Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 29th, 2007

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you.

Good morning, and thank you for being here. I will make my remarks in French.

I am pleased to see that the Assembly of First Nations looks favourably on the bill, accepting that you are telling us about the reservations you have and the improvements you would like to see. I have some questions, and some comments that I would like your opinion on.

In the document that you submitted to us, I noticed that you do not necessarily distinguish between the bill's impact on aboriginal people living on-reserve and its impact on those living off-reserve. Could you talk to us about the repercussions of the bill? Do you anticipate that the effects would be different depending on whether a person lives on-reserve or off-reserve?

You mentioned that Bill C-44, and the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, could require a significant amount of resources, or an increase in financial capacity. I am a little surprised by that request, because, as I understand it, independent aboriginal governments have not really experienced any particular increase in the number of complaints.

What is the difference between aboriginal governments and autonomous governments that would warrant additional resources?

Lastly, Chief Fontaine, your support in principle is surely based on your recognition that it is important to establish a new balance between individual rights and the collective rights of aboriginal peoples. This morning, you presented the case for ancestral rights very well. In my view, this is certainly a positive position.

Those are my comments and questions, and I would like to hear your thoughts on them.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

I'll respond to part of it, and Chief Price wishes to add her comments as well.

First of all, the distinction here is between on-reserve and off-reserve first nation citizens. Our position is that first nation governments ought to be able to extend the provision of good government to all of our people regardless of residency. In many situations, for example, you have tribal councils and first nation governments that provide education services off-reserve. There are tribal councils that have property off-reserve. They deliver child welfare support programs to communities off-reserve, and this is done in cooperation with provincial governments, sometimes by reference and other times by certain arrangements.

In terms of the application of Bill C-44, however, we're talking about the Indian Act. The Indian Act applies only on-reserve, so there's a distinction there that's the result of the Indian Act.

In terms of capacity, the demands on government--the federal government, for example--would be similar to the demands that would be placed on first nation governments to provide to first nation citizens. For example, in housing, in the case of access for the disabled, there's a real cost to this, and we're faced with a crisis situation right now. So someone could come to us or someone could file against the first nations government, and a ruling could be made that causes the first nations government to respond to this. If you don't have capacity, if you don't have the wherewithal, the decision could be meaningless. The person could be further jeopardized, because the resources and capacity would not be there in our communities.

I don't know how else to explain this matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We'll have a comment from Chief Price, and then I'll move to Madam Crowder for the last question.

[Chief Lynda Price]

I was just going to say that the Indian Act already causes discrimination to our people. There is discrimination, because when our people want services and they're not residing on-reserve because of lack of housing, that's discrimination. So the Indian Act itself is discriminatory against our members. I wanted to point that out with the off- and on-reserve issue.

You were surprised about the second issue, additional resources. It's no surprise if you come to our communities, and we invite you to ours. There are a lot of communities out there that don't even have the resources to build their own band offices. It's amazing, when you go to some of the communities. It's disheartening as well.

We were fortunate enough that we were able to generate a joint venture between the community and the government--the Ministry of Forests and the band--to set up a mill to employ 80 people in our community. In order to get there, we had to set up a road block. Isn't that sad for us to have to do that first? There's no need for that, and it's disheartening to me that we always have to fight for our way.

Without those resources from that joint venture, we wouldn't have been able to build a lot of the infrastructure, our community hall, our church. When we built those structures, we made sure there was provision for the disabled, but under the regime we have with the INAC system, the funds aren't there to do that. There's inadequate funding for capital.

I wanted to point out that we definitely need additional resources. You have to come out to our communities to see that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

No, there are no more questions. We have Madam Crowder, and then we're finished.

Madam Crowder.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I have just a very quick question. It's about the interpretive clause once again.

When the minister came before the committee, he said that section 35 of the Constitution is already in place to recognize the collective aboriginal and treaty rights, and this is probably more a constitutional issue. The minister feels this would protect those rights. I wonder if you could say specifically why section 35 will not protect the collective rights and why there continues to be that need within the interpretive clause.

[Candice Metallic]

I think the minister is correct that section 35 will always be there to protect and to promote first nations inherent and recognized and established aboriginal treaty rights. The interpretive clause is a tool for any adjudicator or judge who's hearing a dispute against a first nation government or another organization or federal organization. It's a tool to guide them in how to balance collective rights with individual rights.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

But the minister is saying that section 35 will do that. So what is missing in section 35?

[Candice Metallic]

Section 35 is not missing anything.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

So it's not strong enough.

[Candice Metallic]

No, I think section 35 stands on its own, but the interpretive clause doesn't flesh out the details.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Okay, so it's detail that's missing.

[Candice Metallic]

That's what the interpretive clause is there to do. It's there to serve the adjudicators or judges, to guide them on how those collective rights can be balanced with individual rights. It's more detailed.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Do you have any examples of interpretive clauses already in existence that have worked for other nations, that the committee might be interested in looking at? You suggested one. Are there examples where it's already in effect somewhere?

[Candice Metallic]

There are some self-government agreements that have included interpretive clauses. We did look at those when we were drafting the one that we presented to you. But of course that was specific to a first nation. We wanted to make the clause sufficiently broad that it would accommodate diverse first nation cultures and values, and laws as well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Thank you very much to the witnesses. I think it was really informative—at least it was for me, and I'm sure it was for the rest of the committee members—about the issues that arise from Bill C-44.

The committee has a list of witnesses that we're going to continue with. We have also advertised for submissions from aboriginal communities and individuals, which will be received by the committee. We are going to go through this process, and if at the end of our witness list the committee feels it hasn't adequately heard enough witnesses and had that input, we will extend the list of witnesses.

Thank you very much. We really do appreciate the time you have taken to be with us today.

We'll adjourn for four minutes.

[Proceedings continue in camera]