Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 12th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Could we reconvene, please?

Committee members, we are ready for the second portion of our witnesses today.

We have with us today National Chief Phil Fontaine. Along with him, we have Candice Metallic, who is legal counsel; Richard Jock, who is the chief of staff; and Lisa Abbott, a policy analyst.

We appreciate Chief Phil Fontaine for making time to come here.

Due to the lateness of our meeting, we're going to continue until about 1:30 or quarter to two, at the latest.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Chair, I would point out that some of us have other meetings for which we have to leave. We're not doing it out of a sense of disrespect.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Okay.

Would you like an opportunity to make a statement, Chief Fontaine?

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

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, and my thanks and appreciation to committee members for giving us another opportunity to present on a matter that we consider of vital importance to all of us. There should be absolutely no question or doubt that first nations leaders are concerned or committed to protection of human rights for all of our citizens. We are all very committed. We are all very interested. We all want to see the most appropriate protections be afforded all of our citizens: women, men, young people, and elders. We will do whatever we can as a national organization to ensure that these protections are in place for all of our citizens, on and off reserve.

I think there was some question or doubt about whether we were in fact committed. I want to underline that it's very important for us, and it's very important for you to know that we are committed. We've pushed very hard to ensure that all of the right and appropriate steps are taken so that Bill C-44 reflects all of the interests of all first nations citizens, and that whatever decision is ultimately taken on Bill C-44 it will not result in further jeopardizing the rights and interests of all of our people.

We've already made it very clear that we're very concerned about impoverished first nations communities. We're very concerned that too many of our communities can't access safe drinking water; that too many of our communities lack good schools; that there is a tremendous backlog in housing; that we can't access quality health care; that suicides are still far too high; and that there are too many children in care—27,000 now, mostly in western Canada. All of those matters are directly related to the human rights of our people.

Water, for example, is a human right. That right has been violated, not because chiefs and councils are corrupt or not sensitive or caring about all of their peoples. We didn't contaminate the water to begin with, so I don't know why people continue to blame leadership for those conditions. We didn't create the housing crisis that our communities face. We didn't insist that our people be unemployed to the levels they are. The list goes on, and it's completely unfair to keep pointing the finger at first nations chiefs and councils for being the cause of all of what challenges our communities.

So dispel the notion that we are somehow not concerned about human rights or committed to the human rights for all of our people; we are. But we need you to help us ensure that these rights are protected to the same degree that the human rights of all Canadians are protected. That shouldn't be too much to ask. In our view, it's a very straightforward and simple proposition.

That is the preamble to my speaking. I had a more detailed presentation, but I know you're pressed for time. I apologize that we arrived here late, and I know that some of you have to leave. I don't know how you want to proceed.

If you'll permit me the time, I want to make three points. These points are very important for the discussion you're having here.

I'll quickly summarize the key amendments that we advanced in our submission. I'm also tabling a list of amendments that we feel best address what we heard as a consensus of concerns raised about Bill C-44 from the witnesses who appeared before this committee in the last little while.

The first issue that underlies this whole discussion is the duty to consult. Inherent in this is the duty to accommodate and mitigate adverse impacts on aboriginal and treaty rights or undue hardships on first nations. We note this is completely absent in this bill.

Second, there is the need to amend Bill C-44 to include safeguards for the unique collective inherent rights and interests of first nations.

Finally, the last point relates to the need for effective and appropriate transition and implementation measures.

I should note that we've been following the presentations of the various witnesses who have appeared before this committee. It's pretty clear, from our perspective, that there's agreement on the need to address the human rights of first nations, as well as the need to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. There's no hesitation on our part to advocate for that. However, it's also become very clear that Bill C-44, both in process and substance, may not have been the best way to do this.

I'll leave it there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

We'll go to the round now, starting with Madam Neville.

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

Thank you.

I'm going to just presume upon the time and follow on the national chief's comments with a very brief preamble, Mr. Chair, to assert that members from this party are not opposed to human rights either, nor are we opposed to the repeal of section 67, as has been asserted several times.

Our concerns relate to process. The process, to our mind, has been far from what it should have been, but at no time have we ever indicated that we are opposed to the intent of Bill C-44, and I want that to be clear on the record.

Thank you again for coming back to talk to us, National Chief. I have a number of questions. It has been proposed by some that we should delay the passage of this bill to allow for a consultation period. The other proposals, as you well know, have indicated to put it through with all of the appropriate amendments and clauses with a very lengthy consultation process.

I'd like your comments on that and what you see to be the most effective way of dealing with this issue.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

Mr. Chairman, committee members, it's important we point out that the fact that we would advocate a delay in this process to ensure that there is full and adequate consultation with our people should not to be seen as a contradiction because we advocated that three other bills be given due consideration for passage. We appeared on the Hill here with Mr. Suzuki and Mr. Barr, and we staked out our position on those bills.

We absented Bill C-44 from that position because we believe there has to be full consultation on this. We consider the bill, as drafted, flawed, deficient, and the appropriate response, in our view, to fix this is to ensure that we further discuss it.

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

Thank you.

I'm just going through your summary of recommendations, which we received now. One of the recommendations you speak about is an operational review. I wonder if you could comment on the analysis that you see necessary for the potential impacts of the legislation, and how you would like to see that reported back to this committee.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

I'll give you the general overview and then call on my able support team to speak to the technical details of your question.

It's clear that most recognize that our communities are in a very difficult situation. In an ideal situation, these communities ought to be in a position to protect the interests of all their citizens, whether we're talking about housing, water, health, education—you name the program or the service—that these programs and services be delivered in the most appropriate and effective way possible.

Given the situation we're in, the crisis we face with housing, the fact that there are too many first nations communities operating under a boil water advisory, and the fact that we're still struggling with attaining success rates in education equivalent to the mainstream, we need to ensure that the capacity within our first nations communities is such that all of our first nations governments will be in a position to deliver effective, fair, and just government services to all of their citizens.

That should be an overriding concern on the part of this committee, and in fact the House, when they consider the effects and impacts of Bill C-44 on our communities. It's pretty clear that if it were to pass as is, it would cast our leadership in a completely unfair position and we would be judged on standards that are completely unfair. Canadians believe in fairness; Canadians are fair-minded people. If they knew the dangers inherent in this bill as it is cast, they wouldn't support it.

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

Thank you.

I'm assuming I have no more time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

No.

We move on to Mr. Lemay.

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

It is Mr. Lévesque's turn.

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

Good afternoon, Mr. Fontaine. I am glad to see you again.

I recall that it was a week ago now that we marked the second anniversary of the government's commitment to consult first nations on any bill or any restructuring that might cause changes to the lives of members of first nations. We have a bill before us. You are telling us that it is important to have changes, consultation and amendments. One question is of fundamental concern to us today. Should we support the bill and try to amend it or do you prefer—as a number of people have asked us—that we delay its passage and make sure that we have had consultations and taken the steps necessary to protect first nations in the form of a new bill that reflects your vision? This is vital for us to know. We have to know your position.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, if the proposed amendments fairly represent the consensus view of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, and you share their concerns that Bill C-44, as drafted, is flawed and would not give fair protection to our people, because our governments wouldn't be in a position to deliver, due to lack of capacity, then that will be okay. But if it's obvious that we need more time to give you ample opportunity to reflect on the validity, legitimacy, and appropriateness of our proposed amendments to make this bill as good as it ought to be, then that's what we would ask the committee to consider.

It's important that we note some of the technical considerations regarding this bill that make it extremely difficult for us to accept as is.

Richard.

[Richard Jock, Chief Executive Officer, Assembly of First Nations]

I just want to add that regardless of the final shape of the bill, the operational considerations would remain. We feel that undertaking a review of any preparations would be prudent and would be really just good sense, in terms of then assessing whether there have in fact been preparations made, whether the resource issues have been properly rolled out as anticipated. It's a way to deal with those issues in a way that moves forward.

We feel our amendments would strengthen any approach that's taken and thus would also provide a stronger focus and maybe a more pointed focus for any consultation. We think this is a way to proceed, and also to do so in a way that would reduce any unintended negative impacts on communities that we have experienced from other legislation, such as Bill C-31, and from some of the other approaches. It has been assumed that these have had no impact, but in fact and in reality they have. They're not negative reflections on the content of that bill; they're just unintended and unplanned for consequences of legislative actions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Lemay, you have two and a half minutes—no more.

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

My colleague was very concise. I am going to be even more so. I have your proposed amendments in my hands. I have just read them in French and English. If they were included in Bill C-44 and it was amended accordingly, would it satisfy you? That is what I want to know.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

We'd certainly be happier than we are with what we have now. That's for certain.

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

National Chief, there is no way that Bill C-44 will be passed as presently drafted. We are going to propose amendments. With your agreement, we will use yours. Would that meet with your satisfaction?

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

We would certainly be much happier.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Madame Crowder.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you for coming before us today.

It seems to me that the best possible scenario would be consultation, legislation, and then an adequate transition period, and the legislation would actually reflect the consultation. My understanding is that a second position would be to put forward the amendments as proposed.

There are two pieces there that I wonder if you could address for me. One is that I'm assuming that all amendments would need to be passed in order for it to be suitable. The second piece is that in other cases where that kind of legislation has been passed and then there has been a transition period, the resources and the capacity have not always been there to enable nations to actually be in a position to respond. I wonder if you could comment on those two pieces.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

I will very quickly on one point, and then I'm going to call on Candice Metallic here to speak to the more technical aspects of your question.

Remember Bill C-31. We were told when Bill C-31 was introduced that no first nation community would be worse off as a result of the bill. As good as the intentions were when it was introduced, the immediate impact of bringing this bill into force was to completely undermine the ability of first nations governments to deal fairly and justly with the effects of Bill C-31. We're really very concerned that the bill, as it is presently constituted, would bring about the same kinds of results, or even worse.

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

Before I go to Candice, isn't that an argument in itself to do the consultation prior to the legislation then?

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

We made those arguments. We expressed those concerns right from when this thing was first introduced. What is particularly difficult for us to accept, and an unfair characterization that we've had to shoulder, is that somehow this problem we were dealing with was caused by chiefs and councils—male-dominated chiefs and councils—that were determined to cause harm to women particularly. We know that's not true, and it's just unfair. I make that point.