Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 10th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Your time has ended. We are on the five-minute round now.

We'll begin with Madam Neville, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and thank you all for being here today.

The discussion and conversation have gone in a slightly different direction, and I appreciate it.

We've heard a lot about consultation and the fact that consultation, in the best of all possible worlds, should have taken place with nations prior to the drafting of the bill. That has not happened. So we're now in a situation where we have the bill in front of us and we have to decide if and how we move forward. You've heard a whole array of options put forward by colleagues here today.

Assuming that we move forward with the bill and make a recommendation for a 12-, 30-, or 36-month transition period, or an extended period prior to implementation of the bill, how would you see that period being used? How would it be used in your communities? How would you see the government using that?

What we're doing here is not a consultation; it's an information-gathering process, from my perspective. But how would you see that time period being used?

[Chief Marcel Balfour]

Thank you.

I guess I should preface this by saying that since I was appointed chief, I've had a number of public meetings. Most of my decisions are made in formal meetings that are tape-recorded, like this proceeding now, and played on our local airwaves. I've also had about four or five general band meetings, involving the band as a whole, where people came to discuss particular issues.

When we discussed this particular issue—which was tape-recorded—and after people got over the initial information overload, they became very interested and engaged and wanted a continuation from the chiefs and councils of the discussion on individual versus collective human rights, and the larger context of governance, as well.

It was no mistake when I mentioned that prior to my being elected to office, there were real concerns with respect to the application of the rule of law and the way in which the leadership was doing certain things. And the way in which leadership does certain things, I think, is keenly important in being able to approach this particular issue.

If there were a consultation process after the fact—which, of course, I don't necessarily agree with—I would hope that it would first involve educating the leadership on what this whole process is about. I had the benefit of learning about this particular piece of legislation when I went to law school, but my colleagues on council haven't.

So engaging the leadership would be first, and then I think it would be reasonable to ensure that individual band members, both on- and off-reserve, were educated through a number of workshops and information sessions, utilizing various technologies, and stuff.

We've been asked to do certain things when it comes to the Indian Act, dealing with land, for instance, on which we have to have a referendum. And for Norway House, I think this would be appropriate under the circumstances.

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

Thank you.

Chief General.

[Chief David General]

My first comment is that it would be a tremendous achievement if in this piece of legislation, if it goes forward, there was the recognition of a first nations jurisdiction in this area--again, I underscore that would be optimum--that if we were provided with more time, whether it's 24 or 36 months, we use the opportunity to develop our own laws using the statements that have been provided as information in this whole discussion on the repeal of section 67. It would be evidence that a first nation has, on the ground, the best opportunity to make sure that any piece of legislation we agree upon is provided to and accessed by our memberships.

The other part of operationalizing something is making sure it's enforceable. I think a difficulty that first nations have had throughout history is jurisdictions coming into their territory, imposing the big footprint, and expecting compliance, but a lot of times it just builds resistance. If it's taken from a grassroots and up approach--consulting the people and letting the leadership hear how the people would legitimize this new fresh approach to the recognition of the repeal of this provision in the Canadian Human Rights Act--it would have a natural up-going and acceptance. You could build that acceptance from the ground up. The important part is that rather than imposing something, you nurture it inside and you have people arrive at the responsibilities that again, I go back to say, the Creator provided to us, that we have to look out for our brethren.

I think that's how we should use the time and the recognition that should be provided to first nations.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We'll move on to the government side.

Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I want to start by thanking you all for taking the opportunity to come here today. I find this always to be a very enlightening and frank discussion.

It's unfortunate that there is a five-minute restriction, as there are so many questions I'd like to ask you.

I'd like to start with Chief Balfour. You've given us some idea of some of the trials and tribulations you've had in your career to get to the point where you are. I commend you for your hard work and dedication to your people. Without explaining any of the details, if this legislation had been passed a decade ago, would human rights have made it easier for you to get to the point you are today without some of the interference from other authorities that you have experienced?

[Chief Marcel Balfour]

I'm glad you asked that question. Thank you.

Actually, absolutely not, and the reason is that it's individual in focus from the Canadian Human Rights Act. What I was doing as a representative of my people, as an elected councillor, was pushing for my duty to participate with the government. I was being prevented from doing that. If I were to make a complaint, it would be an individual human rights complaint, but I'm not exactly sure if those services would apply as an elected official anyway in my particular circumstance. Unfortunately, I had to use the Federal Court to be able to do that, and administrative law principles. I think Justice played it correctly and identified the larger issues that were there.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you. And I'm going to stick to Chief Balfour this round.

First I want to ask you if you're happy with the current coexistence of individual rights and collective rights in your community right now. Are you happy with the way they coexist at this moment?

[Chief Marcel Balfour]

Absolutely not, as the government requires us to discriminate, because we don't have enough resources to be able to provide for our people.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Then the answer is funding.

[Chief Marcel Balfour]

A large part of it is, but it's not the only part.

What I'm most frustrated with from the perceptive of Norway House right now, and especially after my information meeting of last week, is that people don't even know these fundamental basic rights. I'm starting from ground zero. But I do have the resources in my elders and in our history to pull that together, to be able to make it make sense in the community. There were a lot of questions. People were asking what this really meant, what does this act really do. Within the context of who we are as Norway House Cree Nation, all that needs to be dusted off and revisited.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

So would it be fair to say that through your consultations with the people in your community there is some general optimism for this legislation, although much more education needs to be done with regard to this?

[Chief Marcel Balfour]

No, it wasn't consultation that I did; it was a very last-minute information session I had with one technician from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs. It wasn't even from Indian and Northern Affairs, it wasn't even from the Canadian Human Rights Commission. But what I got from that was questioning how we can be consulting with somebody when we don't even know what we're consulting on. There needs to be very fundamental information sharing and an understanding and education first.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

You have about a minute and 15 seconds.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Perfect.

I'll ask my last question of you then, Mr. Balfour.

You mentioned the first nations notwithstanding clause to fundamental human rights. Can you explain this? This seems a little abstract, and I'd like you to define exactly what you're talking about with this idea and how it would be used in principle. All in a minute.

[Chief Marcel Balfour]

Yes, no problem.

I can't. My short answer is I can't. Because, in terms of looking at the law with respect to the Charter, it makes sense to me, but to be able to get into that type of discussion was what, to my mind, either the Canadian Human Rights Commission or somebody should have been doing over the last number of years. I asked for information on how this was discussed over the last 30 years, where are the reports with respect to communities--to be discussing some of these interesting issues. And I got nothing. The Manitoba region of the Canadian Human Rights Commission said there was nothing.

The process of consultation and the discussion of these issues is really about consultation among lawyers and consultants, perhaps with “representative” organizations, such as the AFN or NWAC or whoever, but it's not really fleshing that out.

So I can't, but that's one of the really important components of consultation. That concept and that stuff should have been discussed a long time ago. It should have been an ongoing debate and something presented to you, as parliamentarians, coming from a really fruitful tearing apart and reconstructing of some of these ideas.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Before we go to the next question, I want to say I'm going to allow it to run over a little bit because we were a half hour behind in starting. So I'm going to try to break up that time between the two panels we have today.

We'll move on to Mr. Lévesque, please.

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

Welcome, welcome.

The interests of the first nations are of great importance to me; these are my brothers. It is clear that your culture and your way of seeing things are different from ours. My colleague asked you if you would prefer striking out section 67 in favour of discussions and negotiations with the government to adopt measures that would streamline the application of Bill C-44.

Some point to the fact that article 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is often referred to as a protective provision. It is said that the fact that the Charter guarantees certain rights and freedoms does not adversely affect ancestral rights and freedoms flowing from treaties or other similar documents. Moreover, section 35 of the Constitutional Act, 1982, acknowledges and confirms existing rights.

Grand Chief General, you have been well advised by Mr. Powless. For the good of your nations, do you think that recommending delaying the application of the act while negotiations take place with the department or the government with a view to mitigating certain difficulties would be better than running the risk of having a majority government? Such a government could at some point enact the legislation as it stands currently, and this would give your nations nothing, aside from more difficulties.

[Chief David General]

Thank you, Mr. Lévesque, for the question. You present us with a whole Pandora's box of possibilities.

I'm very fortunate to have Richard Powless here and a number of my council, who have engaged in this whole discussion of Bill C-44. They're up here on the Hill.

I think that if we were to move forward with this piece of legislation--again I would hold up the jurisdiction as being the major achievement--in the time that you have as the government, I think maybe that would provide some peace of mind. But in the larger scene, I think the wisdom would be that we should take a step back, look at all that's been achieved right now, and realize that maybe we are again--I'm probably saying nothing that hasn't been said before--moving too fast with this. We're trying to address it too soon. There needs to be more discussion. There needs to be more information. As for talking about implementation and not knowing what the impacts, negative or positive, are going to be, as a leader, I feel that providing endorsement for continuing with the process would be a foolhardy approach.

Although one alternative may be to put jurisdiction and a longer timeframe in an amendment to the wording of the legislation right now, I think all 633 first nations need more time on this.

I can tell you, and I won't take too much time, that Six Nations is the largest first nations group, and I'm very proud of the capacity that we have, the minds that we have to put to this item, but even that is not enough. I have tremendous respect for Chief Balfour and his community and other communities across the country who do not have the time and have not had the time to put minds to this issue.

By saying we should move forward, I would be doing them a disservice. We all need more time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

We'll now move to the other side. We'll start with Madam Hinton, please.

[Betty Hinton, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Thank you very much for the opportunity to ask a few questions. My colleague Mr. Blaney is going to share his time with me.

I have been listening very carefully. Although I have not been a part of this committee, I did spend a number of years previously working on this very issue.

What I wanted to assure you of, Chief Balfour, is that I spent two years dealing with only this issue, and I spoke with aboriginal people across this country. I was in sweat lodges. I was on back roads. I was in reserves. I was meeting people in restaurants, wherever they cared to meet, to get feedback. Part of that feedback was on matrimonial rights, property rights, education, hierarchy within aboriginal bands, and the effect it had on aboriginal peoples.

Granted, I did not speak to a single chief. That wasn't my job. My job was to speak to band members only, and that's what I did.

That information was compiled. And now that we're in government, I fully believe that everything that I gathered over those two years is being used in this piece of legislation.

So thank you for the opportunity to listen today, and thank you for the opportunity to address you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Blaney.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to my colleague.

Good afternoon and welcome to the committee. I wish to thank you for being here. We have been studying this bill for a few weeks now. We have had the good fortune, and I would say privilege, to hear from several witnesses such as the First Nations Assembly, the First Nations Assembly of Quebec and of Labrador, Chief Fontaine and Chief Picard. There is a great sense of agreement in all of the comments that have been brought to us.

Grand Chief General, I would be remiss in not commending you for your work and your presentation -- which we unfortunately did not hear in its entirety because of a lack of time -- as well as for the brief you submitted, which very clearly outlines your opinion.

You underscored the importance of balancing collective rights and individual rights. You also talk about your concern over aboriginal rights should this act come into force, you say that you need time to measure the repercussions it will have on your communities.

Grand Chief General, your document talks about the 633 first nations. Throughout Canada, there seems to be a gathering consensus.