Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 29th, 2007

[Chief Lynda Price]

Thank you. I appreciate your congratulations. It was a unique experience, for sure.

What we're hoping for here is that we would probably take time to look this process through thoroughly. With every process, we need to have an opportunity to review it. I know that in certain cases this is the question that I had in the back of my mind as well. Having been a school trustee for many years, and understanding that we are dealing with unions and other people who have interests in providing services to us, we have to make sure we don't display discrimination against people. There has to be a balance. I believe our communities are able to do that. So far in my reign as chief, I have seen that all of the policies and procedures we've adopted so far at the council table make sure of that.

I know it's very difficult in rural communities, especially one such as ours—which is considered a wilderness community to a lot of people in Victoria—to find capacity and to find resource people to come in to work for us. A lot of times those positions are filled by non-native people, and most of our communities certainly understand that. However, at the same time, we have to try to build the capacity of our community members, so whatever process we develop will ensure that it doesn't discriminate, because the last thing we want to do is infringe on somebody's rights. For us to say we would be doing that would be inappropriate, and I have to say that is something we would hold high.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I don't think you answered the second part of my question.

[Chief Lynda Price]

What was the second part?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Maybe you did, in terms of whether this has been floated past the Canadian Human Rights Commission, in terms of getting the response from them as to whether it could potentially create some problems.

[Chief Lynda Price]

No, it hasn't.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

Mr. Albrecht, these are the result of legal opinions. We haven't had discussions with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Our concern is that these would be incorporated as part of rights as opposed to legislation. If they were incorporated into the legislation, we believe they would have greater strength.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Chief Price, you commented about the thirty years and the fact that there really wasn't consultation going on during that entire time. I think we all acknowledge that. Could you describe to us what adequate consultation might look like? I know we all want to do as much as possible.

You said you were a trustee. I was too. Obviously you can't always talk to each teacher or each person involved before you implement a new policy, so how would you envision adequate consultation?

[Chief Lynda Price]

That's something we're wrestling with right now in the province. I sit on the leadership council for the province and I work with the ministries. Right now, we're working through a consultation and accommodation framework. We have a joint working group on that.

That takes some time. We haven't come up with the template or the framework as of yet, but we understood that when the Delgamuukw and the Haida cases were completed, the policy that existed in the province for consultation wasn't working adequately. It wasn't working for the province, and it wasn't working for first nations. We needed to address how that would work better.

What we did was set up this working group to address this issue, and we're in the midst of it right now. We hope to get it done here fairly soon, and we'll probably be able to share that template once it's done.

As I said, it does take time. We don't have all the answers yet, but we do know for sure that there has to be a proper consultation process, to ensure that all of our views are noted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Do you think that template you're talking about as far as consultations are concerned is going to have to stand the test of the courts in order to determine what is adequate consultation? Do you really think that once you get this template, that's going to be the end of it?

[Chief Lynda Price]

As the judge says, we're all here to stay. What the province and the first nations in British Columbia are trying to do is stay out of the legal system as much as possible. Whatever frameworks they develop are to ensure that we do stay out of that process. Certainly that's our goal.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

So the idea is to get mutual agreement and consensus and then move forward. Okay. I just wanted some clarification on that. I didn't want to take any time from the next speaker.

[Candice Metallic]

May I comment on your question?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Certainly.

[Candice Metallic]

The development of the policy is only going to be one aspect. That policy is going to have to be implemented, so determining whether the policy is going to be subjected to the courts is going to really rely a lot on part of the way it's implemented by the provincial government and by first nations.

The development of the policy is excellent, and doing it on a joint basis will likely prevent some of the challenges to it. But that's only one part of it, because it still has to be implemented as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

But that would reflect on comments about best practices and reasonable expectations for services, because you're going to be dealing with those too. Will those be tested by the courts, or are we going to try to determine them through negotiations with your communities or with the Government of Canada?

I'm taking more time here. I'm being unfair.

[Chief Lynda Price]

I would like to make a last comment on that as well.

It's more productive and beneficial for all of us to spend the money doing this process, versus ending up spending it in the court system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

The Bloc, please, and Mr. Gaudet.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am very happy to be with you this morning, replacing one of my colleagues who is out of town. I have a suggestion to make that I have not discussed with anyone.

Mr. Fontaine and Ms. Price, would you agree to your seven recommendations being included in Bill C-44? What argument would you present so that we could include them?

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

There are a couple of points, and Chief Price or Candice may wish to add to my comments.

We're dealing with the human rights of individuals, as well as the collective rights of first nations people. As we said earlier, we need to strike an appropriate balance between the two.

Given the important value we place on human rights here, domestically as well as internationally, we need to take whatever time is necessary to do this right.

We see this as very important. It would be wrong to rush this. We need to take the time to do it right, because it affects individuals and collectivities. We believe that if the seven recommendations were to be incorporated, they would serve the interests of first nations fairly.

[Chief Lynda Price]

I would say owet'se, which means yes, that's fine.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Ms. Price, could you talk to us a little about the non-derogation clause mentioned in schedule A, on page 15 of the French version of the document entitled “First Nations Perspectives on Bill C-44 (Repeal of Section 67 of Canadian Human Rights Act)?” I can't say that I am familiar with all these questions.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

The point was made earlier by legal counsel, and she may wish to reiterate those points.

[Candice Metallic]

I'd begin by referring back to the Constitution Act of 1982. When the document was being negotiated, our leaders of the day felt it was extremely important to ensure rights that were being discussed in the charter would not have an adverse impact on the aboriginal treaty rights of our people. They negotiated section 25, which means the interpretation of the Charter of Human Rights cannot be interpreted in a way that would have an adverse impact on aboriginal and treaty rights.

It's the purpose of a non-derogation clause. First nations people in this country have individual rights, but they also have collective rights that are constitutionally recognized and constitutionally protected.

The purpose of a non-derogation clause is to ensure that whoever is adjudicating a dispute about discrimination will be able to take into consideration the distinct and unique nature of aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations people in the consideration of the dispute at hand. It's essentially what the purpose of a non-derogation clause would be.

When the Canadian Human Rights Act is brought to bear on an individual's rights, it could be looked at in a manner that's consistent with the constitutionally protective rights of first nations people generally.

[Roger Gaudet, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Thank you, Ms. Price.

That is all, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Blaney, please.