Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 29th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I would like to open this meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on Thursday, March 29, 2007.

Committee members, you have the orders of the day before you. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 21, 2007, today we'll be looking at Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The witnesses before us today are from the Assembly of First Nations. We have National Chief Phil Fontaine and Chief Lynda Price.

Welcome to the witnesses.

The chair is going to run over on our time to make sure we have adequate time. We were only going to go to 12:30 p.m. with the witnesses and then we were going to move on to committee business. Is it the pleasure of the committee that I allow 15 minutes if we need it, because of our late starting? I see we agree to do so.

We will have the presentation from Chief Phil Fontaine. Thank you very much for your attendance.

[Chief Phil Fontaine, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson.

Greetings to all of the honourable members. We thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee.

I would also like to acknowledge Chief Lynda Price from Ulkatcho First Nation, British Columbia, who is with me; and Candice Metallic, who is legal counsel for the Assembly of First Nations here in Ottawa. We also have the honour of having Chief Maryanne DayWalker Pelletier here from Okanese First Nation in Saskatchewan; Chief Rose Laboucan from Driftpile First Nation in Alberta; Chief Sarah Gopher from the Saulteaux First Nation in Saskatchewan, not here; and Chief Ann Mary Simon from Bouctouche First Nation in New Brunswick.

They're all here to demonstrate their support for our submission before you this morning. They also will be scheduling time with the committee clerk to hopefully present their unique perspective to this committee sometime in the near future.

Today I'm especially looking forward to explaining AFN's position on Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. I was anxious to be here because I'm concerned that our position has been misrepresented in the press. So we see this as an opportunity to set the record straight.

First of all, there is no group in Canada that is more conscious and aware of the importance of human rights than our people. The reason is that we've had to fight for our rights every step of the way since colonization, and more often than not we have been shortchanged. More specifically, we have had to fight for our collective right to exist in our homelands, resisting numerous attempts by the Canadian government to destroy our culture--or cultures, more appropriately. The best example of that, of course, is the residential school experience. But you can add a whole bunch of other experiences: the Indian agent, the 1960s scoop of our children. The list is lengthy.

Governments have tried to deny us our treaty rights, aboriginal and land rights, and made a very concerted attempt to assimilate us. We've had to fight not only for our collective rights but for our individual rights, the rights to the custody of our children, rights to have access to fair employment opportunities and accommodation without discrimination, the right to vote, the right to be treated fairly in the courts. For example, we were denied the right to retain legal counsel to fight for our land claims until 1952. We have fought for our rights internationally for the past 25 years, only to have all of these efforts be summarily dismissed when the government decided that it would oppose the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The same government that voted against our rights internationally is now denying us our basic human rights to water, because water is a basic human right. We don't have access to quality, safe drinking water; decent housing; health; education; or natural resources within our own traditional territories.

Successive federal policies--and I'm saying successive, but most particularly this most recent budget--ensure that an unacceptable state of poverty within our first nations communities will be perpetuated for the foreseeable future, while government spends billions upon billions on the so-called fiscal imbalance. The true fiscal imbalance in this country is the imbalance between what the first nations receive from the federal government to meet our basic needs compared to what everyone else receives.

Let me explain here, once again. I've done so before, as you know.

Since 1996 the funding for core programs and services has been capped at 2%, but our expenses--the cost of living, the population growth rate--have gone up significantly, by 11.2%, while per capita expenditures for basic services in our communities have declined by 6.4%. We all know that the provincial and territorial governments have received a 6% increase, and that'll be consistent over the years. When it comes to health, the increases are secure, and the governments will review the situation seven years hence. That is not so in our situation.

In real dollar terms, this inequity has cost our communities about $14 billion since the cap was introduced over 10 years ago. The result is that existing federal policies prevent first nation governments from acting in the best interests of their communities, limiting their flexibility to plan and manage effectively and to make decisions for the future well-being of our children.

You see, I'm prepared to discuss this matter of the budget and the $9.2 billion--now $10 billion--and the argument that has been made that we're receiving an awful lot of money. No one makes that argument with all the billions of dollars that have been transferred to provincial governments; when it comes to us, the suggestion is there should be value for dollar. Well, that same proposition is not put to provincial or territorial governments. The transfer is made without question. But when it comes to us, it's an awful lot of money, and there should be value for dollar. That's completely unacceptable.

People should rise up and say that's unfair. Everyone should be treated fairly and justly. We shouldn't be treated the way we're being treated. We are seen as vulnerable and unimportant and as not making a difference when it comes to the electoral process--but darn it, we matter a great deal; we're integral to Canada.

This is our homeland. We were here first. We shouldn't be denied fair treatment. We shouldn't be excluded from being treated justly.

To say the status quo is a disgrace is an understatement. We look forward to being able to use the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act to correct these egregious discriminatory wrongs. For example, there is the $10 billion; people ignore the fact that there are 10,000 civil servants working to deliver programs to aboriginal people--10,000. Can you imagine the costs of that? Well, no one includes that in the equation when they're discussing how much money is being delivered for aboriginal people.

In fact, it's not $10 billion that reaches our communities; it's $5.4 billion of the $10 billion that goes to our communities. That is fact. We've analyzed all of the expenditures of the federal government over the last number of years, so there should be no attempt to try to convince Canadians that we receive too much money. The argument should be for more money. Canadians should be convinced that the situation we find ourselves in is completely and absolutely unacceptable in a country as rich as Canada.

We're not asking for handouts, not for a moment. We want to be real contributors to Canada's prosperity. That's what we want to be; that's what we want to do. We don't want to deny someone else their basic human rights--of course not. And any suggestion that we want to deny our people their basic human rights is completely false. It is a complete and absolute misrepresentation of our position and the true situation in our communities.

We recently launched a complaint at the Canadian Human Rights Commission to draw attention to the fact that 27,000 first nations children are in care because the government will not provide the necessary resources for preventive measures to support families and keep them together.

Minister Prentice is right when he says there are 9,000 first nations children in care, but that's with first nations child welfare agencies. There are another 18,000 first nations children in the care of provincial agencies. That's where we come up with the figure of 27,000, and these are only for those territories and provincial governments that keep records. Others don't keep such records.

From the residential school experiment to the white paper, from the takeover of our land to the dishonour of treaty rights, from discrimination on the provision of basic services to discrimination in accessing housing, we have learned that our very existence as people depends on our commitment to the preservation and promotion of our rights. Consequently, human rights, both individual and collective human rights, are the very cornerstone of our beliefs and values.

So you can see when the media and others suggest the Assembly of First Nations is opposed to the repeal of section 67 because we are opposed to women's rights--my gosh, those people are so off the mark. It is so completely untrue. It is a complete misrepresentation, a deliberate misrepresentation of our position.

It is against this backdrop that we speak to you here today. I'm now going to turn to Chief Lynda Price.

[Chief Lynda Price, Chief, Ulkatcho First Nation, Assembly of First Nations]

Dawhoja. My name is Lynda Price. I'm the chief of the Ulkatcho First Nation. Our community is located in the central interior of British Columbia. I also sit on the B.C. First Nations Leadership Council, working with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

I would like to acknowledge the first peoples who were on this territory. I would like to say thank you for allowing us to meet here today as part of our custom.

First and foremost, I would like to say that we support the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is about time.

Thirty years ago when the Canadian Human Rights Act came into effect, we were told by the then Minister of Justice, Ron Basford, that the exemption was only temporary. Well, 30 years seems to me to be beyond temporary. What was clear at the time and is still clear is that section 67 shields many discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act and other government behaviour that hurts and disadvantages us.

I would like you to know that when we are talking about 30 years, I think about the timeframe and my mom, who was only allowed to vote when I was one year old. So for most of her life she was not allowed to vote. That gives you some backdrop as to the timeframe. It was only after I turned one that my mother was allowed to vote. That gives you an idea of what kind of discrimination was going on.

Repealing section 67 and replacing it with appropriate legislation to protect our individual rights and collective rights will be a giant step forward. Getting it right will be the challenge.

There are a number of changes that need to be made to the bill to get it right.

First of all, Bill C-44 must take into account the relationship between the Canadian Human Rights Act and first nations self-government. This is because human rights guarantees will affect the way we govern ourselves. Aboriginal rights are unique. The courts have recognized this and the Canadian Human Rights Act must recognize this.

Second, within first nations communities, human rights must be in harmony with aboriginal and treaty rights while facilitating the preservation and promotion of distinctive first nations culture. As you know, the issue in B.C. has not been settled yet.

To meet these fundamental challenges, a number of critical components must be put in place. First, we must figure out how long it will take to make the transition from status quo to the Canadian Human Rights Act. And make no mistake, there will be a big adjustment. Also, there have been precedents set.

Just as Canada gave itself three years to make the necessary adjustments to comply with section 15 of the charter, so will Canada need sufficient time to undertake a review of their policies, procedures, and laws to identify discriminatory provisions and take the necessary remedial measures before complaints are filed. Similarly, the first nations also will need sufficient time to make the necessary adjustments to comply with the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Right now this bill that is being contemplated provides for only a six-month transition period. This is not long enough for the meaningful consultation and adjustment that will be required. A minimum of 36 months will be necessary to ensure that implementation measures are in place and the necessary infrastructure resources obtained, so that those who wish to make use of the act will have a real chance to succeed in obtaining the protection it holds out.

In an effort to ensure proper implementation, we seek an amendment to the bill that would provide for a joint Canada and first nations operational review to commence immediately and no later than 18 months. This is to identify the nature and scope of work that must be done and the amount of additional fiscal resources that will be required by first nations government.

Second, an interpretation clause must be included in the legislation to ensure that those bodies interpreting and applying the act in future cases will be guided by an awareness of our unique collective, inherent rights, interests, and values. Without an interpretation clause, our rights will be at risk. It would be ironic indeed if the result of Bill C-44 were to diminish or undermine our rights rather than enhance and protect them.

We've provided you with a draft interpretation provision at schedule B of our written submission. You should have that.

Third, a non-derogation clause must be included in the bill. This is essential if our established and asserted aboriginal treaty rights are to be protected when section 67 is repealed.

It is no answer to say that the non-derogation provision in section 25 of the charter is good enough, because it doesn't apply to the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is not good enough to argue that section 15 of the charter will come up in any human rights complaint and thus trigger the use of the section 25 non-derogation clause as the defence.

The fact of the matter is that there may be cases where section 15 is not argued; therefore, to ensure that aboriginal and treaty rights are protected, the Canadian Human Rights Act must have its own non-derogation clause. We are providing you with a draft clause as a proposed amendment to the bill at schedule A of our written submission.

Fourth, clause 3 of Bill C-44 refers to “aboriginal authority”, in the transitional section. We want to see this term removed and amended to state, for greater certainty: “any first nation government, including a band council, tribal council or governing authority operating or administering programs and services pursuant to the Indian Act”. That's for greater certainty, just to know who this is intended for.

Once these four amendments are made, the next step will be to secure the necessary federal operational commitments, so that the Canadian Human Rights Act can be properly implemented once section 67 is repealed.

First, the repeal of section 67 must be conditional upon Canada's committing the necessary financial resources within 18 months, establishing funding mechanisms to build the capacity required to implement the act at the first nations level.

The repeal of section 67 will create a host of new obligations for first nations governments, including increased administrative capacity to deliver programs and services on an equitable basis, substantive legal resources and capacity to provide legal, policy, and procedural review and reform to comply with section 67, and legal resources to review, defend, and prosecute claims.

Resources must be made available for the development of community-based dispute resolution mechanisms to ensure culturally appropriate resolution processes that will be consistent with our traditional laws and values.

Training resources will be required to ensure that adjudicators and other commissioned personnel have the expertise to balance collective and individual rights in individual complainants' cases.

Secondly, the federal government must also commit, as a condition to repealing section 67, to the establishment of an independent first nations human rights commission, to be operational by the time the 36-month transition period expires. This commission will consider complaints against first nations institutions, governments, and agencies.

Finally, the AFN would like to see the federal government commit to a communications plan to ensure that first nations citizens and government have sufficient information and resources to make use of the potential the commission will offer.

I would like to thank you, Chair Colin Mayes and honourable members. I appreciate the time you've taken today to listen to our submission, and I say cha nal'ya, which is “thank you” in our language.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you very much, Chief Price.

We will move on to the questions. Who would like to start on the opposition side? Madam Neville.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, National Chief, and to all of the delegation that is here today.

I appreciate your comments, National Chief, at the outset of the presentation. One of the issues that you've not brought up and I wonder if you would comment on is consultation, consultation that did or did not take place as it related to this particular bill, consultation that does or does not take place as it relates to other initiatives or lack thereof with this government.

Have the government members entered into any discussions with you or with any of the other regional chiefs on the potential impact of the repeal of section 67? I appreciate the recommendations that Chief Price has made, but have you had an opportunity prior to the drafting of the bill, to the best of your knowledge, to have input? And I would appreciate some comment on consultations overall.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

I'll very quickly respond with a partial answer to your question, and then I'm going to turn to Chief Price to complete the response.

Consultation is essential. We won't achieve the kind of body and mandate that we know our people deserve if we don't consult. We must. This is a responsibility and obligation that the federal government has.

Chief Price.

[Chief Lynda Price]

It's my understanding that the minister has stated that there has been 30 years of consultation on this issue. That's my understanding. But there has been no discussion on the repeal of section 67 specifically.

It's my understanding also that on December 13, 2006, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, which provides for the immediate repeal of section 67. Ideally, the federal government ought to have engaged in discussions with first nations prior to that. When I listen to this question, I think about this and I think about the processes that I'm accustomed to, and certainly these aren't proper consultation processes.

At a minimum, the honour of the Crown and the requirement for reconciliation of first nations and crown sovereignty imposes an obligation on the federal government to analyze the potential impacts of the repeal of section 67 on the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations people and potentially significant impacts on first nations communities before proceeding.

I say this as a leader. You just can't carry on business without proper consultation, because it has serious impacts on our communities.

However, when the minister appeared before this committee last week, it was evident that such an analysis was not undertaken. Rather, the federal government chose to defer review of the application of the CHRA five years after its application. Understandably, this raises questions among first nations regarding the depth of the Crown's honour.

It would be irresponsible for the federal government to proceed with the repeal of section 67. Simply put, it's unfortunate in our country for aboriginal people to have to take government to court in order to prove our rights. It is discouraging for me as a leader.

You have to recall that Delgamuukw in 1997 caused a lot of uproar. It caused provincial governments to put in place consultation policies. In 1998, the provincial government where I live put in a consultation policy. Shortly thereafter, the Haida decision in 2004 reinforced the importance of that issue.

Currently in B.C., the First Nations Leadership Council and the province are in a joint review of that consultation framework, because the policy they drafted and put in place is not appropriate. It doesn't work for the government. It doesn't work for first nations. So we're under a process to change that.

What do I see here at the federal level to accommodate those court cases? I guess that's the question I'd have to ask.

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

Chief Price, could you briefly outline the potential implications? I don't know your community, but what would the real implications be on the repeal of section 67 in your community? Could you give us some examples to make it more tangible and real?

[Chief Lynda Price]

As information for all of you, I'll give you a little background.

I'm located in a very rural community; a lot of people call it a wilderness community. We're in the interior of British Columbia, in Cariboo-Chilcotin. Our MP is Dick Harris. We're located 320 kilometres west of Williams Lake. It takes about four hours to drive there from the local provincial government office.

What I see here is that right now under the fiscal restrictions, as Chief Fontaine indicated, at a 2% cap for the last 10 years we don't have adequate funding to address O and M. We don't have adequate funding to provide for the basic needs of a lot of our community members. Basically, by introducing this at this time without proper preparation, we're adding more pressure onto the community.

Basically, that would provide more frustration for our community in the way of capacity development, more requirements to review appropriate procedure in order to address these new issues coming down in this legislation, and also to try to provide meaningful understanding to our community of what this means and to provide proper measures and processes for us to ensure that our communities' needs are addressed.

I have to mention that I was a school trustee in school district 27 for 10 years. Whenever the provincial government implemented any kind of change--for safety, regulation, or whatever--they would always provide us with resources to make that change. They would also provide an adequate timeframe in order to make that change. They wouldn't it impose it on us immediately. And I think it's out of respect that the province did that for their school trustees, who are our local governance over our school districts. It provided them with the decency to do that.

I'm sure all our school districts would have responded in a very negative way if something like this happened to them. I have to say that I use that as a comparison, because there are always measures you have to take on the ground; you have to have proper resources and funds and processes established to deal with the change.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Mr. Lemay is next.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Good morning. Thank you for being with us.

National Chief, ladies, I have to say how impressed I am to see so many women community leaders. It seems to me that there are relatively more women heading aboriginal communities than head cities and regional municipalities across Canada, or are members of Parliament. I congratulate you on your involvement.

National Chief, when Bill C-44 came before the House of Commons, my first reaction, having been a criminal lawyer for almost 30 years, was that finally aboriginal people were going to achieve equality with other Canadians. I have to say that my remarks were a little premature. I do not want my colleagues opposite to accuse me of a flip-flop. The expression is used quite often, but this is no flip-flop for me; rather, it is the result of considerable thought that began because I did not understand that collective rights are as important for first nations as the individual rights that have always been of prime importance for us. This is because, when we appear before a court, we are defending an individual against one system of laws or another. I told myself that if the Canadian Human Rights Act could at last apply to first nations, they would achieve equality.

I read your submission with great interest. National Chief, I have to say in all sincerity that I would like to have received it a day or two in advance. But even so, it reflects what you have said, and what several others from first nations have said in recent months. I find that interesting; no one can accuse you of making nothing but demands, because you provide concrete suggestions for us to consider.

My question is for the National Chief; Ms. Price may well be able to answer as well. If we pass Bill C-44 quickly, as the government is asking, what would be the worst impact, or the greatest impact, on the first nations that you represent?

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

First of all, the result would be an unfair imposition of something that's as significant and as important as Bill C-44. We would be treated unfairly, because we wouldn't have the same time consideration as was provided to the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments with the implementation of the charter. They were given three years, and we're being told that this must be implemented immediately.

Second, there would be an unfair burden placed on first nation governments, because we don't have the resources, we don't have the institutions, we don't have the wherewithal at the moment to be able to deal effectively and fairly with the provisions of Bill C-44, if complaints were to be registered against first nation governments. There has to be sufficient time to enable first nation governments, chiefs and councils, to be ready, to be able to respond fairly and appropriately to these provisions, even though we recognize that most of the complaints, much of the initial attention, maybe over a prolonged period, would be directed toward the federal government—most of the abuses of human rights have been by government—because first nations have been rather limited, if I can put it that way, in their ability to abuse their citizens.

Take, for example, water. The suggestion has been made that it's somehow less than transparent, irresponsible, and non-accountable chiefs and councils who have caused the crisis situation with safe drinking water not being accessible to our communities. Well, we didn't pollute our waters. We didn't cause our river systems, our lakes, and our streams to be polluted, but we're being held accountable for that.

On the inadequate housing situation—let me put it fairly and properly, the housing crisis in our communities—the expectation and the demand, in fact, would be that we make appropriate provisions for the disabled. We're not in a position to be able to deliver the goods on that.

Concerning Bill C-31, at present there are at least 60 cases before the courts because of Bill C-31 and its unfair provisions that deny many of our people the right to citizenship in their nations. There are 60 cases. I think the government knows it will probably lose all 60 cases, as these are charter violations clear and simple.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Do you have no more questions?

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Madame, you can answer, and be concise. I have to watch the clock, Ms. Price.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Why?

[Chief Lynda Price]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just have to reflect on history. When I look back to 1982 and the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution, I think about late Prime Minister Trudeau and about the time he ensured that there were proper meetings set up with the chiefs across Canada. I watched the video Dancing Around the Table, and I have to say that when I look at that video and compare it with what's going on today, there's been quite a change.

The recognition of our rights was entrenched in the Constitution, and that came as a result of that meeting. It was a meaningful process that took time for the government of the day to understand our culture—that we opened up with prayer and that we had our ceremonies—and to honour and recognize that; to recognize the culture of aboriginal people and not deny it.

It's discrimination to deny our culture. I have to say that when I was in university and I watched that video, I was really quite upset with the Prime Minister, because he rather disrespectfully did things that were inappropriate. But I have to say that today, meeting with the government members here, things have changed quite a bit. It's all about building relationships.

We have to be recognized for our rights. In order for us to ensure that we move forward with this initiative, we have to protect those rights. We have to ensure that there is provision to protect our aboriginal rights and title.

I wouldn't be willing to move forward with this initiative if there was no provision. It was made in the past and it should be made today. It's as simple as that; I don't have to further expand.

But yes, there will be financial, fiscal implications on our community as a result of the way it's currently looking.

I'd like to thank you for that question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Madam Crowder, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank National Chief Fontaine and Chief Price for coming before the committee today, and the other chiefs who have come to witness today. I also want to thank you for your very concrete suggestions for how this legislation could be changed and what kind of processes need to be in place, because I think they're very helpful.

I actually want to address a particular aspect of what's been put forward on this bill. I think it's important, because I think there's either a misunderstanding or an attempt to mislead. I would hope it was a misunderstanding.

My understanding of this bill is that it repeals section 67, which allows people to file a human rights complaint under the grounds of the Indian Act. Yet when the minister came before the committee the other day, he said that this repeal of section 67 would allow us to have a country—I'm paraphrasing here—such that, whether it's in the education system, the health care system, allocation of resources within the community.... He was implying that this repeal of section 67 would allow community members to file complaints about education and health.

We can see from the complaint that the Assembly of First Nations has raised around child protection that there already are mechanisms that allow first nations to appeal decisions made by governments that violate their human rights. There are a number of other court cases, which our researchers kindly identified, in which people have been able to proceed on human rights violations already.

I wonder if you could comment on what specifically this repeal of section 67 will give communities access to, if there's a due process in place that people agree to.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

Let me first conclude my response to the previous question about how this whole matter would affect first nation communities. I talked about Bill C-31. I want to conclude my response to that, and then I'm going to turn to Candice Metallic to speak to your question, Jean.

When Bill C-31 was introduced, it was to correct a wrong that had been inflicted on women primarily. It was heralded, and everybody was all excited that finally there would be justice done. When it was brought to us, we were told that as a result of Bill C-31, no first nation community would be worse off. What happened is that there was this unfair burden imposed on first nation communities. In fact, with the overwhelming numbers of our people who were reinstated, we just couldn't deliver on demands related to housing, education, health, and land.

In fact, Bill C-31 is a termination bill. That's what it is. So it wasn't what we were told it would be when it was brought before us in 1985. In fact, just about every first nation community is worse off as a result of Bill C-31. We have a housing crisis. We can't deliver safe drinking water to our communities. People can't access quality health care.

So it's an unfair burden that has been imposed on our communities, and we don't want the same thing to happen here.

Candice.

[Candice Metallic, Associate Legal Counsel, Assembly of First Nations]

Good morning.

I would begin by answering your question with the very first principle, that the charter of human rights applies in any event of the Canadian Human Rights Act. That will always give every citizen in Canada an avenue to raise complaints of discrimination against any government organization or agency whatsoever.

What the Canadian Human Rights Act does is provide a more affordable way for people to bring complaints, because it's more a dispute resolution process than it is a litigious process. However, we know from past experience that the Canadian Human Rights Act is not inexpensive itself either. It does require the organization to put significant legal resources forward to defend itself, and it does allow the complainants a great deal of flexibility and affordability in bringing these complaints forward, but it's the first nation government, nonetheless, that will have to do the legal research that's required to defend their position.

We suggest that the interpretive clause should be within the statute itself, and that will enable first nation governments to say we're doing this because it's in accordance with our traditional laws, our traditional values, the practices that our communities have come to adopt over the years. It's a complete defence to any allegation of discrimination. Not that any allegation of discrimination would be without merit, but at least the interpretation clause gives it a way to balance the individual rights with the collective rights within the context of the first nation itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

You have exactly one minute, so be concise.

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

I want to come back to Bill C-31, and I want to thank National Chief Fontaine for completing that answer, because that would have been my next question.

The only other comment I want to make about Bill C-31 is that, in addition, my understanding was that the timeframe that communities had to access additional resources was fairly narrow. By the time many communities were aware of whatever additional resources were available, as minimal as they were, the timeframe had already lapsed, and I think that placed an undue burden on communities as well.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

It did—for example, with housing. The way housing is delivered to first nation communities, you develop these lists. In many communities, because of the crisis situation that exists—there is a backlog of approximately 80,000 houses needed to catch up—that list has been growing and growing. If the community already had a list, Bill C-31 people who were reinstated just went to the bottom, and the pressures just grew and grew on our communities.

That's why the situation exists as it does. It's not because chiefs and councils or communities are not transparent or don't manage well or are not accountable. It's just all of these provisions that have been introduced without due care in terms of ensuring that communities develop the capacity. We end up in the situation we're in, and we're cast then, as a result, in a very negative light. It's just so completely unfair.

It's not that we're without error or mistakes. We are like any government. What one has to do is look at the situation now in the business community and in governments and all of these other major interests. They make mistakes, but the entire community is not cast in a negative light as a result. But if we have one mistake in one community, lo and behold, every first nation community is the same way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

I'm going to turn it over to you, Mr. Bruinooge. Are you going to speak?

Oh, Chief Price.