Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  As you know, we did launch a national aboriginal program, and that was prior to Bill C-44 being introduced. It took a long time to develop because we recognized that we don't have, and have not had, a relationship with many first nations because of the existence of section 67. We

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  If I have it right, certainly, yes, we are aware of some of the concerns, indeed, whether they are about the wholesale dismantling or about specific provisions. I know where some of the concerns may come, and we've been wrestling with how you would then balance.... Or where would

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Thank you. Quite rightly, the question was asked. Our concern about it, our understanding--and I'll get back to our understanding in a moment--was that some first nations do have the legal tradition or customary law and others do not, and they're different from one to the other.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  It's obviously a difficult question to answer, whether you could accomplish something like that under an interpretive clause. We remain of the view and we certainly hope that a resolution of the consultations and the discussions between NWAC, AFN, and INAC that are ongoing will l

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I appreciate that you're saying you think there's a clear answer. I'm not sure, because if there were no interpretive clause, then it might be that the collective rights could in fact trump the individual rights. If there were not an interpretive clause, it could be said that und

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  The reason for more time is for the passage. We're certainly not suggesting that the bill not be passed. As you know, the legislation, upon royal assent, has an immediate application to the federal government and federally regulated employers. So it's the application to aborigina

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Not really. It wouldn't say that these rights will trump, because in individual cases, what you always look to do in a balancing is to try to minimize the adverse impact on one or the other. You're looking for a middle, so it's the interpretation, hence the word. It's the overall

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  The interpretive clause would recognize the rights that are there, and how the commission, in considering a complaint, would look to a balance, how best to accommodate both so there's a minimum impact, but it would be an individual case. As was said earlier, the interpretive clau

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Other than that currently we have a balancing in the legislation already, through our section 15 in particular, whereby there can be a bona fide occupational requirement, or a bona fide justification that can support an individual discrimination.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  It is certainly a fair question and one of the reasons we're saying it should be the hybrid, to which end the legislation itself provides that there be the development of an interpretive provision that is a balancing of the collective rights and interests with individual rights,

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Yes, thank you. Certainly, it's true. Obviously sections 15, 25, and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 would have application. We're not saying that those are not sufficient. The reason there was a concern of having an interpretive clause, as the chief commissioner has indicated,