concepts of transparency, access, and accountability.

Bill C-44 also fails to recognize that a source of many human rights issues of importance to first nations arise directly from federal government policies, including the significant and persistent underfunding of social services, housing, and infrastructure that are administered under the authority of first nation governments and are beyond the capacity of first nation governments to remedy.

An example of this that I'd like to share is the Supreme Court's consideration of the critical housing shortage in first nation communities when it examined the case in Corbiere. The Supreme Court realized that in order to address the housing shortage sufficiently for first nation electors to go home and live on-reserve and vote would require instructions to government that the Supreme Court wasn't prepared to provide.

In order to reconcile that conundrum, it developed an analogous ground of aboriginality residence to recognize that it was not possible to resolve the shortage of housing on a first nation community within the current policy framework, and it developed an analogous ground for the determination of discrimination under charter cases. That's one example of many where the Supreme Court itself has been unable to visualize a pathway to reconcile many of the issues that may give rise to complaints that might be brought to the attention of the commission, and then from the commission to the tribunal.

We also would note that when the expert panel on water was considering the issue of the adequacy of resourcing for first nation water and waste water systems and was in fact instructed by the minister not to consider the matter of funding in their terms of reference, the expert panel persisted in its report to discuss that the Government of Canada must place a priority on adequately resourcing water and waste water systems on-reserve in order for adequate services to be provided.

Those are two examples we wanted to bring to the committee's attention in respect to this particular issue.

Grand Chief.

[Grand Chief Sydney Garrioch]

I further state that MKIO's approach is to seek resolutions where first nations governments and our citizens develop and exercise systems to protect the human rights of first nations citizens in accord with their customs, traditions, principles, and beliefs; to address and resolve the persistent inequities between the first nations communities and non-aboriginal Canadians in respect of access to basic community services that may give rise to complaints by first nations citizens; and to ensure that relationships established by treaties and agreements are honoured, upheld, and enforced.

Recommendations that the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development should report on and recommend are as follows.

First, the Government of Canada should honour its treaty and constitutional obligations by (a) recognizing the inherent authority of first nations governments and institutions established in accordance with the customary laws, principles, beliefs, and languages of first nations; and (b) recognizing that the distinct relationship between Canada and first nations is rights-based and is intended to reconcile the original aboriginal title.

Second, Parliament should reject the proposal that the Canadian Human Rights Act shall apply to acts and decisions of first nations governments and their officials and employees.

Third, the Canadian Human Rights Act should continue to contain an explicit exemption in respect of any provisions of the Indian Act or any provisions made under the Indian Act.

Fourth, the Canadian Human Rights Act should be amended to conclusively provide that it does not apply to first nations governments or any matter that affects or is in relation to the inherent authority of first nations or the application of the customary law of first nations.

Fifth, Parliament should recommend that the Government of Canada engage in consultation with first nations on means to protect and address the human rights of first nations citizens.

I want to further state that MKIO takes the position that the committee review process is not part of the Crown consultation process. The consultation must be done by government as distinct from Parliament, although Parliament may wish to monitor the Crown consultations.

Thank you for listening to our presentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We're going to move to Mr. Lawrence Paul or Mr. John Paul. Are you both going to speak?

[John Paul, Executive Director, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs Secretariat Inc.]

He's “L”, so I'll go first, as “J”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Okay.

[John Paul]

Thank you for giving us the time to come.

My name is John Paul. I'm the executive director of the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs, and I'm here today with our co-chair, Chief Lawrence Paul, from the Millbrook First Nation in Nova Scotia, to address Bill C-44.

Our organization represents 37 Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, and Passamaquoddy communities and one Innu first nation community, in five provinces, down into the United States, in Atlantic Canada, and in the Gaspé Peninsula of Quebec. Our organization shares a mandate to do research and analyze and develop alternatives to federal policy affecting its first nation members.

As you are aware, Bill C-44 seeks to repeal or remove section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which states, “Nothing in this Act affects any provision of the Indian Act or any provision made under or pursuant to that Act.”

Our position is that our communities don't support this as it currently stands. Our chiefs recently, in January of this year, passed a resolution expressing our non-support for the bill due to our serious concerns on its potential impacts.

Our chiefs' primary concerns are as follows.

No meaningful consultations have been held with first nations, as required by recent Supreme Court rulings.

It conflicts with principles in law, outlined in rulings of the Supreme Court, that protect our collective communal interests and rights.

It will have significant impacts on first nation governments in Canada. The Micmac, Maliseet, Passamaquoddy and Innu peoples have long-standing tradition, cultures, and laws and seek to protect and rejuvenate them. Any solution must take into consideration this very unique situation with our first nation governments.

The effect of the bill would make individual rights take precedence over collective aboriginal and treaty and other rights of first nations.

No interpretive clause is included in the bill. It does not reconcile individual versus collective rights.

With six months, the proposed implementation or transition phase is totally unrealistic and far too short.

First nations currently are underfunded and lack resources to manage this new exposure to serious financial liability or undertake measures to minimize potential risk. For example, first nations would face exposure to liability as a result of significant housing shortages, programs, and services for the disabled, land allotments or rights, membership rules, residency bylaws, and the provision of basic programs and services on-reserve to all residents, not just band members.

Examples include things like non-insured health benefits provided by Health Canada, including post-secondary student support provided by INAC.

There is a high potential for complaints to be brought by band members on the basis of various grounds with regard to the existing housing policies and other such decisions made by band governments. It's not likely that the housing backlog and these other issues are going to be resolved in six months.

There is no capacity development funding for first nation communities regarding the application or implementation in the bill. The bill allows for a six-month window of immunity. However, without a significant influx of additional financial resources to minimize potential exposure to risk of complaints, it is irrelevant whether the immunity period is six months or longer. Unless first nation capacity and other implementation issues are addressed before this bill is passed, first nations will be flooded with complaints, with no resources to effectively manage or address them.

It violates principles set out in the UN draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples on cultural genocide, and it will have many, many unanticipated consequences like those that came out of Bill C-31 and the Corbiere decision. And it's unclear about the constitutional impact of this repeal.

I'd like to turn it over to my co-chair, Chief Lawrence Paul.

[Chief Lawrence Paul, Co-Chair, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs Secretariat Inc.]

I bring greetings from the Mi'kmaq, the Maliseet and Passamaquoddy in Atlantic Canada. Good morning, committee members.

Our organization fully supports the recommendations made previously by the Assembly of First Nations in its submission on Bill C-44 to this committee, including that consultations are legally required. First nations have not been consulted on this bill. In order to be consistent with various court rulings, first nations must be properly consulted on the proposed repeal of section 67 of the CHRA and, more specifically, on the development of an interpretive non-derogation clause, on the potential impacts on aboriginal and treaty rights, and on implementation issues before any legislation is tabled to repeal section 67.

As for the development of an interpretive non-derogation clause, there should be no repeal of section 67 until a non-derogation clause has been included to protect the constitutionally protected rights of first nations from further erosion.

We should also address some of the implementation and capacity issues. There should be no repeal of section 67 until suitable arrangements are in place to provide first nations with adequate resources, mechanisms, and institutions to fulfill new responsibilities and manage these new risks.

And we should conduct a constitutional analysis of the impact on aboriginal and treaty rights. So there should be no repeal of section 67 until the federal government conducts an impact assessment to determine the potential impacts of that repeal on aboriginal and treaty rights.

The federal government should recognize and/or establish first nations institutions to consider complaints against first nations governments, agencies and institutions.

Also, the federal government should not proceed with any repeal of section 67 until an analysis of operations is completed.

So it's our position that the federal government should not proceed with a repeal of section 67 until first nations have been adequately consulted.

In respect of the proposed repeal of section 67, we wish to thank the committee for giving us this opportunity to express our concerns on issues with C-44, and we strongly urge you to seriously consider the significant legal and financial impacts of this bill on both the Government of Canada and first nations governments and not have it pass into law.

I have appeared before the standing committee on many occasions down through the years, going back to Lester Pearson, the Diefenbaker era, the Trudeau era, the Mulroney era, the Chrétien era, and now this other era. Our batting average so far, in coming before this committee and bringing our complaints to it, is zero. I hope this time we will go down in history as having our concerns on Bill C-44 heard, and that we will have an impact in having our concerns listened to before this is passed into law.

I would make a recommendation, personally, that if C-44 is going to be passed into law, it only pertain to our first nations people, our governments, chief and council, and our first nations band members.

We know that the fiduciary or trust responsibility, and the land set aside by Her Majesty through the federal Government of Canada, is for a band and its membership. We foresee many problems, many court challenges. We see more poverty for our first nations.

We have land: the British North America Act was enshrined in the Canadian Constitution by way of section 35. The first part of the federal statute called the Indian Act states that there is land set aside by Her Majesty, the Queen, to the federal Government of Canada, for the benefit of the band and its band membership.

I'll give you one example. If this bill is put into law, if a non-Indian or non-first-nation comes to the chief and council and wants a house on our first nation, and we say, “No, this land is protected by a trust and fiduciary responsibility by the federal government”, they will say, “Yes, it was, but now it isn't, so we're going to lodge a complaint against you to the provincial and federal human rights tribunals and take you there, because you're discriminating against us.”

These are the fears that we have, and I hope this committee takes into consideration these concerns of ours, because we do not have the resources or the financial ability to constantly fight these kinds of complaints at either the provincial or the federal human rights tribunal.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We have been joined by Grand Chief Chris Henderson. Welcome to the committee.

Would you like to give a presentation before we begin the questioning?

[Grand Chief Chris Henderson, Manitoba Southern Chiefs' Organization]

Yes, and thank you, Mr. Chair.

First and foremost, I want to apologize for my lateness. I had a prior meeting with one of the respected senators.

I'd like to say good morning to the distinguished members of the standing committee, and I of course want to say good morning to my colleague chiefs and to my colleague grand chief, Dr. Sydney Garrioch, who's also from Manitoba.

I won't offer too much by way of a submission, because I believe you've heard it all. My colleagues have offered compelling and eloquent statements, and I believe that is more than sufficient. Therefore, I will keep my submission very brief to allow for an exchange of questions and answers.

Within Manitoba, we have 66 first nations represented by three organizations. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs represents all the first nations of Manitoba, and then two regional bodies represent the regional first nations broken down by regions. Manitoba Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin, or MKIO, represents the northern first nations, and then in southern Manitoba the Southern Chiefs' Organization represents the first nations of southern Manitoba. I am here representing the southern first nations of Manitoba.

Concerning Bill C-44and the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, I would respectfully offer a view differing from that of our national organization, the Assembly of First Nations. I know they are in support of the repeal of section 67, but at this point in time I would be inclined to support the position and view and submission of MKIO, our northern brothers and sisters in Manitoba. They are rejecting Bill C-44 in its current form and composition. At this point in time I would also support that position on behalf of our southern first nations in Manitoba.

This is primarily because, first, there has been no meaningful consultation and allowance for accommodation regarding this proposed legislation. As well, if this bill were to be passed and enforced as law within Canada, I do believe and I do take the position that the negative ramifications concerning our inherent aboriginal and treaty rights would be far too great. I believe there has to be a delicate balancing act concerning the rights of the individual versus the collective rights that are held by our indigenous peoples in Manitoba.

At this point in time I would support the position of MKIO. The SCO, the Southern Chiefs' Organization, therefore cannot support Bill C-44 at this moment in time because of those two primary reasons.

Again, the first reason is lack of consultation and meaningful accommodation with those affected first nations that are purported to be served by the legislation. As well, there are the potential negative impacts and consequences on our inherent aboriginal and treaty rights, again concerning the individual rights and collective rights of our first nations.

I don't want to say too much more than that. As I said earlier, you've heard it all from my colleagues. I do appreciate the opportunity to be invited here by the standing committee. I say thank you, and I do apologize again for my lateness. Please accept my sincere apologies.

I look forward to the respectful dialogue between the distinguished members and my colleagues on this side of the table.

Thank you. Kitchi megwetch.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you, Chief Henderson.

We will begin our questions with Madam Neville.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Let me begin by thanking you all for very substantial and thoughtful presentations here this morning. I am going to be sharing my time with my colleague from Manitoba, if we have the time.

I have many questions, but I'm going to keep my questions focused on one area. Every one of you in one way or another has raised the issue of consultation and the lack thereof. How would you see a meaningful consultation unfold or take place? What would be a meaningful consultation prior to the introduction of such a piece of legislation, which is really a far-reaching piece of legislation?

The question is for everybody to make a comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Okay, then we will go from my left to the right. Chief Eastman.

[Chief Viola Eastman]

Meaningful consultation, to me, would be consulting with every community and the people and their first nations, because they will be affected by it. So it's consultation with members of first nation communities.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Locally?

[Chief Viola Eastman]

Yes.

[Grand Chief Sydney Garrioch]

The consultations from an empirical perspective are to provide the information for assessment. They review the information and discuss it among themselves, examine the matters with which they are confronted to know exactly what proposals are in place, and develop a dialogue. And if you need consultation, you'll get feedback of how to go about certain things.

That would be at the community and regional levels, and professionally as well. There are certain levels at which you need consultation for it to be meaningful. All the interest groups have to be informed as to where and when the consultation is going to happen.

Those are things that we want to express, from our perspective in MKIO, on consultation.

[Grand Chief Chris Henderson]

Thank you, Madam Neville, for the question.

I believe the standard of consultation has been quite rightly established by the hearings concerning the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. If that standard can't be met, I believe something similar should be considered and established.

I know in Manitoba another set of consultations concerning changes to the provincial justice system was taken back in the early nineties regarding the inquiry on the justice system concerning aboriginal people, the AJI. They did a decent job in terms of getting out to the communities, getting out to people's home communities, to engage people on their experiences with the justice system and what kind of changes they would like to see. Certainly the RCAP hearings undertook very similar aggressive hearings across the country.

So I would hope that the powers that be here in Ottawa would give due consideration to that type of standard of consulting, dialoguing with, and listening to first nations people.