Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Yes, I think you are. Mr. Langtry might have something to add.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Thank you. Just as a recap of it, the language of balance is something we are recommending be in the bill. So it's a question really of—

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  This leads us to the interpretive provision discussion and your question. Commissioner Langtry is going to respond.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Of course all the questions are excellent, and this one is particularly interesting to us. We would envisage developing core principles that could be implemented in different ways in different communities. It would be a litmus test of core principles, not a rigid interpretive p

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Thank you. First of all, in terms of an interpretive provision, another core use of it, of course, is that it helps the commission interpret when complaints come to us. And having input about the development of an interpretive provision from all key stakeholders is very importan

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Right, yes. The AFN is concerned that section 25 of the charter, to which you've referred, doesn't apply outside the charter. Section 35, some legal analysis would say, should be sufficient. So we already have them, although there are some complexities there as to the applicati

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I'm a quick study, but I don't have all the statistics. I'm sorry. I'm going to turn to Ms. Helgason to respond.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  The more we dialogue with stakeholders, the more we learn, and the more we see what might be more workable for all stakeholders. That's why we are proposing a hybrid at this time.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  I certainly do. Of course, with 600 communities and 460,000 people, there is no doubt that there is that kind of work going on all the time. That's why we used the language of “appreciative”, because our purpose at the commission includes being respectful of things that are being

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Thank you very much for that question. First of all, there is no reason why not. Our report, A Matter of Rights, suggested that human rights institutions that are first nations specific should certainly be considered. The commission does not have, nor do we wish to have, a monop

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  No, we don't agree. I'm going to answer you in English. We have reviewed the proposed non-derogation clause and we have some preliminary concerns. However, we think the issue is complex and the proposal requires additional review. We have not had the expertise or legal resources

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  That is our concern. First of all, the wording they propose is a good basis for beginning a discussion on an appropriate balance between collective and individual rights. However, the language proposed is, in our opinion, very detailed and very expansive, particularly paragraph (

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  That may be an easier question to answer, so I'll answer your second question first. Because this section of the statute has been in the statute for 30 years and it is now before you to deal with and repeal, we put a very high priority on having it repealed and we put a balancin

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  The answer is no. We see the need for a balance between having this section repealed and developing a workable interpretative provision. We believe that a transition period of 18 to 30 months would be sufficient for us to get the inputs we need in order to build such a provision.

Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee  Yes.