Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Jan. 30th, 2008

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thanks to everyone for being here today.

Today we are going to be continuing with our clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-21.

As I'm sure all of you will remember, back in December we started on this project. Before Christmas you were provided with a package of potential amendments that members had brought forward to the committee staff. I'll remind you that none of these amendments is actually considered to be tabled until a member does so in this committee. These are here to help us work our way through this. I only say that because today, in a couple of cases, there are two or three amendments that deal with basically the same thing, and members may actually choose not to put their amendment forward. They don't actually need to withdraw something. They just need to avoid putting it forward if they don't want us to deal with it for any reason.

As a quick rehash, the first proposed amendment, NDP-1, was withdrawn after a circuitous adventure. It had been moved by Ms. Crowder. We then moved on to NDP-2. It was put forward by Ms. Crowder but was ruled inadmissible. Then we moved on to NDP-3, which was put forward by Ms. Crowder. There was an amendment proposed to that by a government member. The amendment was defeated and subsequently the proposed amendment NDP-3 was passed in its original form.

Now, in our package, we are at Liberal-1. Liberal-1 has not been moved. In fact, it deals with the same subject matter as does NDP-3. Therefore, we do not need to consider it.

That moves us on to Liberal-2. There are several amendments left before us. The first thing I need to do on amendment Liberal-2 is deal with its admissibility.

As committee members know, the chair rules on admissibility. The chair is not obliged to provide a rationale for that decision and it is not debatable by committee members. Having said that, all committee members have the right to challenge the ruling of the chair. Whatever ruling is made, they have a right to challenge it. A vote can be taken in terms of whether to sustain the ruling of the chair or whether to overturn it.

I feel I owe committee members a couple of comments here. What I'd like to say is that on all of the amendments that have been put forward, when I have received and sought advice on admissibility, except for one, there was a unanimous opinion in terms of whether they were admissible or not. As they come forward, I'll deal with them as I deal with them.

I will share with you that on Liberal-2 there was not unanimous opinion from legislative people in terms of whether it was admissible or not. I have wrestled with this. I have questioned those who have provided me with advice and I have read what I could. On the basis of that, I am ruling that Liberal-2 is inadmissible in that it goes beyond the scope of the bill.

I'm getting ahead of myself here. I've just been reminded by the legislative clerk that in fact before we left at Christmas, Liberal-2 was not actually formally moved. So at this point I'm a little ahead of myself.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

In that case, I'll move the amendment Liberal-2 and then you can proceed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Liberal-2 has been moved by Ms. Karetak-Lindell. The chair is ruling that it is inadmissible because it goes beyond the scope of the bill.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

I would like to challenge your ruling then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Ms. Karetak-Lindell is challenging the ruling of the chair regarding the admissibility of Liberal-2.

I'm a little rusty here, but the chair's ruling has been challenged on this. I'm told this is not debatable, but that we need to move to a vote on that.

Can you help me with the wording on that?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Ms. Bonnie Charron]

The question is, shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?

[Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 7; yeas 4]

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The chair's ruling has been overturned on the admissibility of Liberal-2. It is back on the table for discussion and consideration.

Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

I want to speak very briefly to the issue. I know you say we can't debate your decision to declare it inadmissible, but I firmly believe that unless there is special consideration for traditions and customary laws, there won't be enough of an impetus on the part of the Human Rights Commission to take those into consideration.

I don't believe we are asking for too much beyond the scope. As I've argued before, we already have situations where we have preferential treatment, whether it be for disabilities, women, or visible minorities. I don't see this as being any different from those very ones that I just mentioned. I want to take it into the House of Commons for further consideration and see how the ruling would be on that in the House of Commons.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

I welcome Madam Karetak-Lindell to bring this to the speaker for further ruling. Perhaps I'll give a short commentary in relation to our government's perspective on this specific amendment.

All along we have argued, and I think correctly, that parts of this in particular will provide considerable trouble to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, especially in relation to customary laws. This wording, as I've said in December, will be a great challenge to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and in my opinion it brings much of what section 67 was back into Bill C-21. So it is our opinion that this should not be part of the bill. However, as I have said at the subcommittee, we don't intend, as a government, to delay this bill any further. We've made our argument quite cogently, in my opinion, and we will simply end it at this point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to ask a question of my learned colleague opposite, who challenged the ruling of the chair. I'll wait for Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

You mentioned how you feel there should be some preferential treatment and you challenged the ruling of the chair that this was beyond the scope of the bill, but you admitted in your comments that you believe this is a bit beyond the bill's scope. So you agree this is beyond the scope of the bill, but you believe it should be included within the bill anyway? Is that what your point is, Nancy?

I'm just trying to get some clarification on this.

[An hon. member]

Is this a question and answer session?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

No, he's free to say what he wants, and if somebody wants to respond....

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

I'm simply trying to give her a chance to clarify her statement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

If there's no one else who would like to comment on this....

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Chairman, do I need to respond to that, or do you want to leave the debate at that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

You don't need to. You can if you like.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

I just want to make one point, that every time we bring these arguments about collective rights, customary laws, and legal traditions, they're taken in a negative tone. I'm going to repeat that I don't believe the Conservative members should be looking at this only with a negative view that it will revert, as Mr. Bruinooge says, to allowing discriminatory things to happen.

It could be as simple, for example, as always giving our elders preferential treatment, so that they are dealt with first, which is something you don't have in your customs. It does not have to be looked at only with a negative point of view; it could actually be a beneficial situation for the community. I want to make sure, and I know my colleagues do, that we give the opportunity to do these things.

I don't want them to look at it only from a negative point of view.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, and happy new year to each and every one of you. I'm voting in favour of this particular amendment. It is, in my opinion, within the scope of the bill; it doesn't change the substance of the bill in any way, shape or form. It doesn't change the fact that we're going to repeal section 67. It is totally reflective of virtually 100% of the testimony we've heard from aboriginal leaders and individuals across the country. Therefore, I will be supporting this particular amendment.

As well, the amendment speaks to the cultural integrity of communities, the cultural uniqueness of communities, and in any law that is brought before Parliament, these types of considerations must be debated at times but also must be taken into account.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, Mr. Russell.

Seeing no further comment, shall amendment L-2 carry?

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

(On Clause 2--Review)

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Amendment NDP-4 is next in our package, and it hasn't been moved yet.

Monsieur Lemay.