Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 12th, 2007

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Could proper consultations, depending on how they're structured, cut down on the transition period?

For instance, if you had a proper consultation, with input from all the various first nations and the various interest groups and stakeholders, and depending on the types of questions that were asked, could it potentially cut down on the transition period?

You're asking for 36 months, but let's say you have 18 months or a year of consultation and you arrive at some type of consensus. Could that potentially cut down on the transition period?

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

Our proposition is based on some notion of fairness. You would have to assess that against what was considered fair in terms of the other governments with respect to the charter. That was a three-year process. Of course, preceding that, there had been full consultations with all governments in the country. This was not imposed on them with the expectation that they would respond and ready their governments in a very short period of time to give this appropriate effect.

At the very least, we should be given the same consideration, to ensure that this is managed well.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

There seems to be a perception that there are very many differences, either perceived or real, among various first nations. People have their own traditions, their own cultures, their own languages; it's certainly not a homogeneous unit there, in many senses. Has any thought been given to an opt-in clause, saying there will be bilateral negotiations with various first nations regarding the non-derogation or the interpretive provision? Has any thought been given to that?

Then, if you couldn't arrive at that triggering clause or whatever it would be, you'd go to a default one. Let's say it's yours, for instance, to use it as an example. Has any thought been given to that?

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

That's an interesting idea. I must admit that we haven't given it much thought. I thought we had run a pretty comprehensive undertaking here. We could think about that.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

It's just an idea I was playing with in my own way. There seems to be a sense from the government that since there are so many different people and so many different groups, how can you arrive at a consensus even after consultation? If you have default clauses and individual first nations couldn't arrive at something consistent with the government, that would trigger implementation.

I just leave it there for you to give some thought to.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

The only thing I would point to is...it's not the same kind of issue as with the settlement agreement for residential schools. In the residential school settlement agreement there's an opt-out period. It runs out August 20. It's up to each individual survivor to decide for themselves whether this agreement is fair and just. If it is not, then they can opt out. If you remain silent, then the settlement agreement is deemed as presented—fair and just.

[Candice Metallic]

If I may respond to that as well, I think it's an interesting concept, and I have given it some personal thought.

But I really I think the bottom line is this. If the resources aren't there to ensure that first nations have the capacity to do it, then an opt-in provision really doesn't do anything. It could even be frustrated if the necessary resources aren't provided.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I agree with what you said. Regardless of which way you go, whether it's this way, an opt in, an opt out, or whatever phrase you want to use, you need to have resources.

[Candice Metallic]

Yes, resources are critical.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you, committee members.

I want to assure National Chief Phil Fontaine that the committee has heard from many witnesses. In a lot of the testimony that has been given to us—both practical and legal, because there is a difference—some chords are resonating of the same opinions. I think it's important for us.

There's a saying that leadership is not about finding consensus but is about moulding consensus. I think it's important for us to take all of the testimony of the witnesses and mould that consensus somewhere along the line. We'll be seeking to do it in the near future.

Thank you very much for your time.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

Thank you for your time and consideration. You've been very patient with us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Committee members, Thursday's meeting is in La Promenade Building at 11 o'clock.

The meeting is adjourned.