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.

Canadian Human Rights Act

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know the member has been a tireless advocate on women's rights. This bill is important in terms of ensuring that the mechanisms that are developed are culturally relevant, which has been a challenge.

Often times we develop solutions that do not respect first nations culture and traditions. We have treaty implementation right now in places like Yukon where people are working hard. The Teslin Tlingit are working toward having restorative justice mechanisms and a justice system that is respectful of the traditions. They know that it works.

In the cases of human rights violations, if we can institute some culturally relevant mechanisms we know it will help the community to solve its own problems. In addition, some of these communities do not speak English. In many northern Ontario communities, for example, many of the elders speak only Cree.

If we put together tribunals that respect the language and the tradition from those communities, I would argue that the solutions will be much more suitable to the people in those communities.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to speak in the House today. As this is the first day of my second year in office as a member of Parliament, I would like to thank the people of Kitchener—Conestoga for giving me the privilege of serving here in Ottawa on their behalf. I am continually humbled and honoured to be their servant.

I want to thank my wife, Betty, and my children, Gavin, Jenn, Benj, Shell, Arja-Lisa and Jamie. I also send a special thanks to my staff who work so diligently here in Ottawa and in my constituency office.

I would be remiss if I did not take this opportunity to congratulate my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, and his wife on the birth of their first child, Sarah. I think we all rejoice with them. As a father and a grandfather, I can tell them that they are in for some of the greatest joys that we can experience here on our earthly journey. I wish them all the best.

I would like to reflect as well on my work with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development . Under his direction, our government has made some huge strides in improving the lives of Canadians and especially aboriginal people all across Canada.

As it relates to Bill C-44, I encourage my hon. colleagues to join me in supporting the bill. The legislation before us today proposes to accomplish a very worthy goal, that is, to recognize and safeguard the basic human rights of all Canadians.

Mr. Speaker, I was remiss when I started. I will be splitting my time with the member for Kildonan—St. Paul.

Bill C-44 would amend the Canadian Human Rights Act so that individuals, namely, residents of first nations communities, will enjoy access to the same legal protections and mechanisms that are available to all other Canadians.

While other members of the House have already explained the specific advantages of Bill C-44, I would like to take a different tack.

As a stand-alone piece of legislation, Bill C-44 has considerable merit. However, to appreciate the true value of Bill C-44, we must take a much broader view of the issues which are facing aboriginal peoples, particularly first nations women. I am convinced that the repeal of section 67 proposed in Bill C-44 would foster long term improvements in the quality of life that are experienced by these women.

Research shows that the well-being of aboriginal people is substantially inferior to that of the general Canadian population. No other group in Canadian society is more marginalized. More important, the circumstances of aboriginal women are too often different from those of other Canadian women and from those of aboriginal men.

For example, according to the 2001 census, registered Indian women had an average annual income of $8,766, which is $1,356 less than their male counterparts and $73,005 less than that of other Canadian women. In other words, aboriginal women earned almost half as much as non-aboriginal women and aboriginal women substantially lag behind non-aboriginal women on almost all socio-economic indicators.

More specifically, aboriginal women are more likely than non-aboriginal women to be impoverished, uneducated, have higher unemployment, be homeless, have higher rates of incarceration, be substantially more likely to head single parent families and more frequently to be victims of physical and sexual abuse.

Bill C-44 is an important first step toward addressing these issues. It would not change the situation overnight but we owe a duty to aboriginal people to start moving forward. The legislation is quite valuable as part of a larger strategy to support first nations communities in assuming greater control of and greater responsibility for their affairs.

It is in that light that I encourage my hon. colleagues to support Bill C-44.

As a Conservative, I believe that good government is small, non-intrusive government. However, I can appreciate the role that good governance structure plays in the exceptional quality of life that we all enjoy.

For example, for a number of years I had the privilege to serve my community as a trustee on the Waterloo County Board of Education. As the former chair of that board, I have witnessed first-hand how a number of accountable representative bodies collectively take responsibility for the quality of education within the public school system.

There are parent teacher councils, school boards and ministries of education, all of which enable taxpayers and parents to exert a significant level of control over what goes on in our public schools. Legislation has assigned each of these bodies particular powers and authorities.

In the off reserve communities various accountable bodies are responsible for many aspects of daily life, from drinking water and sewage treatment to land use and business licensing. Unfortunately, under the Indian Act these kinds of bodies do not exist on the on reserve first nations communities. Instead, we have a system of band councils, contribution agreements and a long list of programs.

As a result, no one has responsibility for specific issues, such as unsafe drinking water, inadequate housing or poor educational results for their students. With responsibility diffused in this way with no one accountable, there can be no recourse for individual residents of first nations communities. With no effective mechanisms to promote accountability, problems continue to fester. Consequently, to no one's surprise, vulnerable people and unfortunately, typically, women and children, suffer more than their share of consequences.

Canada's new government has begun to change this situation and to instill a sense of accountability into relations between Canada and first nations. Working closely with groups such as the Assembly of First Nations, Native Women's Association of Canada and the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the government is determined to establish strong legislative frameworks that promote accountability in community governance.

Bill C-44 is an essential foundation for this reform, as are efforts to take action on first nations schools, drinking water and matrimonial real property.

Today we have the opportunity and the means to move forward. This legislation is a very important element of a wider approach that will see first nations exercise greater control over and assume more responsibility for the well-being of their own communities.

I encourage my hon. colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C-44.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the member to envision a scene where there is a society, a village or whatever and there are no laws. All of a sudden some laws are brought in and people are told that tomorrow the laws will be promulgated and put in place. Imagine the chaos. There is no police, no courts to enforce the laws and no information to the people as to what the laws are. That is not unlike this situation.

What provisions are in place to fund the implementation of the bill? None have been mentioned in any of the speeches from government members. I think it will be difficult to implement the bill.

I think everyone is on side with the concept. However, the first nations governments will need to have the funds. People will have to be trained on how to deal with complaints. Then they will need people to deal with the complaints, they will need the bureaucracy to do that. The people who complain need to be trained on what their rights are. We see pamphlets from human rights institutions. There will need to be institutions to deal with these complaints.

Will the member encourage his government to provide the resources that would make it possible for this good initiative to work?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no question on this side of the House that it is time to move ahead. To envision a community without adequate laws and simply to superimpose something on them would be unfair.

However, it is clear that this issue has been under study for some time. Adequate consultations have gone on. The Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission has clearly indicate that he intends to work closely with our government in facilitating a smooth transition.

It is important for us to get the skeleton framework in place. Then the details of that will be worked out. First, we will study the bill in committee. I am also sure the government will have further initiatives in terms of the actual details of how that will all be implemented.

[Gerald Keddy, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margaret's, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the debate this afternoon and for the life of me, I do not understand where the Liberal members and the NDP members are coming from.

Since 1867, there has been inequality on reserve in Canada. For the first time we have a government that is willing to take action and give women on reserve property rights. I do not understand how we need to study this any more, how we need to look at this, how we have to somehow finance it. When we give people rights, they will take charge of their own lives. When they do not have rights, they cannot take charge of their own lives.

It was a Conservative government in 1957 that gave first nations the vote. Previous to that they did not have that, and I am sure at the time the Liberals said the same thing, that we needed to study this because they may not be ready to have the vote.

I suggest that first nations women are ready to have some rights and they are very long overdue.

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

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague on this. The whole purpose of the legislation is to give aboriginal people the same rights that other Canadians enjoy. He is right in the fact that we have spent far too long on this.

Section 67 was placed in the Human Rights Act specifically as a temporary measure. I do not know too many things that we would consider as being temporary for 30 years. It is time that we quit the talk and all the rhetoric and move on this file in the interests of protecting the individuals who are vulnerable in many of our first nations communities. Let us get it done.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question for my colleague is this: does he sincerely believe that the first nations are now ready to move forward with such an important bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, it is great to work with my colleague on the aboriginal affairs committee. I know he has a real interest in advancing the cause of aboriginal issues across the country.

To answer his question is, yes, I believe that aboriginal people are willing to move ahead with this at this point. They have been waiting as long as we have. We have heard from many of the aboriginal groups, indicating strong support for this initiative and the fact that it is time for us to begin to act on it rather than simply study and talk and study some more.

[Joy Smith, Conservative, Kildonan—St. Paul, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-44. I would like to recognize and congratulate the parliamentary secretary, as my former colleague did, on the birth of his beautiful new daughter and to also thank him for the wonderful work he has done on the bill.

I am pleased to speak to the bill this afternoon. It is a subject that has been bantered around and has been studied in the status of women committee, of which I am the vice-chair. Representatives from aboriginal communities, groups and women have appeared before the committee and have said that it is high time this happen. I am very pleased to talk about why we feel this is so necessary. I also ask for support from all members.

The legislation proposes to grant residents of first nations, including aboriginal women, the same remedies and protections available to other Canadians. Nowhere is the requirement for this protection better illustrated than through the issue of matrimonial real property.

On reserve, matrimonial real property, or MRP, provides a compelling glimpse of what life can be like for residents of first nations communities. MRP refers to the assets that a married couple typically share, the family home for instance. In the event of a family breakdown, provincial law prevents the sale of MRP until both spouses agree on how the proceeds will be divided. This effectively prevents one spouse from acting unilaterally. Provincial family law, however, does not apply on reserve. In fact, on reserve no law prevents a spouse from being evicted from his or her family home. I am sad to say that this tragedy is played out dozens of times each year in communities all across Canada.

To further complicate matters, under the Indian Act, only a band council has the right to issue an occupancy permit, a document that stipulates who may live in a house located on a reserve. As my hon. colleagues have pointed out, actions taken pursuant to the Indian Act are exempt from the Canadian Human Rights Act.

As a result of this legal quagmire, hundreds, if not thousands, of aboriginal women find themselves out on the street with nowhere to turn. Their rights may have been violated, their families may be in ruins, but the law can do nothing for them.

In 2005 the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development studied MRP and heard from dozens of witnesses. I will cite a small excerpt from the testimony of Beverley Jacobs, president of the Native Women's Association of Canada. Ms. Jacobs said:

—many first nations women have no recourse at all when their rights are being violated in their communities. They have no recourse to challenge their band councils for discriminating against them and for forcing them out of their own communities. We demand basic human rights for our women and children.

The legislation before us today is all about human rights. A report published last year by the United Nations Committee on Social, Economic and Cultural Rights effectively chastized Canada for failing to adequately protect basic human rights. The committee's concluding remarks include this statement:

—the Committee urges the State party to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which prevents First Nations people from filing complaints of discrimination before a human rights commission or tribunal.

Today we have an opportunity to right these wrongs. The legislation is a crucial part of a larger strategy that will see first nations exercise greater control over and assume more responsibility for the well-being of their communities.

I urge my hon. colleagues to vote in favour of this very important bill. I congratulate the minister for putting it before Parliament.

[The Acting Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member for Kildonan—St. Paul will have five minutes left to finish her speech the next time the bill comes to the House.

It being 5:30 p.m. the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

The House resumed from February 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me clearly state my support for the bill in principle. The repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is long overdue. Initially, the section was implemented as a temporary measure. However, temporary has turned into many years and it is time to rectify the situation. It is time to ensure all first nations have the protection that most Canadians take for granted.

For too long first nations people have been subject to lesser standards than non-first nations people. Deplorable living conditions, substandard educational facilities and the lack of adequate health care highlight the vast gap that exists between the first nations and non-first nations people of Canada.

The previous Liberal government had set out a comprehensive consultative process to begin to address this gap. The process culminated in the signing of the Kelowna accord, an accord signed by all national first nations organizations, all provincial and territorial governments and the Government of Canada. The Kelowna accord was abandoned by the Conservative government. This really had the effect of shaking the confidence of the first nations people across Canada.

In my riding communities such as Sandy Lake, with Chief Pardemus Anishinabie, Fort Hope, with Chief Charlie O'keese, and Kasabonika, with Chief Gordon Anderson, all felt that this would be first step in ensuring that the gap was addressed. They felt the Kelowna accord was something that they could support and it was something that would make a difference on the streets of their communities.

Many believe the Kelowna accord was just a starting point. Again, the goal was to narrow that gap and ensure that they could enjoy some of the benefits that mainstream Canada enjoyed. The reality is much different on the first nations. Sometimes that is quite a harsh reality.

Section 67 contributes to this gap. By not allowing first nations people on reserve to file human rights complaints, the government continues to send the message to first nations people that they are not treated equally. This is not acceptable and the repeal of section 67 is a step in the right direction filling this gap. However, there are serious concerns that I have with the government's approach to the implementation of the bill.

I have had the chance to discuss the bill with the Grand Chief of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation. Grand Chief Stan Beardy represents Treaty No. 9 in northern Ontario. The Grand Chief has worked tirelessly to improve the living conditions for his people. I have been fortunate to receive his advice and counsel on specific issues facing the constituents of my riding of Kenora. He represents 49 first nations communities, many of them remote in nature, spanning a territory that is close to two-thirds of Ontario. With a constituency of over 45,000 people, the Grand Chief is acutely aware of the needs and priorities of his people. His comments regarding the bill were very direct, “There must be more consultation”.

We have been witness to the ineffectiveness of legislation that has been imposed on first nations without proper consultation. We must learn from the past, and this is too important an issue to proceed too hastily.

I have also been fortunate to have the counsel of Grand Chief Arnold Gardner, Grand Chief for Treaty No. 3 first nations in my riding. He echoed these sentiments for consultation, believing that consultation would be the only way to move the first nations' concerns forward. I agree. The government must stop its paternalistic approach when dealing with first nations.

I spoke about the remoteness of some of these communities and I will take a moment to explain that. Many think it is a community on the end of the road, but when we drive to communities in my riding, like Red Lake and Pickle Lake, which are several hundred kilometres north of Highway 17, the main Trans-Canada Highway, at the end of that road we have to be prepared to fly 500 miles farther north just to get to the edge of the riding.

In that area there are 21 remote communities such as North Spirit, Poplar Hill and Webequie. They all do not expect the government to be part of the consultation in their own small communities, but they want to ensure that their leadership is listened to and they want to ensure the government pays attention to their concerns. They want their leaders involved and they want to know that Stan Beardy and Arnold Gardner have been heard.

The lack of consultation was not the only thing the government overlooked in its haste. The Canadian Human Rights Commission, an authority on the topic of human rights, recommended that a transition period be a minimum of 18 months. The government however has ignored this recommendation and has reduced the transition time to only six months.

First nations communities are already overextended in providing basic needs for their people and now the government would add to this burden by exposing fist nations to new liabilities without providing adequate time for a transition period.

Consultations would provide a better picture of how this legislation would affect first nations. We would also have a better understanding of the concerns that first nations have with the bill.

One concern that has already arisen is how the repeal of section 67 will impact existing treaty rights. This is an important question, one that deserves to be answered before the government decides to implement the bill.

The government has decided to examine the constitutional impact of the bill after it has already passed it into law. This is just another example of the government's unwillingness to properly address the concerns of the first nations people. Why not conduct proper consultations with first nations organizations while at the same time examine the legal ramifications of the bill for the existing treaty rights?

I am not surprised to find that the bill did not mention the need to provide first nations with the resources to prepare for this change. I have observed a troubling pattern with the Conservative approach to working with first nations. Conservatives believe it is enough to announce a program without the resources to back it up. We were witness to this with their announcement to improve the water quality on first nation reserves. The Conservatives announced new standards, but did not bother to provide the resources for the first nations to achieve these standards.

Many communities in my area have existing water and sewer plants. They have the infrastructure in the ground, but the new regulations require new upgrades or retrofits and these are expensive. I have already explained the seriousness of the remote sites. In all the communities the infrastructure needs to be improved, but when they are in the far flung areas and can only be accessed by aircraft, the costs are very high.

It is typical of the government: no consultation and new rules with no money or resources to follow them through. Many small first nations want to be heard. The people of Fort Severn, Bearskin Lake and Muskrat Dam in my riding all want to know, whether it is water or section 67, that the government of the day will listen to their concerns.

We see this approach again with this bill. The government would like for section 67 to be repealed, but it is unwilling to provide the resources needed for the first nations to prepare such claims. The Assembly of First Nations mentioned the example of the lack of access to public buildings on reserves for people with disabilities.

With the repeal of section 67, first nations would be exposed to a liability under that circumstance. However, many first nations do not have the resources to make improvements according to these standards. Without providing resources needed, the government will only exasperate the current situation whereby first nations are already struggling to provide for the people who live in the communities and on the streets.

Another concern with the legislation is a lack of an interpretive clause. The measure had been recommended by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and again the Conservative government ignored this advice. An interpretive clause would assist the Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Tribunal in reviewing claims against first nations governments, agencies and institutions. AFN has argued that it is imperative to include such a clause to ensure the balance between the collective rights and the rights of the individual. This is an important balance that any future legislation should not infringe upon.

While discussing the need to strike a proper balance between collective rights and the rights of the individual, the issue of jurisdiction is inevitable. Who should be responsible to address human rights claims arising from first nations individuals? The Assembly of First Nations is a proponent of the creation of a first nations human rights tribunal. However, the government has once again ignored the advice of AFN. There is no mention of such a tribunal in the current legislation.

I reiterate my support for the repeal of section 67, but I repeat the need for fundamental changes to the legislation. The issue is too important and we have waited too long for them to bring this legislation forward in haste. We must do it right. Every person living in Canada should have the same right to bring forward human rights complaints. This will be a positive step toward building a stronger relationship between the government and the first nations people. Beyond this, it is the right thing to do, so let us make sure we get it done right.

I reinforce the comments made to me by Grand Chief Stan Beardy and Grand Chief Arnold Gardner about the need for consultation. They want to be heard. As such, I would encourage the government to commence consultations with the representatives of the first nations community to better understand the impact that this legislation will have.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill was introduced and given first reading on December 13, 2006, although—as I must point out to or remind all members of this House—this was in spite of the promise made by the Government of Canada to strengthen ties between the government and first nations peoples.

That promise included improved cooperation and discussion with first nations peoples in order to develop federal policies that affect or have important specific repercussions on members of the Assembly of First Nations.

The promise was made on May 31, 2005, and was part of the follow-up subsequent to a promise made by the Prime Minister on April 19, 2004, at the Canada-aboriginal peoples round table. The then Prime Minister himself said:

It is now time for us to renew and strengthen the covenant between us.

He also added, and I feel this represents another promise:

No longer will we in Ottawa develop policies first and discuss them with you later. This principle of collaboration will be the cornerstone of our new partnership.

To my knowledge, the Prime Minister did not refer to just any partnership, rather, a new partnership and, as far as I know, no other new partnership agreements have been suggested or put forward to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, on which I sit.

However, on December 13, 2006, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs issued a press release to announce the introduction of a bill to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

If there was consultation with the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada or perhaps other aboriginal associations unknown to us, the minister has a problem, unless of course, he himself is aboriginal. He should not be ashamed. That would be completely honourable. There would only be a problem if he considers himself an authority with the power to negotiate on behalf of aboriginals.

But he is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and as such, we know that we do not need to remind him that it would be a conflict of interest, especially since, in 2004, the government promised to strengthen ties between the government and first nations peoples. Accordingly, in the future, the government must consult first nations peoples before developing any policies concerning them.

According to a joint press release issued by the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Mr. Phil Fontaine, and the Native Women’s Association of Canada on the same day that this bill was tabled, it seems that after 30 years of lobbying, they agree with the principle of repealing section 67, but only after due consultation has taken place.

Even though this had been in the works for 30 years, the government did not consult the first nations, the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations stated. As the government's representative, the minister also did not respect the promise made on May 31, 2005.

In 1977, the Minister of Justice, Ron Basford, considered section 67 to be temporary because, even at that time, the government had promised not to amend the Indian Act without consulting them at length.

In the opinion of the Grand Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, there had been no working meeting of any sort with the Assembly of First Nations or the Native Women’s Association of Canada or with both organizations together in order to discuss Bill C-44.

We must consider this approach as a slap in the face or even worse. Personally, I would consider it an insult, a measure to delay the final and complete recognition of native peoples.

What can we expect from a government that voted against adopting the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, a government that refused to recognize the Kelowna accord and that, today, is attempting a diversionary tactic for the sole apparent purpose of delaying recognition of the rights of native peoples of Quebec, Canada and the provinces?

This government should not claim that it is surprised to have an increasing number of chiefs, associations and native leaders demand the autonomy needed to develop by joining, in Quebec in particular, the national movement for autonomy and sovereignty over their land and their nation, a Quebec movement which is very much in keeping, one can understand, with their vision and their aspirations.

Moreover, why should we be surprised by the astronomical costs of negotiations between the various departments and the first nations, when the laws and regulations that relate to them are developed without consultation?

Why should we be surprised by the waste of human energy in all the efforts made by aboriginal people to be recognized, when the laws that relate to them are either incomprehensible or ill-suited to the facts or situations?

What can possibly be gained from all these strategic little battles to stifle these people economically, if it is not just to make the talks drag on long enough so that, at the end—perhaps in 100 years—there will be no one left to whom this applies or, if there are some left, these people will be so much in debt that they will have to give up their rights to pay off the money they owe?

I am making this point, because the government's strategy is to force their associations or communities to give up their claims, or else face bankruptcy, so that in the end, it can impose its vision on these people and leave them to fend for themselves.

Quebec has had to endure this stifling treatment for a long time, and it is still, to this day, at the mercy of some drawers of water who are putting up all sorts of obstacles in its path. That was the case just recently, when two ministers from Quebec cowardly betrayed the people who voted for them in order to allow a centralizing government to put the Quebec nation in a position of weakness.

Indeed, who is not aware of the fervour shown by this government with taxpayers' money—25% of which comes from the Quebec nation—to protect Ontario's monopoly over the auto industry? However, when the time comes to protect Quebec's primary sector, namely the aircraft industry, we see two yes-men from that province take it upon themselves to make them admit that they are opposed to the vision of their anglophone colleagues to not protect that industry, contrary to what they do for the auto and oil industries. That is sad.

Who is not familiar with the statement made by a certain Prime Minister, who is still often quoted, to the effect that, when it comes to the auto industry, we are talking about Ontario. In Quebec, it is the aircraft industry? The agreement that was just signed benefits that industry in Ontario and in the western provinces, at the expense of Quebec.

All Quebeckers are ashamed to see, even in this day and age, fellow citizens proud to betray them and, more importantly, proud to do so publicly, in the hope of gaining some prestige, and to come and tell us that, when it is good for Ontario and western Canada, we must not interfere with a free market.

I happen to think that the auto industry was, and still is, also a free market. Oil companies have always been a highly subsidized free market reserved for Ontario and certain specific provinces.

Did we not also see this weakness in a Conservative member from Quebec just last week, when the Minister of International Cooperation and Minister for la Francophonie and Official Languages tried to justify, quite awkwardly, but agreed to giving more privileges to unilingual anglophones in the army, while denying unilingual francophones the same privileges and appointments?

What are we to make of all these Conservative members from Quebec who turn themselves inside out to go against the interests of Quebeckers, even giving them the finger during a vote on supply management?

What a shame for all of Quebec to see some lazy people publicly claim to represent their voters, but devote their energies to destroying them, in order to get a few crumbs. All these free thinkers elected in the Conservative Party under false pretenses have become a major hindrance to the economy and to the development of Quebec. Perhaps they could try to find work in this country after the next election.

I understand full well the mistrust of the aboriginal people toward this government. Quebeckers feel it as well, and the few voters who thought it might be worth a try will change their minds once they become aware of the scandalous behaviour of those in whom they put their trust.

In my opinion, the day the country of Quebec recognizes all these aboriginal nations, a number of other countries will be inspired to follow suit. However, to do so, it will take a decision by a nation that has had the same problems that all aboriginals are currently experiencing across Canada.

I am proud to have the Cree nation in my riding.

I am proud of the progress they made, first through the James Bay Agreement and then through the peace of the braves agreement. The latter, which reflected the utmost respect for the aspirations of first nations people, was achieved thanks to the understanding shown by the Parti Québécois under their visionary leader Bernard Landry. That kind of understanding is typical of Quebec. Quebeckers, just as the Cree, are just waiting for some kind of recognition similar to the peace of the braves on the part of the federal government to propel the dynamic Quebec nation towards new challenges.

Is it really possible that today, in a country that a recent Prime Minister called the best country in the world, we are still discussing such a fundamental right as the right of first nations people to the most basic protection guaranteed by the Canadian Human Rights Act, from which they are excluded under section 67, originally subsection 63(2), which reads as follows: “Nothing in this Act affects any provision of the Indian Act or any provision made under or pursuant to that Act?”

According to Ron Basford, then justice minister, this provision was necessary in 1977 because of the government's commitment not to review the Indian Act while—and he did say while—consultations with the National Indian Brotherhood and other organizations were still underway.

This provision was controversial from the moment it was introduced. It was thought to be particularly prejudicial to first nations women who were already deprived of status under the existing Indian Act that was considered discriminatory.

During consideration of that bill, which was known as Bill C-25 and which was to become the new law, several witnesses were called upon to appear before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. They said that this exception was unfair and reprehensible, that it was an insult and that it showed the worst kind of indifference about human rights.

The minister even considered section 67 as a temporary necessity, suggesting that Parliament would not be in favour of maintaining this exception indefinitely or very long.

He misjudged the parliamentarians who came after 1977 and even 1985. Would we be wrong to think that the various governments prior to 1985 were more democratic than today's governments, especially having known the Liberal majority governments, the Liberal minority government in 2004 and the Conservative minority government that has been in power since 2006 and defies majority decisions of Parliament?

It may be that, after 13 consecutive years in power, the Liberals lost touch with reality and thought they were invincible. That is what usually happens when a party governs with ignorance and indifference. The Liberals likely realized that when the voters punished them.

As for the current minority government, it is disturbing to see this inexperienced government, with limited skills and members from Quebec who represent their constituents' interests neither bravely nor ethically. To see this government defy the will of Parliament, the will of the people of Quebec and Canada, with even more arrogance than the previous government raises concerns about democracy.

I believe that the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada were right to come out in favour of repealing section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, provided that the government honoured the commitment made on May 31, 2005, following the promises the Prime Minister made on April 19, 2004, to hold discussions with the first nations in order to develop federal policies pertaining to them.

Do I have to repeat what the Prime Minister said at the Canada-aboriginal peoples round table on April 19, 2004 to remind this House that this bill, in both form and substance, runs counter to existing agreements and would lead to further disagreement?

Reaction from the people most directly concerned was not long in coming, and on the very day this bill was introduced, the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada issued a press release reiterating the conditions for recognition of any bill concerning them, even though they were very anxious to see this section disappear after 30 years of lobbying.

Knowing the astronomical costs of negotiating with aboriginal peoples and the differing interpretations of existing legislation, as well as the government's promises regarding the procedure for enacting new legislation or entering into new agreements that concern aboriginal peoples and have a specific impact on them, it is obvious that the government acted without due regard to the unique legal context and development of associated capacity for first nations relating to the Canadian Human Rights Act both in tabling this bill and following its introduction.

Understandably, it is difficult to believe in the good faith of this government, which has also opposed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and killed the Kelowna accord.

Like me, many of my colleagues represent aboriginal and Inuit constituents and, contrary to the members and ministers from Quebec in this government, they do not feel the need to double cross them to win over their less interested colleagues or their leader, who does not seem to be interested at all.

My colleagues and I will maintain our unwavering commitment to our constituents as well as our solidarity with other peoples like ours, which yearn for self-sufficiency, their most fundamental rights and loyalty from their elected representatives.

Naturally, we will consider the current approach so that we can define our position with respect to it. Should we ever decide to support it, we will do so only to be able to study it in committee, make amendments and hear evidence from first nations peoples.

[Roger Valley, Liberal, Kenora, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc mentioned that the minister thinks he is an authority on all first nation issues. I would dare say that he is the only one who would think that.

The 42 communities I represent have very little or no access to the minister. I would like to say for the record that we had total access to the previous minister, with whom I had chance to serve, in the Liberal government. He was in my riding and in the communities. The grand chiefs, both three and nine, had separate meetings with him.

Whether it is with regard to section 67 or any other issues in his area of Quebec, has my friend from the Bloc had any access to or consultations with the minister? Is there any access at all to this level of government that the minister is supposed to represent to ensure we hear the concerns of first nations?