Evidence of meeting #5 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was aboriginal.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB
--that protects Indian lands. In fact, when the Canadian Human Rights Act was introduced into law, it was stated at that time, it was understood, that Canada would move forward to revise the Indian Act, to modernize the Indian Act. That hasn't happened.
I'm asking you if you believe...when we heard from the Canadian Bar Association that this type of impact on other pieces of legislation could happen.
5:05 p.m.
General Counsel, Human Rights Law Section, Justice Canada
Are you suggesting, then, that someone might file a complaint against the Indian Act itself on the basis of race?
5:05 p.m.
General Counsel, Human Rights Law Section, Justice Canada
First of all, the complaints system doesn't work quite like that. The charter is an instrument that is constitutional in nature, by which you can challenge specific provisions of an act of Parliament. Under the Human Rights Act what you would challenge is a discriminatory employment decision or a discriminatory failure to provide you with service because of your race.
Just with respect to that point, there was a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada, with all due respect to Justice Muldoon, in Gosselin v. Quebec in 2005, with the universal citation of SCC 15. It was a challenge to the Charter of the French Language, which essentially implemented section 23 of the charter about minority language rights.
What's relevant here is that the court didn't agree with the ability to challenge that statute, which was effectively using the charter.
In paragraph 14 they say the following:The linkage is fundamental to an understanding of the constitutional issue. Otherwise, for example, any legislation under s. 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867 (“Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians”) would be vulnerable to attack as race-based inequality, and denominational school legislation could be pried loose from its constitutional base and attacked on the ground of religious discrimination. Such an approach would, in effect, nullify any exercise of the constitutional power:
So the suggestion there, what the court is saying, is that these acts are fundamentally connected to their constitutional base.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB
Right. So you're talking specifically about employment and service.
I want to ask another question.
When you talked about that other case, the one you referred to...I believe it was at Six Nations or Akwesasne.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB
Yes. That case, to move forward....
Currently, as Ms. Carter said, there's sort of a massaging of the language whereby people are being led to believe that people of first nations have no access to file human rights complaints. They do currently under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
The Assembly of First Nations has filed a complaint with the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society against the federal government with respect to child welfare. There is a child welfare issue in my riding as well, to do with the health services of children living on-reserve, where they don't have access to health services if they have a disability or a complex medical need.
Those issues now can be brought to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
5:10 p.m.
General Counsel, Human Rights Law Section, Justice Canada
As you mentioned, a complaint has been filed.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB
Yes.
So could I ask you, then, when we hear this type of language that says we want to give human rights to first nations, and we hear Mr. Warkentin's comments that these things are happening--and obviously there have been very difficult times for first nations to provide services when they're chronically underfunded, which is the basis of that child welfare complaint--
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, what is the relevance to this amendment? We do have to stay somewhat on topic.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
I'm allowing a lot of leeway today in terms of what people are talking about. My only encouragement, if can make an observation, is that there seems to be...I don't want to call them “battle lines” emerging, but to any observer in the room, it seems there are two different opinions on this. I'm not sure either side is going to persuade the other.
I would just encourage members to move through the points they want to make and ask their questions. Then let's get to a vote on this, the first of 14 amendments we have to consider.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What I'm asking about is the scope of access currently available for first nations, under the Canadian Human Rights Act.
5:10 p.m.
General Counsel, Human Rights Law Section, Justice Canada
Well, they may file a complaint about discrimination in employment and services, like anyone else, subject to this section 67 qualification right now. That's what we're debating here.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB
Yes, but the point of the legislation, in your opinion, would be....
5:10 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Operations and Programs Section, Justice Canada
If I may, the repeal of section 67 will allow challenges to decisions made pursuant to the Indian Act, which is not possible now.
You referred earlier to the possibility of a very significant impact on the Indian Act. This has been alleged by some other witnesses. We do not think that will be the case. Basically there will be provisions of the Indian Act that will likely be impacted, but the Indian Act has been subject to the charter for 25 years, and it's still intact.
So partly for that, we do not think there is a high risk that the Indian Act would be dismantled.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Tina Keeper Liberal Churchill, MB
There's not a high risk, but there is the possibility. We talked about minorities in first nations--and I'm not really sure what that means--from the other members.
Say there was a non-first nations person residing on a first nation. Is that the sort of avenue that could pose a risk?
5:15 p.m.
Senior Counsel, Operations and Programs Section, Justice Canada
Any decision made pursuant to the Indian Act cannot be challenged now before the commission because of section 67, and would be challengeable if section 67 were repealed, whether it's by a first nations member or a non-first nations member.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Just before I go to Mr. Russell, I will remind you that we do have votes. It's my understanding that the bells will be at 5:30 and the votes at 5:45. This is just to forewarn whoever is speaking at the time that when the bells go, I'm going to end the meeting at that point. Whichever member has the floor at that time will continue in the next meeting.
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Chairman, would I be able to move a motion that we extend the time of this meeting into the evening, beyond the votes?
5:15 p.m.
Conservative
5:15 p.m.
Liberal
Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL
On a point of order, he's allowed to make a motion if he wishes to make a motion, I don't think he needs the permission of the chair to make a motion.
So if he has a motion, let's not debate whether he can or can't. He can, I think.