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

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Go ahead, Mr. Storseth.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I fundamentally disagree with extending this to even 18 months. It opens the government's liability up even further.

The other issue is that we've talked about this ad nauseam. First nations people need to have equal rights as soon as possible, and delaying this by 18, 20, 36, or 37 months I just feel, with all this.... It should be as soon as possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Right.

Does anybody else want to comment before we...?

We'll go to Ms. Keeper.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

I'd like to just respond to some of the comments. Consideration of this transition period is really critical, because the members throw this term around--you know, that people need human rights--without any consideration of the lack of equity in funding for services, which we have heard about time and time again from people who have presented here.

First nations have inequitable funding, and we all know, after voting on Jordan's Principle in the House, that the spectrum of services that are lacking is devastating.

So to make these comments that this is a simple transition period is completely inappropriate. In fact, even when the charter was being implemented, there was a 30- or 36-month transition period for provincial and territorial governments. I think it is absolutely not unacceptable to expect that we would have a transition period that is at least equitable in terms of time, because the resources are so limited in terms of delivering services.

Nobody has mentioned, from the government side, that they are willing to provide those financial resources, to provide these services to meet the human rights needs of first nations people.

I am saying that I'm completely in support of the 36-month transition period, and I'm against the 18 months.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

We'll go to Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Well, to respond to Ms. Keeper, if she supports that extension to 36 months, it'll just be 36 months longer that first nations people won't be able to make these claims against whatever organization they wish. So if she wants to extend that period of lack of access for first nations people, that's her choice.

In light of what I've heard from all the opposition parties, I don't expect my subamendment to pass, and as such, I will withdraw, provided, of course, that we call the question on the actual amendment soon.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Okay.

I'm informed, Mr. Bruinooge, that you require unanimous consent to withdraw the subamendment on 18 months. So can I have unanimous consent?

I have to call the question on the subamendment. All right, let's do it that way, then.

All in favour of Mr. Bruinooge's subamendment to change the period from 36 months to 18 months?

(Subamendment negatived)

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Okay, so we're back to talking about L-5 again.

Seeing no further comment, I'll call the question on L-5. You want a recorded vote.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Some members of the committee may not know that in Thunder Bay, no means yes! It's a little quirk of northwestern Ontario.

[An hon. member]

It worked, though.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Well, it seemed to work.

By passing L-5 we have taken G-1, G-2, and NDP-5 off the table.

Now we can go back to NDP-4.

I thought this was really clear before I started here today, and even I'm a little bit confused now.

Do I need some sort of process to get NDP-4 back on the table? No? Okay, it's on the table.

NDP-4 is on the reporting period. Now that we know that the transitional period will be 36 months, are there any concerns or comments about NDP-4?

Pardon me, I need to back up a second here. I need to call the question on clause 3 as amended by L-5.

(Clause 3 as amended agreed to)

(On clause 2--Review)

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

We're back to clause 2, and we have NDP-4 on the floor.

As I say, I just remind colleagues that with our changes to clause 3, we have now set the transitional period at 36 months.

Go ahead, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Having listened very carefully to our analyst from the parliamentary library, I think my position at the outset has been reinforced, and nothing has changed to dissuade me from the significance of this amendment.

As we just heard, it was clarified for all of us that in fact the transition period applies to first nations communities. It does not apply to the federal government and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. It is therefore more important than ever that we have a review period that allows for concerns vis-à-vis complaints against the federal government that is as short as possible and that allows for some action based on what can only be described as the vast majority of complaints in this area of human rights.

I would urge committee members to continue to support NDP-4 and to recognize that it has nothing to do, in effect, with the transition period and everything to do with justice for first nations people.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

If I can draw my colleagues' attention to one thing, NDP-4 includes two subclauses, right? There is a date in the first subclause of 18 months, which we've been discussing. But also, in the second subclause, there is a date that refers to when there would be a report back to the House.

If you look at L-3 and L-4, L-3 deals with the same subject matter as subclause (1), and L-4 would actually deal with subclause (2). So if we were to pass NDP-4 as is, L-3 and L-4 would both be out, because that would already be dealt with.

We'll have Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

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

I would like to propose an amendment to NDP-4. If it would be agreeable to the other members, after “the Government of Canada”, could we insert back in “any committee of the Senate, the House of Commons” or “both Houses of Parliament”, and then continue on as is?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The middle says “shall be jointly undertaken by the Government of Canada”, and at that point you want to insert....

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

I want to insert “any committee of the Senate, the House of Commons, or both Houses of Parliament”--which is what is already in the legislation--but I want to reinsert it into subclause 2(1).

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Mr. Lemay.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have a problem with one thing here.

Before striking a committee, or deciding on its make up, it is important to agree on the transitional period. Otherwise, amendment NDP-4 makes little sense. We have just agreed to a 36-month transitional period. Therefore, it would have to be a certain number of months later, if we want to go along with what we've been saying since the start of the afternoon. With all due respect, I think we should actually go with section 2 of the bill as worded.

If there is a three-year transitional period and we start to see the effects after this period of time , we won't be able to do anything for another two years. Therefore, that would bring us to the government's original time frame, namely five years after the passage of the bill.

Before discussing how the committee will be struck and who will serve on it, we have to decide on the transitional period.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, Monsieur Lemay.

Before I go to Ms. Wasylycia-Leis, amendment NDP-4 is on the floor. Members, your suggestion that in your view it would be logical to deal with the period of time first before dealing with who would be on the committee notwithstanding, members of the committee have the right to bring forward an amendment on any portion of it they wish. It doesn't necessarily have to be in that order.

Having said that, I suspect we will get to that question, but at this point we're still dealing with Ms. Karetak-Lindell's suggestion that we take part of the wording from the original bill and actually insert it into amendment NDP-4. It refers to who would be involved in that review as opposed to dealing with the length of it.

Ms. Wasylycia-Leis.

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

It might take too long to sort all this out. I think we need to stand my amendment NDP-4, go directly to amendment Lib-6, and then come back to outstanding questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Amendment Lib-6 is the last one, isn't it?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

If amendment Lib-6 were moved, it would actually be adding a new clause that would go at the end. If it is the will of the committee, we will do the same thing again and set aside our discussion on clause 2 to deal with clause 4. Amendment Lib-6 is the only amendment that would deal with adding another clause.

What's your rationale, Ms. Wasylycia-Leis?

[Judy Wasylycia-Leis, NDP, Winnipeg North, MB]

Key to this issue is the question of resources. I think if we can resolve that question, which is dealt with in amendment Lib-6, then we could make some different decisions around clause 2.