Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This idea of the interpretive clause has certainly come up at a number of our previous committee meetings. One of the key arguments against having an interpretive clause is the real possibility that in crafting that interpretive clause, we're going to leave out some key element.
In this amendment, Ms. Crowder has included under new paragraph 67(1)(a) programs and services, under (b) training and labour, under (c) land and resources, under (d) culture and spiritual practices and traditional practices, under (e) community issues, and finally legal traditions in (f).
The question I have is, are we sure that in this list of suggestions from Ms. Crowder we have covered all eventualities? I think the answer is clearly no. We cannot be sure we have covered every possible scenario that could arise.
I think it's impossible in one clause, or even in a five-page document, to cover all the possibilities that may arise as they relate to any specific first nations group.
We discussed earlier that we've heard from up to 20 groups at this committee as they've given presentations regarding repealing section 67. But we know, Mr. Chairman, there are at least 600 first nations groups across Canada.
To suggest the commission or the tribunal could become experts in all these traditions and laws and all these varied groups across Canada is totally unrealistic.
That is not to say the interests and traditions and customs of first nations people would be irrelevant in the adjudications of the complaints because they will be considered in the specifics surrounding a complaint. But as it relates to the specifics this interpretive clause attempts to speculate about--and I think that's clear--we're trying to look ahead and think of what kind of issues might arise, so we're dealing in speculation. But in reality these can only be dealt with by the commission and the tribunal in the overall context of the complaint, taking into account first nations traditions, customs, and laws.
Mr. Chair, I think it's very unfortunate that this committee has chosen to overrule your very wise earlier ruling. It's important that we do not support this amendment. I am very much opposed to it.