Bill C-44 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act

This enactment repeals section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and provides for a statutory review, within five years after the enactment receives royal assent, of the effects of the repeal by any parliamentary committee that may be designated or established for that purpose. It also contains a transitional provision with respect to aboriginal authorities.

[Chief Lawrence Paul]

Thank you for your little bit of praise. I certainly appreciate it.

First of all, when I look at the big picture, as I've done ever since I've been in politics—that goes way back to the sixties, that's why I mentioned earlier that I went through a lot of prime ministers in my tenure as chief and councillor in native politics—I've seen a lot of changes. One thing I never did like and I still don't like is that when I talk to this committee I like to talk to the committee members as equals. I don't like talking to a committee where it's a parent-child relationship—we know what's best for you.

My accomplishments in my first nation are based on my own people and my economic development committee. We decided we would do our own thing. We had a department tell us what to do for years, and it always went belly up. It was a miserable flop. So we said we'd take control, we'd look at free enterprise and economic development and how we'd go forward in the modern day, and we're successful.

In answer to the honourable members on matrimonial property, you have to give some credit to first nations, that we have intelligent people on our councils. For instance, I have six college graduates on my council.

As for matrimonial property, we've seen that issue coming, so we have our own policy. If there's a marriage breakup in our first nation, then of course it has to go through the family court process. Whoever gets custody of those children automatically, whether male or female, gets custody of that home.

A non-Indian mom or dad has the responsibility of a guardian, so they're able to live in a band-owned home until the eldest child reaches the age of maturity—19, I believe it is now—then it's up to that child whether they still want their non-Indian parent to live with them or not; they're in control now. That would be up to the family. We think that's equal.

I don't like the idea of using matrimonial property, beyond all comparison, to give that protection and eliminate section 67 by Bill C-44, because we look at too many things. There are going to be so many court challenges against chief and council. I've often said it takes two of us, and then of course we have to sue the federal government. You know there are $22 billion worth of court cases against the previous federal government in the court system now. That's going to double to $44 billion before this is over, because when they sue us, we have to sue the government. We have no other avenue; we have to go that route.

At this time, I can see the Human Rights Act is going to disrupt everything else. Right now my band has 60% mixed marriages on- and off-reserve. My band members stretch from B.C. to Prince Edward Island, from Florida in the United States to California, Massachusetts--they're scattered all over. Under the Corbiere decision, they vote for us.

My colleagues and I are here today to ask the standing committee to listen to what we are telling MPs. We know what's best for our people. We live there. We know the society on a first nation is quite different from a society in downtown Truro, where I live. We have a different society, a different way of handling things.

I guess what we're asking is for you to listen to us on this particular issue of the repeal of section 67 of the Human Rights Act. It's going to cause more poverty. It's going to be a drain on the limited financial things that we have now. It's going to cause headaches, not only for us but for the municipal government, the provincial government, because then it's wide open.

Is my time up, sir?

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.

Since 1977, section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act has contained an exemption in respect of provisions of the Indian Act. Section 67 was adopted in 1977 because negotiations were under way between First Nations and the government over the reform of the Indian Act.

Representatives of the Assembly of First Nations of Canada, of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador and of the Native Women's Association of Canada argue that section 67 should be repealed. More consultations are needed. Minister Prentice informed the committee that negotiations have been under way since 1977 and that numerous discussions and consultations have taken place on section 67. All have helped shaped this bill. In his opinion, the general consensus that has emerged from the discussions and consultations is that section 67 should be repealed.

The repeal of section 67 was recommended by the Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel in 2000, as well as by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in its 2005 special report and by the Native Women's Association of Canada.

Unlike previous government bills that called for an interpretative clause, Bill C-44 contains no such provision.

How, in your opinion, could an interpretative clause facilitate the application of the act in communities and help balance individual and collective rights? I'm all ears.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair;

I'd like to thank everybody for their presentations. They were excellent. And I would like to especially thank Mr. Lawrence Paul for sharing with us his long history in terms of these issues.

I would like to ask this, following on what Mr. Paul just said. We are talking about human rights here and ensuring human rights.

Mr. Anderson, you talked about a couple of big items that are issues across the country for first nations--housing, water, and the list goes on and on. It seems to me that if we're talking about ensuring human rights, we're starting in the wrong place. This doesn't seem to be the right way to go about it, because we don't have a level playing field to begin with. There's a lack of services. There's a lack of adequate programs. Children are suffering.

So could we speak to that, about where it is we should be starting in terms of ensuring human rights for first nations? Is this the right place to be starting a bill like Bill C-44? Or is there somewhere else we should be starting in terms of ensuring human rights for first nations in Canada?

[Grand Chief Chris Henderson, Manitoba Southern Chiefs' Organization]

Yes, and thank you, Mr. Chair.

First and foremost, I want to apologize for my lateness. I had a prior meeting with one of the respected senators.

I'd like to say good morning to the distinguished members of the standing committee, and I of course want to say good morning to my colleague chiefs and to my colleague grand chief, Dr. Sydney Garrioch, who's also from Manitoba.

I won't offer too much by way of a submission, because I believe you've heard it all. My colleagues have offered compelling and eloquent statements, and I believe that is more than sufficient. Therefore, I will keep my submission very brief to allow for an exchange of questions and answers.

Within Manitoba, we have 66 first nations represented by three organizations. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs represents all the first nations of Manitoba, and then two regional bodies represent the regional first nations broken down by regions. Manitoba Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin, or MKIO, represents the northern first nations, and then in southern Manitoba the Southern Chiefs' Organization represents the first nations of southern Manitoba. I am here representing the southern first nations of Manitoba.

Concerning Bill C-44and the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, I would respectfully offer a view differing from that of our national organization, the Assembly of First Nations. I know they are in support of the repeal of section 67, but at this point in time I would be inclined to support the position and view and submission of MKIO, our northern brothers and sisters in Manitoba. They are rejecting Bill C-44 in its current form and composition. At this point in time I would also support that position on behalf of our southern first nations in Manitoba.

This is primarily because, first, there has been no meaningful consultation and allowance for accommodation regarding this proposed legislation. As well, if this bill were to be passed and enforced as law within Canada, I do believe and I do take the position that the negative ramifications concerning our inherent aboriginal and treaty rights would be far too great. I believe there has to be a delicate balancing act concerning the rights of the individual versus the collective rights that are held by our indigenous peoples in Manitoba.

At this point in time I would support the position of MKIO. The SCO, the Southern Chiefs' Organization, therefore cannot support Bill C-44 at this moment in time because of those two primary reasons.

Again, the first reason is lack of consultation and meaningful accommodation with those affected first nations that are purported to be served by the legislation. As well, there are the potential negative impacts and consequences on our inherent aboriginal and treaty rights, again concerning the individual rights and collective rights of our first nations.

I don't want to say too much more than that. As I said earlier, you've heard it all from my colleagues. I do appreciate the opportunity to be invited here by the standing committee. I say thank you, and I do apologize again for my lateness. Please accept my sincere apologies.

I look forward to the respectful dialogue between the distinguished members and my colleagues on this side of the table.

Thank you. Kitchi megwetch.

[Chief Lawrence Paul, Co-Chair, Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs Secretariat Inc.]

I bring greetings from the Mi'kmaq, the Maliseet and Passamaquoddy in Atlantic Canada. Good morning, committee members.

Our organization fully supports the recommendations made previously by the Assembly of First Nations in its submission on Bill C-44 to this committee, including that consultations are legally required. First nations have not been consulted on this bill. In order to be consistent with various court rulings, first nations must be properly consulted on the proposed repeal of section 67 of the CHRA and, more specifically, on the development of an interpretive non-derogation clause, on the potential impacts on aboriginal and treaty rights, and on implementation issues before any legislation is tabled to repeal section 67.

As for the development of an interpretive non-derogation clause, there should be no repeal of section 67 until a non-derogation clause has been included to protect the constitutionally protected rights of first nations from further erosion.

We should also address some of the implementation and capacity issues. There should be no repeal of section 67 until suitable arrangements are in place to provide first nations with adequate resources, mechanisms, and institutions to fulfill new responsibilities and manage these new risks.

And we should conduct a constitutional analysis of the impact on aboriginal and treaty rights. So there should be no repeal of section 67 until the federal government conducts an impact assessment to determine the potential impacts of that repeal on aboriginal and treaty rights.

The federal government should recognize and/or establish first nations institutions to consider complaints against first nations governments, agencies and institutions.

Also, the federal government should not proceed with any repeal of section 67 until an analysis of operations is completed.

So it's our position that the federal government should not proceed with a repeal of section 67 until first nations have been adequately consulted.

In respect of the proposed repeal of section 67, we wish to thank the committee for giving us this opportunity to express our concerns on issues with C-44, and we strongly urge you to seriously consider the significant legal and financial impacts of this bill on both the Government of Canada and first nations governments and not have it pass into law.

I have appeared before the standing committee on many occasions down through the years, going back to Lester Pearson, the Diefenbaker era, the Trudeau era, the Mulroney era, the Chrétien era, and now this other era. Our batting average so far, in coming before this committee and bringing our complaints to it, is zero. I hope this time we will go down in history as having our concerns on Bill C-44 heard, and that we will have an impact in having our concerns listened to before this is passed into law.

I would make a recommendation, personally, that if C-44 is going to be passed into law, it only pertain to our first nations people, our governments, chief and council, and our first nations band members.

We know that the fiduciary or trust responsibility, and the land set aside by Her Majesty through the federal Government of Canada, is for a band and its membership. We foresee many problems, many court challenges. We see more poverty for our first nations.

We have land: the British North America Act was enshrined in the Canadian Constitution by way of section 35. The first part of the federal statute called the Indian Act states that there is land set aside by Her Majesty, the Queen, to the federal Government of Canada, for the benefit of the band and its band membership.

I'll give you one example. If this bill is put into law, if a non-Indian or non-first-nation comes to the chief and council and wants a house on our first nation, and we say, “No, this land is protected by a trust and fiduciary responsibility by the federal government”, they will say, “Yes, it was, but now it isn't, so we're going to lodge a complaint against you to the provincial and federal human rights tribunals and take you there, because you're discriminating against us.”

These are the fears that we have, and I hope this committee takes into consideration these concerns of ours, because we do not have the resources or the financial ability to constantly fight these kinds of complaints at either the provincial or the federal human rights tribunal.

Thank you very much.

[John Paul]

Thank you for giving us the time to come.

My name is John Paul. I'm the executive director of the Atlantic Policy Congress of First Nation Chiefs, and I'm here today with our co-chair, Chief Lawrence Paul, from the Millbrook First Nation in Nova Scotia, to address Bill C-44.

Our organization represents 37 Mi'kmaq, Maliseet, and Passamaquoddy communities and one Innu first nation community, in five provinces, down into the United States, in Atlantic Canada, and in the Gaspé Peninsula of Quebec. Our organization shares a mandate to do research and analyze and develop alternatives to federal policy affecting its first nation members.

As you are aware, Bill C-44 seeks to repeal or remove section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which states, “Nothing in this Act affects any provision of the Indian Act or any provision made under or pursuant to that Act.”

Our position is that our communities don't support this as it currently stands. Our chiefs recently, in January of this year, passed a resolution expressing our non-support for the bill due to our serious concerns on its potential impacts.

Our chiefs' primary concerns are as follows.

No meaningful consultations have been held with first nations, as required by recent Supreme Court rulings.

It conflicts with principles in law, outlined in rulings of the Supreme Court, that protect our collective communal interests and rights.

It will have significant impacts on first nation governments in Canada. The Micmac, Maliseet, Passamaquoddy and Innu peoples have long-standing tradition, cultures, and laws and seek to protect and rejuvenate them. Any solution must take into consideration this very unique situation with our first nation governments.

The effect of the bill would make individual rights take precedence over collective aboriginal and treaty and other rights of first nations.

No interpretive clause is included in the bill. It does not reconcile individual versus collective rights.

With six months, the proposed implementation or transition phase is totally unrealistic and far too short.

First nations currently are underfunded and lack resources to manage this new exposure to serious financial liability or undertake measures to minimize potential risk. For example, first nations would face exposure to liability as a result of significant housing shortages, programs, and services for the disabled, land allotments or rights, membership rules, residency bylaws, and the provision of basic programs and services on-reserve to all residents, not just band members.

Examples include things like non-insured health benefits provided by Health Canada, including post-secondary student support provided by INAC.

There is a high potential for complaints to be brought by band members on the basis of various grounds with regard to the existing housing policies and other such decisions made by band governments. It's not likely that the housing backlog and these other issues are going to be resolved in six months.

There is no capacity development funding for first nation communities regarding the application or implementation in the bill. The bill allows for a six-month window of immunity. However, without a significant influx of additional financial resources to minimize potential exposure to risk of complaints, it is irrelevant whether the immunity period is six months or longer. Unless first nation capacity and other implementation issues are addressed before this bill is passed, first nations will be flooded with complaints, with no resources to effectively manage or address them.

It violates principles set out in the UN draft declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples on cultural genocide, and it will have many, many unanticipated consequences like those that came out of Bill C-31 and the Corbiere decision. And it's unclear about the constitutional impact of this repeal.

I'd like to turn it over to my co-chair, Chief Lawrence Paul.

[Michael Anderson, Research Director, Natural Resources Secretariat, Manitoba Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin]

Thank you, Grand Chief.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

In respect to Bill C-44 the Manitoba Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin must advise the committee that after analysis and review we believe Bill C-44 does not recognize the inherent sovereignty of the MKIO first nations as described by Grand Chief Garrioch.

Bill C-44 does not reflect the sacred and joint relationship established by treaties entered into between the MKIO first nation and Her Majesty's government.

Bill C-44 infringes, interferes with, and does not recognize the contemporary systems of government, decision-making, and community organization established in accord with the customary law, principles, values, and beliefs of the MKIO first nations and which systems we continue to exercise and develop on our own terms.

Bill C-44 does not recognize and leave room for the exercise in further development of first nation government authority, as reflected in the existing system of laws established by individual MKIO first nations, through government-to-government agreements involving first nations and through the continuing development of Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin.

Bill C-44 represents an unjustifiable infringement of rights recognized and affirmed by section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982, in part through the Crown's failure to engage in a Crown consultation in accordance with the doctrine established by the Supreme Court of Canada.

Bill C-44 will impose Canada's vision of human rights and Canada's standards for reconciling human rights with government and corporate actions. It will arbitrarily narrow timeframes during which the elected leadership of first nations must prepare for consideration and resolution of complaints by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and tribunal. It will impose an uncertainty in first nation authority and community decision-making processes through the jurisdiction of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal over matters that would otherwise be addressed by elected first nation leadership and through community-based decision-making processes. Bill C-44 will impose a review of customary laws, beliefs, values, and principles of first nations by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal without a statutory requirement to take into account how the MKIO first nations perceive individual and collective human rights as well as concepts of transparency, access, and accountability.

Bill C-44 also fails to recognize that a source of many human rights issues of importance to first nations arise directly from federal government policies, including the significant and persistent underfunding of social services, housing, and infrastructure that are administered under the authority of first nation governments and are beyond the capacity of first nation governments to remedy.

An example of this that I'd like to share is the Supreme Court's consideration of the critical housing shortage in first nation communities when it examined the case in Corbiere. The Supreme Court realized that in order to address the housing shortage sufficiently for first nation electors to go home and live on-reserve and vote would require instructions to government that the Supreme Court wasn't prepared to provide.

In order to reconcile that conundrum, it developed an analogous ground of aboriginality residence to recognize that it was not possible to resolve the shortage of housing on a first nation community within the current policy framework, and it developed an analogous ground for the determination of discrimination under charter cases. That's one example of many where the Supreme Court itself has been unable to visualize a pathway to reconcile many of the issues that may give rise to complaints that might be brought to the attention of the commission, and then from the commission to the tribunal.

We also would note that when the expert panel on water was considering the issue of the adequacy of resourcing for first nation water and waste water systems and was in fact instructed by the minister not to consider the matter of funding in their terms of reference, the expert panel persisted in its report to discuss that the Government of Canada must place a priority on adequately resourcing water and waste water systems on-reserve in order for adequate services to be provided.

Those are two examples we wanted to bring to the committee's attention in respect to this particular issue.

Grand Chief.

[Grand Chief Sydney Garrioch, Manitoba Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin]

Mr. Chair, bonjour, good morning to everyone. I'd like to thank the standing committee for having us present in regard to proposed Bill C-44, an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

We did give a written submission to the clerk and we apologize for not having a translation. I'd like to introduce Mike Anderson from MKIO, as well as Richard Hart, executive director, Manitoba Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin, who is here as an observer.

We are representing the 53,000 first nations in the 30 northern Manitoba first nations communities as an MKIO presentation. I must say at the outset that the MKIO first nations oppose Bill C-44. MKIO does not accept that the Canadian Human Rights Act should apply to the review of the acts and decisions of the first nation governments, their people, officials, and our employees.

MKIO also rejects the principle that the Canadian Human Rights Commission or the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal should have jurisdiction over the actions and decisions of the elected leadership on behalf of their first nations governments.

MKIO wants to share four principles that are important to the committee's consideration of Bill C-44: the treaty relationship and the joint commitment to nation-building; our laws are in our language; Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin; and consultation and consent.

The treaty-making process acknowledges and recognizes our Creator-given sovereignty and authority within our traditional homelands. Each MKIO first nation continues its jurisdiction on the law-making process in accordance with its customs, traditions, principles and beliefs. MKIO first nations have also entered into other treaties and agreements with governments, including a modern-day treaty known as the Manitoba Northern Flood Agreement.

MKIO first nations and MKIO are working to fully implement the intent, the terms and provisions of those treaties and agreements and to establish the governing process and its structures provided for within these treaties and agreements. MKIO first nations exercise community decision-making processes based on our customary laws, culture, and beliefs. For example, the Pimicikamak Cree Nation and other MKIO first nations have passed very comprehensive laws regarding elections, development, passage of laws through direct community involvement, the management of lands, wildlife, and other things.

Collectively, the MKIO first nations exercises its authority of the Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin, which translates from the Cree language as “northern people's government”.

MKIO first nations cannot and will not accept that Her Majesty or the Government of Canada has or ever had the capacity to unilaterally alter or terminate our sacred relationships through subsequent domestic legislative and constitutional enactments. The MKIO first nations do not recognize that the Government of Canada acquired any rights through the treaties or Constitution of Canada to make or impose a system of foreign laws upon our people, whether through the courts, commissions, or tribunals. Her Majesty consulted with our nations in order to reconcile our aboriginal titles and sought our consent to share ancestral lands and resources with settlers.

Consultation must take place and our consent is required before changes to the terms of our treaties or the imposition of Canada's domestic laws will be accepted by our nations or our people. Consultation and consent are the binding principles of the treaties, and the treaty relationship can only be modified or affected through following consultations with the joint consent of the treaty signatories.

I will pass this to Mike, and I will finish with the recommendations on the last page.

[Chief Viola Eastman]

It's my 10-minute presentation, okay. That's good, thank you.

[Witness speaks in Dakota Sioux]

It's a great honour for me to be here today on behalf of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs and Grand Chief Ron Evans. I'm here representing my people, and I carry with me timeless values, the teachings of my culture, my language, and the laws to guide me in my role as chief of my community and my role as co-chair of the AMC First Nations Women's Council.

Today I bring a message to convey both concern and optimism: concern for the limits of the draft legislative amendment as it is, which raises a range of issues for first nations people, and optimism that the recommendations spoken today are heard, listened to, and respond to our concerns so that improvements be made.

AMC's presentation seeks to honour the Crown. Crown-first nations relations recognize that we each hold benefits together with responsibilities in order to sustain lasting nation-to-nation relationships. Our nation-to-nation relations have been formalized by some of the nations by treaty and formalized by others who have not concluded treaty, because as Dakota nations we didn't sign treaties with the Crown.

Canada's legislative review must discuss a balancing of first nations' individual and collective rights on the issue of human rights, and full and meaningful consultation with first nations. First nation fundamental and natural laws include our world balance for the individual and collective in spirituality, culture, language, society, lands, government, justice, and all other relations. We are party to Crown and first nations law-making relations. To proceed otherwise is to repeat historical mistakes. Unilateral actions have ended in disasters. Canada's laws and policies for justice and human rights have not made positive change for both of us. This submission raises serious concerns and also brings ideas on ways and means to seek redress, to resolve differences, and to move forward.

Now I have the submission. Everybody has a copy of that. I'm going to turn to certain sections of our submission.

First of all, AMC is a politically representative organization of first nation citizens, regardless of their residency, whether they're living on-reserve or off-reserve or in rural areas in Manitoba. In accordance with the AMC constitution, the AMC grand chief, who is Ron Evans, is elected spokesperson by the chiefs of the 64 current first nation member communities situated in Manitoba by the vote of each member chief, who in turn is duly elected by the citizens of their first nations.

Treaties and continuing nation-to-nation relations exist in the spirit of coexistence, mutual benefit, and full respect. However, this relationship remains at risk due to continued unilateral actions by the Crown's federal department through the adoption of legislation and policies by its federal cabinet without consultation with indigenous first nations in Canada. Canada's unilateral efforts have failed miserably.

During our early nation-to-nation history and relations and treaty negotiations, the parties considered the question as to which nation's law would apply. The understanding of the elders is that each nation and their governments, the indigenous governments and the new Canadian government, would pass laws together, not against each other as adversaries. It is clear that in the beginning there was a true nation-to-nation partnership. These interpretations are based on oral history, documented recordings of treaty negotiations, court cases, and Canada's legislation.

I'll just skip now to AMC's position.

Man-made laws on fundamental human rights must be consistent with a first nation world view, for without acceptance they will not be successful. Canada's laws on human rights must be consistent with customary international law in order to be valid. Indigenous human rights laws that are consistent with customary international law cannot be extinguished by Canada and cannot be displaced or repealed by either the CHRA or the charter.

Notwithstanding that the CHRA and charter are Canadian laws, the repeal of section 67 requires free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous first nations peoples. AMC agrees with the Canadian Bar Association's observation that the application of the CHRA to the Indian Act should not prevent a full-scale and properly funded first nations-directed replacement of the entire Indian Act regime—this is linked to page 8 of my submission in the legal review—and should support the transition and the consultation for 18 to 30 months. That prepares a solid foundation for the first nations and the governments in terms of the Canadian Human Rights Commission administration of the act and the Human Rights Tribunal adjudicative functions.

AMC supports deferred legislation with a first nations consultation period of 18 months that prepares a solid foundation, with a six-month transition period to first nations and governments, on the Canadian Human Rights Commission administration of the acts and the Human Rights Tribunal adjudicative functions.

The interpretative clause must be part of the legislation, not a policy or guideline to the CHRA, to guide its application to the actions or omissions. Capacity-building and resources need to be confirmed

From there, we'll go to consultation.

AMC agrees with the findings of the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination. On March 9, 2007, it stated the following:

The Committee urges the State party to engage in effective consultations with aboriginal communities so that mechanisms that will ensure adequate application of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) with regard to complaints under the Indian Act are put in place following the repeal.

AMC developed an approach to consultation—set out in the position paper—that is meaningful and constructed in the context of equality and respect for both parties in all decisions, policies, and legislation that affect the Manitoba indigenous population and its lands, territories, resources, and communities. AMC is supportive of a consultation that adheres to free, prior, and informed consent relating to first nations peoples.

On human rights, AMC indicated its concurrence on many of the recommendations proposed by the Human Rights Commission report, recognizing that first nations have a unique status and constitutionally protected rights and interests, and that a statutory interpretive clause relating to the application of CHRA in a first nations context is required for both first nations individuals and the first nations governments.

With regard to implementation issues, the proposed federal amendment right now is short and vague, which raises a large range of issues of concern as to the meaningful implementation of the legislation intent as is.

I know at home the concerns raised by the First Nations Women's Council, of which I am co-chair, during the information forums on the perspective of first nations on matrimonial real property on reserves. They were not being consulted. These concerns, communicated to the Department of Indian Affairs minister in a letter of January 10, illustrate as well the need for a well-thought-out implementation.

As expressed in the March 5, 2007, letter from the AMC grand chief to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Manitoba first nations women gathering on MRP and Bill C-44 does not support the tabling of legislation without prior first nation consultation.

The AMC analysis in part reads as follows: “The scale of this fundamental change nationally requires immediate joint Canada-first nations oversight and ongoing collaborative review during the first 18 months, and phased stages during the remainder of the five-year period.”

Given the decreased regional allocations and operations of the department, there should be a financial commitment identified. Reliance on the CHRC to address all necessary implementation elements will overextend the role of the CHRC.

On aboriginal authorities, the meaning of that is silent. The term requires a definition specific to first nations institutions.

Capacity and financial support are essential for first nation governments to be able to establish that institution, and capacity and financial support are essential for first nations individuals. We require enabling development of an interpretive clause in consultation with first nations.

An independent body needs to be created to review the impact of INAC challenges that might negatively affect first nations individually and first nations governments collectively.

AMC supports the application of the CHRA to first nations and related institutions, with a transitional period of between 18 and 30 months in order to allow consultation on and enact the proposed interpretive provision; and preparatory actions to ensure that first nations and the commission have in place the measures necessary to do the following: effectively, efficiently, and quickly resolve complaints within 30 months; review policy implications for first nations; take preparatory measures required; and perform a legal review of the implications to the Indian Act itself.

Duty to consult. First nations participation will be included as a distinct and separate process that is first nation specific on any consultation processes generally, and consultation respecting the interpretive provision, to achieve a sustainable solution for all first nation citizens.

Collective and individual rights balanced. The amendment must not undermine inherent rights or abrogate or derogate from the constitutionally protected individual and collective rights. AMC supports consultation that will address the proper balancing of collective and individual rights through community-based solutions that strengthen first nations institutions.

The interpretive clause. AMC agrees with the AFN's recommendations that Bill C-44 be amended to include an interpretive clause so that the Human Rights Commission tribunal and court will be guided in their application of the CHRA to the unique collective inherent rights, interests, and values of first nation peoples and communities. An interpretive provision is necessary to more specifically guide an adjudicative analysis in order to strike an appropriate balance between individual and collective rights.

Confirmation of first nation institutions. Human rights are fundamental to first nation societies. Therefore the function of human rights institutions should be governed by first nation institutions and peoples jointly engaged from time to time.

In conclusion—I'm finally concluding—the AMC, on behalf of the first nation citizens and governments, looks forward to fundamental human rights access to all in concert with individual rights and traditional collective and constitutional rights of first nations people.

That's my presentation, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you.

Opposition Motion--Indian Residential Schools

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a few questions but perhaps I will talk a bit about the comment the member for Etobicoke North made a little earlier in his speech.

In reference to various international bodies, he said that in his opinion the international community was not looking at Canada in a good light in relation to aboriginal matters.

I am not sure if the member is aware of what is currently going on at the aboriginal affairs committee but we have brought forward Bill C-44, which would bring about the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It would exempt first nations from falling under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

If the member could tell his committee members from the Liberal Party to get with the program and support human rights on reserve, perhaps the international view on Canada might be improved.

The member and members of his party continue to reference that somehow our government has held up this settlement agreement. Could he explain to me what holding up is defined as according to him because this is one of the very first things that we did as a government? If he could define that it would be appreciated.

[Colin Mayes, Conservative, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Nanaimo—Alberni.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

I will begin today by saying that the government agrees with the member opposite. We must address the sad legacy of Indian residential schools. We have stated this on many occasions already.

That is precisely why we are working toward the implementation of the settlement agreement that includes elements, such as a truth and reconciliation commission, a common experience payment, an independent assessment process, commemoration and funding for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

The Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, which received final court approval on March 21, 2007, will bring resolution to this sad chapter of our history. This historic agreement will foster reconciliation between aboriginal people who resided at these schools, their families, their communities and all Canadians.

This agreement is a crucial milestone. We cannot move forward without addressing the past and it is crucial that we move forward. We need to take positive, concrete action to address the challenges that confront so many aboriginal people and communities in this country.

We are committed to making consistent progress in the areas that have the greatest impact on improving the quality of life of first nations people. It is particularly important that we place a special emphasis on improving the lives of children. As the chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, this is an issue that is close to my heart.

For example, on April 27 in Calgary, Alberta, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development was pleased to announce a new partnership with the province of Alberta and the Alberta first nations that will see significant improvements in child and family services for first nations in Alberta.

Based on the Alberta response model, this new approach to child welfare in first nations communities will provide families living on reserve with better access to community resources to help them before a crisis occurs.

The Alberta response model stresses prevention by intervening early and making community resources available to families in difficulty. When children need to be removed, we must ensure they are placed in a safe, nurturing environment, in permanent homes, preferably with family members in their own communities.

This approach sets a high standard because it is based on ensuring stability and permanency for the child . It also has been recognized as an innovative approach to delivering child welfare services to first nations children. The Alberta response model has already proven successful with the number of children in care having decreased by 22% since its introduction in 2004.

In addition to delivering better results for first nations children in Alberta, this partnership serves as a model for other provinces and first nations agencies. Our government looks forward to having exploratory discussions with provinces, territories and first nations organizations that are seeking to introduce enhanced early prevention programs to their child and family services on reserve.

Children are the future, in first nations communities as in everywhere else in society. We have a moral duty to protect them and to work together to ensure they enjoy a safe, secure home environment.

However, we also recognize that support and services must be there when women and children are obliged to leave that environment.

Last fall, this government provided an additional $6 million to the family violence prevention program to help ensure that the network of shelters, primarily for women and children who are trying to escape family violence, are better equipped to serve women and children on reserve.

Among our various initiatives on childhood health and well-being, Canada's new government has committed $65 million to the aboriginal youth suicide prevention strategy.

In the area of first nations education, we have made major progress. In December of last year, this House passed historic legislation, at the centre of which was the agreement signed in July 2006 by Canada, the province of British Columbia and the First Nations Education Steering Committee. This agreement is truly groundbreaking, since it will not only create better learning opportunities for first nations students in British Columbia but also offer a model for improvements to first nations education in other provinces.

Because we know that education is one of the foundations for social and economic success and is an area in first nations communities where new investments can truly make a difference, we recently announced the investment of more than $50 million in school infrastructure projects in first nations communities across the country.

Those are some of the initiatives and systematic reforms that directly benefit first nations children. However, this government recognizes that children are also affected in one way or another by the pressures that face their families and communities. For this reason, Canada's new government recognizes the need to act on the wider issues that have a real impact on the day to day lives of aboriginals.

Therefore, we have taken action to advance legislative solutions to two important issues: discrimination permitted under section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and on reserve matrimonial real property. Bill C-44, introduced last December, proposes to repeal section 67 which currently prevents first nations citizens from bringing forward a human rights complaint. We believe that aboriginal citizens are entitled to the same access to rights protection as every other Canadian citizen.

This government also strongly believes that aboriginal women should have access to the same rights as every other woman in Canada when a relationship breaks down. That is why the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development completed a consultation process and intends to bring forward legislation to resolve the difficult question of matrimonial real property this spring.

There can be no question that this government is acting vigorously and in partnership with first nations, Inuit and Métis to build a more hopeful future for aboriginal children across the country.

Through the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement, we have come to terms with the past and, through our initiatives to further the interests and well-being of aboriginal women and children, we are looking to the future, a brighter and more positive future for the first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to begin with a story, but first I want to talk about what happened in the 1960s.

In 1960, I was living in Amos, where I am from. It is a small municipality that, at the time, was the regional centre for education. In Abitibi—Témiscamingue, Amos was where students went to learn the liberal professions. They were going to be lawyers, priests, notaries and so on.

Not far from Amos was the little town of Saint-Marc-de-Figuery. Around the 1950s—I am not sure of the exact date—the federal government decided to build what we called the Indian residential school there, on the edge of a lake.

We here are all young. We can remember when, in the late 1950s and early 1960s, we played with the Indian children, and that was okay. Near Amos there was an Algonquin village called Pikogan. We wondered why the Indian children were taken to the residential school in Saint-Marc-de-Figuery instead of to Pikogan, close to Amos, which also had schools. We did not know. I did not know.

But not knowing is no excuse for not acknowledging today what happened at that little residential school. This is what happened there.

At the residential school in Saint-Marc-de-Figuery, the students were Indians. They were called that. They were even called redskins. They were taken from Obidjuan, an aboriginal village closer to Lac-Saint-Jean. At the time, the Grand Trunk railway connected Cochrane, Ontario, to Quebec City and Montreal. The railway passed through the Gouin reservoir, where the Algonquin people fished and hunted.

What happened in the 1950s and the 1960s? At the end of the summer, someone from the Department of Indian Affairs would travel by train, arrive in the villages, collect the Indian children and take them to the Indian residential school in Saint-Marc-de-Figuery.

They even collected the Indian children from Pikogan, an Algonquin village five kilometres from Amos, and took them to the residential school so that all the Indians would be cared for and educated at the same place and in the same way.

What happened to the Indian children when they were taken to the residential school in Saint-Marc-de-Figuery? I can attest to that, because I saw it. We were young. At that time, in the 1960s, I was in scouts. We would go to the residential school to see the Indians and talk to them about scouts. When we arrived we saw that they were all Indian children. They all had black hair and it was short. The first thing that happened when they arrived at the residential school in Saint-Marc-de-Figuery was that their hair was cut off, under the pretext that they had lice.

Their heads were completely shaven and kept that way for the entire school year. These children were taken to the residential school in Saint-Marc-de-Figuery in August or September and they stayed there until the end of the school year. That was where they were educated.

Here is what used to be done. First their hair was cut. Then their traditional clothing was taken away—because the authorities at the time felt this needed to be done—and they were given white man's clothing. What else happened? They were prohibited from speaking Algonquin. I am talking about the residential school that I knew, the one in Saint-Marc-de-Figuery, near Amos. Their Indian clothing was taken away and they were formally prohibited from speaking Indian, as it was called at the time. They had to speak French. All the classes were in French. They were taken away at age five or six from the Obidjuan community or whichever community they were from along the railway line. There were Indians in Senneterre, Amos and all over. The Algonquin were taken to these residential schools to be educated. Their hair was cut, they were prohibited from speaking their language and, most of all, they were prohibited from thinking like Indians. From the age of five they had to think like white people because apparently we were intellectually superior and we, the whites, had to educate them.

I hope the picture I have just evoked here in this House—a picture that is true—will call to mind certain events that happened in Europe just a few decades ago. I would not go so far as to use the word “genocide”. I will not use that word, although I could not be blamed for thinking it. In fact, the Kistabish, the Mohawks, the McDougalls I now know have all lost their language and their culture. They were subjected to things that I will not describe here in this House, horrible things, such as rapping their knuckles because they ate with their fingers.

When they were in their communities for the entire summer with their parents and elders, they learned to hunt and fish. They learned how to gut a fish, how to trap a rabbit, hare, deer or moose, or how to feed wolves, because they learned from the wolves where to find the deer. Yet, they lost all of this as soon as they went to the residential school.

I am sure you can imagine what happened. The children were five, six, seven or eight years old, and we know this happened every year. What happened? Horrible things happened in that Indian residential school. Here in this House, I will not talk about the sexual assaults endured by the Kistabish, the Mohawks, and the McDougalls, and I could name others. They went through some tremendous difficulties, which they hid for the most part. They could not talk about it to their parents.

What did Jackie Kistabish say when she returned to Pikogan? She said everything was fine, that it was not so bad. Her mother and grandmother were surprised to see Jackie or my friend Kistabish come home with their hair cut up to their ears. That was not the aboriginal way. At that time, they typically had long hair, although the children lost their hair in September. Their hair was cut off or shaved. When they returned home in June, they did not even understand their parents and, worse, their parents did not understand them. That is the worst of everything that was done.

I am talking about children of five or six, but this went on for about 10 years, until they were 15 or 16. They lost their whole culture, say the Anishnabe Algonquins from Pikogan and Winneway and Lac-Simon and Obidjuan.

I could name them all, and I will tell you why. I grew up to become a criminal lawyer. It is strange, but my clients included the Kistabish, McDougalls, Mohawks and many others. They wound up in court, and no one could understand why they had become alcoholic and violent. They could not go back to their home communities, places like Pikogan, Obidjuan or Pointe-Bleue.

Some time ago, I asked a question of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. I received the answer today. These are recent statistics. In 2001-02, 738 aboriginal people were admitted to penitentiary to serve sentences of more than two years; in 2002-03, there were 775; in 2003-04, 752; in 2004-05, 802; in 2005-06, 891. These individuals are generally in their thirties and are serving their first sentence. Why? Maybe because they were unable to live in their home communities. Imagine their parents. We are talking about the 1950s and 1960s. These people were deprived of their rights and their culture. They were no longer able to communicate with their own parents because they were forbidden from speaking their own language.

Since 1876, 150,000 aboriginals have experienced what I just described and suffered the hell that was residential schools. Today, there are just 87,000 survivors of these residential schools. Unfortunately, they are disappearing at an average of 30 to 50 a week. Today these people are 70 to 75 years old. Some, but very few, are slightly younger at ages 55 to 60. Most of them are between 65 and 85 and they remember.

I have had the opportunity to meet with a number of these seniors—because they are seniors now—and they congratulate this House for taking provisions to resolve the residential schools issue by financially compensating the communities, and more specifically the aboriginals who experienced this hell. However, I think we need to go further. I am making an appeal in this House today. I am asking that we stop thinking in terms of political parties. Indeed, I am from the Bloc and yes, there are Liberals, our friends the New Democrats and the Conservatives. However, in light of this terrible experience aboriginals had, I think we could pass the motion today.

The motion of the Liberal member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River asks that this House apologize to the survivors of Indian residential schools for the trauma they suffered as a result of policies intended to assimilate first nations, and so forth.

In my speech, I do not want to blame the government for its inaction nor blame the previous government, which may have done nothing for 13 years; that is not what we are debating. Today, the issue is that the first nations experienced horrible things on our soil. We must not only recognize that fact and compensate them for it, but I believe we should also apologize. We did not know. We did not think this was going on. We never believed that this could have gone so far.

Unfortunately this went as far as complete assimilation of a people and as far as offensive sexual assault against children between the ages of 5 and 10. One of them told me that at the Indian residential school he saw a young boy—whom I will not name, but whom I know personally—leave the brother superior's room bleeding from a place that decency prevents me from naming in this House. But we are old enough to understand that what he experienced was appalling. This went on night after night for days and months.

How do we think these people survived for all these years? For they are people, despite the fact that for many years, right into the 1950s, some believed that Indians were not people.

Enough is enough. The Bloc Québécois and I think that the House should say enough is enough.

Apologizing will not erase what happened, nor will it make these communities forget what they went through. Suicide rates are high. One man told me that his father committed suicide and that he did not understand why until his mother told him what his father had told her—until his mother told him that his father had gone to the Saint-Marc-de-Figuery Indian residential school.

This kind of thing happened all over Canada. We have to acknowledge it, and I believe the day will come when Canada will admit that it made a mistake. Canada must apologize for what it did to the first nations, and I think the time to do so is now.

I think that with all due respect, the first nations now have everything they need to take charge of their future and to grow. The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, of which I am a member, is studying bills, such as Bill C-44. It is not perfect, but are working to improve it.

We acknowledge the rights they have won. They had to fight the government for their rights.

I will end by saying that overall, the report submitted to the committee was based on recognizing aboriginal peoples as self-governing nations that occupy a special place in Canada. However, before we can truly acknowledge that, the House must apologize sincerely to residential school survivors for the trauma they experienced.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the previous speaker's comments. One of the statements he made is that this government has shown a blatant disregard for aboriginal people. I find that ironic coming from a member of the Liberal government that was in power for 13 years and could have addressed many of these issues.

I want the member to know that I requested to serve on the aboriginal affairs committee out of a desire to see improvement in the lives of all of our aboriginal peoples. How can the member indicate that we have a blatant disregard for aboriginal people considering the number of initiatives that the minister has already implemented?

There is the home ownership concept where aboriginal people will begin to build their own equity and have a sense of pride in ownership and investment, and the initiative to reduce the number of high risk communities. Recently, we received a report that showed that the number of high risk contaminated water communities has been reduced from 197 to 93 in the space of one year. There is the initiative to implement Bill C-44 which will end 30 years of discrimination on reserve.

There are these and many others I could outline indicating our support for aboriginal peoples. How can the member honestly say to the Canadian people that this government has shown a blatant disregard for aboriginal peoples?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the motion of the hon. member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Peace River.

Under the watch of Canada's new government, the Indian residential schools settlement agreement received its final court approval on March 21. This historic agreement will foster reconciliation between aboriginal people who resided at these schools, their families and communities, and all Canadians.

It was the current Minister of Indian Affairs who challenged the former Liberal government to take real action on achieving resolution to this sad chapter in Canadian history. It is that minister who has shepherded the agreement to where it is now.

I believe that it is most important at this time to take all the steps necessary to ensure that the agreement is implemented as soon as possible so that former students and their families who decide to remain in their settlement may benefit from it. That is why we are working hard toward the implementation of the settlement agreement, which includes elements such as the truth and reconciliation commission, a common experience payment, and funding for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation.

While I agree that this specific initiative requires immediate and sustained attention, I also believe it is essential to look beyond this one issue to the wider array of challenges that face all aboriginal people and communities in Canada. I can point with pride to the significant progress that Canada's new government has made in working in partnership with aboriginal groups and it is making progress in these areas to address a number of challenges.

For instance, let me discuss Bill C-44, an act to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The bill was introduced in the House on December 13 last year and is currently being considered by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, of which I am very honoured to be a member. Bill C-44 would end an exemption included in the original legislation when it was put into force 30 years ago, a measure designed to be temporary. Here we are 30 years later and this temporary measure remains in place. This needs to change.

In order to investigate and adjudicate alleged acts of discrimination, the Canadian Human Rights Act established two bodies: the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Over the past three decades the Canadian Human Rights Act has served to strengthen democracy in this country. Unfortunately, not all Canadians enjoy access to the legal instruments provided by the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act states:

Nothing in this Act affects any provision of the Indian Act or any provision made under or pursuant to that Act.

This simple sentence effectively denies some Canadians access to the remedies granted in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Section 67 shields the Indian Act and any decisions made or actions taken under the Indian Act from the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Under section 67, potentially discriminatory decisions made by agencies mandated by the Indian Act, such as band councils, school boards, as well as the federal government itself are exempted from the Canadian Human Rights Act. These decisions often touch on crucial aspects of day to day life, such as education, housing, registration, and the use and occupation of reserve lands. In effect, section 67 puts into question our claim to be a fair and egalitarian society.

As a consequence of this exemption, individuals, mostly residents of first nation communities, have had limited recourse under the Canadian Human Rights Act should they feel that their rights have been violated. This fundamental injustice is a blemish on Canada's democracy. Section 67 clearly permits discrimination against particular groups of citizens.

The exemption creates an odd irony of sorts. Legislation designed to promote equality effectively sanctions discrimination. Under section 67, thousands of Canadians cannot fully avail themselves of the legal instruments that combat discrimination. What is particularly unsettling is that section 67 affects many of Canada's most vulnerable citizens, the residents of first nation communities.

Support for the repeal of section 67 comes from a wide variety of groups, including the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, which called for the repeal of section 67 in its 2005 report on matrimonial real property on reserves, “Walking Arm-In-Arm to Resolve the Issue of On-Reserve Matrimonial Real Property”.

Support for the committee's position on the matter at that time was based largely on the testimony of representatives of several key groups, including the Native Women's Association of Canada. Over the years, calls for the repeal of section 67 have come from several other groups, including the Assembly of First Nations, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

It is a simple issue of human rights. Canada must not perpetuate the discrimination inherent in section 67, and nothing will change unless action is taken. The time has come to ensure that all Canadians are treated equally before the law. Bill C-44 proposes a fair, realistic approach to ending nearly three decades of sanctioned discrimination. We must seize the opportunity before us and ensure access to full human rights, ensuring that those rights are provided to all.

Now is the time to act and to end the injustice that was created as a so-called temporary measure 30 years ago. The repeal of section 67 is just one of many examples of Canada's new government's commitment to resolving the challenges that face aboriginal people in Canada and to improving the quality of life in aboriginal communities.

The member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River has touched on a subject of equal importance today: the fair and expedient implementation of the Indian Residential Schools Settlement Agreement. It is through this agreement that the healing and reconciliation needed will in fact be fostered.

As I stand in support of the member's motion, I urge his party to stand up for the rights of all aboriginal Canadians and support human rights on reserve. I urge the party opposite to support Bill C-44. Aboriginal Canadians are counting on us to do the right thing. They have waited for far too long to have this injustice corrected. It is time to act.

We have a choice. We can delay and study and then further delay, but 30 years have passed. Recently the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples appeared before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and stated its absolute and unequivocal support for the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It went on to say:

The fact that the Indian Act has substantially escaped human rights scrutiny for three decades is unacceptable in a country that is otherwise held up throughout the world as an example of successful and prosperous democracy.

Therefore, while I agree with the motion before us today, we cannot afford to hide behind more words. Now is the time for meaningful action, and our minister has shown over and over that we are getting things done for aboriginal Canadians.

[Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard]

It's fairly simple as far as I'm concerned. Respecting and enhancing collective rights may be a way of dealing with individual rights. However, no one will disagree with the need to strike a balance which, otherwise, would probably not exist. We need to spend the time to reflect on the impact the Charter will have, once it is adopted under Bill C-44, on communities that may not have the means to enforce its provisions.

Let's take the example of Quebec. In several cases, people have taken the means at their disposal to make certain illegitimate claims, land claims or claims involving access to services . I could go to any region in Quebec and give you examples of this type of thing. One could easily imagine that the existence of such a charter in communities could be grist to the mill for the type of individual or group I am referring to.

The perfect example of this would be the roadblock on the 117. Several weeks ago, certain groups decided upon a cause. One group publicly made claims which would normally be something our groups are responsible for. What is there to stop communities from pointing to the Charter to say that there has been a human rights violation? I think we may be opening the door to that type of situation.

I could also point to land claim negotiations between my own nation and the Governments of Quebec and Canada. From year to year, because this has been ongoing for years now, it has not been unusual to hear people make public pronouncements on their status or their rights and the fact that there was a violation in the context of these negotiations. What would stop existing groups and future groups from referring to this Charter to point to an obvious breach of human rights?