Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.
Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee As you know, we did launch a national aboriginal program, and that was prior to Bill C-44 being introduced. It took a long time to develop because we recognized that we don't have, and have not had, a relationship with many first nations because of the existence of section 67. We
June 7th, 2007Committee meeting
David Langtry
Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee If I have it right, certainly, yes, we are aware of some of the concerns, indeed, whether they are about the wholesale dismantling or about specific provisions. I know where some of the concerns may come, and we've been wrestling with how you would then balance.... Or where would
June 7th, 2007Committee meeting
David Langtry
Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee Thank you. Quite rightly, the question was asked. Our concern about it, our understanding--and I'll get back to our understanding in a moment--was that some first nations do have the legal tradition or customary law and others do not, and they're different from one to the other.
June 7th, 2007Committee meeting
David Langtry
Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee It's obviously a difficult question to answer, whether you could accomplish something like that under an interpretive clause. We remain of the view and we certainly hope that a resolution of the consultations and the discussions between NWAC, AFN, and INAC that are ongoing will l
April 19th, 2007Committee meeting
David Langtry
Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee I appreciate that you're saying you think there's a clear answer. I'm not sure, because if there were no interpretive clause, then it might be that the collective rights could in fact trump the individual rights. If there were not an interpretive clause, it could be said that und
April 19th, 2007Committee meeting
David Langtry
Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee The reason for more time is for the passage. We're certainly not suggesting that the bill not be passed. As you know, the legislation, upon royal assent, has an immediate application to the federal government and federally regulated employers. So it's the application to aborigina
April 19th, 2007Committee meeting
David Langtry
Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee Not really. It wouldn't say that these rights will trump, because in individual cases, what you always look to do in a balancing is to try to minimize the adverse impact on one or the other. You're looking for a middle, so it's the interpretation, hence the word. It's the overall
April 19th, 2007Committee meeting
David Langtry
Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee The interpretive clause would recognize the rights that are there, and how the commission, in considering a complaint, would look to a balance, how best to accommodate both so there's a minimum impact, but it would be an individual case. As was said earlier, the interpretive clau
April 19th, 2007Committee meeting
David Langtry
Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee Other than that currently we have a balancing in the legislation already, through our section 15 in particular, whereby there can be a bona fide occupational requirement, or a bona fide justification that can support an individual discrimination.
April 19th, 2007Committee meeting
David Langtry
Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee It is certainly a fair question and one of the reasons we're saying it should be the hybrid, to which end the legislation itself provides that there be the development of an interpretive provision that is a balancing of the collective rights and interests with individual rights,
April 19th, 2007Committee meeting
David Langtry
Indigenous and Northern Affairs committee Yes, thank you. Certainly, it's true. Obviously sections 15, 25, and 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 would have application. We're not saying that those are not sufficient. The reason there was a concern of having an interpretive clause, as the chief commissioner has indicated,
April 19th, 2007Committee meeting
David Langtry