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.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Toulouse, I just want to reassure you, members of the committee are aware of the significant needs of first nations, namely when it comes to housing in Quebec. At the moment, we are considering Bill C-44, and to date, we have heard from a number of groups. I'd also like to extend a welcome to Chief Picard who is also concerned with these matters; I know this because I was at the First Nations Socio-Economic Forum.

We are hearing from groups and hearing concrete recommendations on Bill C-44. This is, after all, a consultative process and the bill has not yet been passed, we should remember that. The committee will be issuing recommendations, reviewing clauses and referring the bill to the House. Although it may not be perfect, there is a process in place, one that is established under our parliamentary system.

The Native Women's Association of Canada, in its brief, suggested that section 67, which was at the time added as an interim measure, has in a way stopped the most vulnerable from filing human rights complaints when they involved a provision of the Indian Act. Thirty years have gone by and we now have to deal with this problem.

I heard what you had to say this morning, and I am conscious that the consultative process may not be perfect, but as Mr. Lemay mentioned earlier, efforts have been made over the last 30 years to correct the human rights gaps. I am wondering whether we should continue to wait or rather take this opportunity to improve the rights and living conditions of first nations. We are not talking about taking a giant step here, but rather a small step to move in that direction.

We know that first nations are doing important work when it comes to collective rights, but I would be curious to know whether steps have been taken to promote the individual rights of aboriginal people in their communities.

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

In terms of the consultation specifically on Bill C-44, I think I can accept your statement. There were previous attempts to repeal section 67--we have had Bill C-108, Bill C-7, and Bill S-45--and we also had consultation sessions held across Canada in 1999 as part of a formal review of the Canadian Human Rights Act. That did include extensive discussion about section 67. So in those previous attempts to look at this section, in those discussions, have your communities been involved? We have to get to the heart of what we're trying to do here. Bill C-44 is the current focus, but the principle of repealing section 67 has been looked at numerous times over the past number of years. Have you had input in those previous inventions of this particular action?

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

I would like to thank you for being here this morning.

I listened carefully to the representatives of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador and I have been through his brief with a fine-tooth comb.

Rest assured, Mr. Toulouse, I will read your brief carefully once it has been translated and sent to us. You have my word.

I have a concern. In about 10 minutes, when members on the government side have the opportunity to ask questions, they will probably ask the same question, but from a different perspective.

We have been told that Bill C-44 is the fruit of 30 years of discussions. I was not here 30 years ago. I imagine that neither of you were either, but you have been chief and grand chief of your respective first nations for a number of years.

My question is very simple. We have been told that extensive consultations were undertaken, as a result of which, it was decided to review the act and repeal section 67, which is a symbol of discrimination against aboriginal peoples.

My question is for both of you, it does not matter who answers first. In what way were the Quebec and Ontario Assemblies of First Nations consulted? Were you consulted? What shape did the consultations take? Aside from the Assembly of First Nations and the grand chiefs, were there any other consultations? Were the so-called—and I do not like the term—isolated communities in Northern Ontario consulted? Kashechewan, in Ontario, springs to mind. We could take the example of Winneway or Kitcisakik in Quebec.

Have there been, to your knowledge, any consultations on repealing the infamous section 67 since 1977? If yes, what shape did they take?

[Chief Angus Toulouse, Ontario Regional Chief, Chiefs of Ontario]

Good morning.

I'd like to thank the committee for this opportunity, albeit brief, to make a presentation on the important matter of Bill C-44. My comments today are based on a more comprehensive written brief, which I would urge the committee members to review. It should be in the clerk's hands within the next day or so; it's in translation, so hopefully it will get here in the next day or two.

As the Ontario regional chief, I work closely with the Chiefs of Ontario Secretariat, which is a coordinating body for the 134 first nation communities located within the boundaries of the province of Ontario. Ontario has the largest status Indian population of any province or territory in Canada. Therefore the position taken by the Chiefs of Ontario in relation to Bill C-44 should be given significant weight by the committee and the federal government.

The position taken by the Chiefs of Ontario with regard to the bill is a general one: the inherent right to self-government and other constitutional rights attached to individual first nations and not to the Chiefs of Ontario organization. Therefore, individual first nations may come before the committee and take different positions based on their particular right and history.

Before dealing with the specific issue of Bill C-44, I'd like to take this opportunity to share with the committee the priority concerns of Ontario first nations. These concerns have been identified through an ongoing strategic exercise. In summary form only, the priority concerns are as follows: 1. Rebuild our nations; 2. Negotiate respect and recognition of first nations jurisdiction; 3. New jointly developed federal land claims policies; 4. Respect first nations treaties, lands, and resources. Each priority is described in the written brief.

With these Ontario first nation priorities in mind, I'd now like to turn to the specific issue of Bill C-44. Subject to the following six conditions, Chiefs of Ontario, in principle, can endorse repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Condition one is consultation and accommodation. Bill C-44 should not proceed without a thorough consultation process, open to all interested first nations. The federal government has admitted that there was no specific consultation leading up to Bill C-44. Careful consultation and accommodation are a legal and a moral requirement. There is no urgency to Bill C-44, as the section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act issue has been pending for 30 years and first nation actions not directly connected to the Indian Act are already exposed to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In the context of the consultation, the federal government should be required to provide a detailed legislative policy and fiscal impact assessment of Bill C-44. This is a matter of basic due diligence, which the federal government has refused to do to date.

The second condition is the interpretive provision. The bill must include an interpretive provision to balance the tension between individual and collective rights. There is a serious risk that the individual rights of the Canadian Human Rights Act will have a serious negative impact on the collective rights and traditions of first nation governments. The interpretive provision must also protect the Indian Act from the real risk of wholesale gutting because of exposure to the Canadian Human Rights Act. All serious legislative and policy proposals on the repeal of section 67 since 2000 have included an interpretive provision. That is the bright line in this policy area.

I'm referring in particular to the following: first, the Canadian Human Rights review panel, “Promoting Equality: A New Vision”--2000; second, joint ministerial advisory committee report on governance legislation--JMAC 2002; third, BillC-7 , First Nations Governance Act, FNGA, 2003; fourth, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, “A Matter of Rights” - 2005.

Without an interpretive provision, repeal of section 67 is like throwing a grenade into collective rights, and also into the Indian Act.

Condition three is the realistic transition period. The transition period for implementation of the bill should be changed from the proposed six months to three years. Again, the bright line from all serious proposals since 2000 is that a transition period of approximately 18 to 36 months is required. First nations are entitled to a reasonable opportunity to adjust programs, practices, and legislation.

The predictable result of Bill C-44 will be administrative chaos. I acknowledge the standing offer of the Human Rights Commission to assist first nations with the transition process. However, the reality is that the commission will be preoccupied with its own transition and will not have the capacity to assist the 600-and-so first nations in just six months.

I note that the six-month transition process of Bill C-44 is doubly flawed. Section 3 refers to transition in connection with undefined aboriginal authorities. It is unknown if such authorities include first nations governments and related entities.

The fourth condition is regarding adequate financial resources. The federal government must provide first nations governments with adequate new financial resources to deal with all aspects of Bill C-44 implementation. The new open-ended liabilities that flow from Bill C-44 include the following: training and capacity; legal costs defending complaints; and the costs of settlements and awards. These liabilities may be staggering in the long term. First nations governments are not in a position to assume new, unfunded liabilities. The growth of the first nations funding envelope has been capped by the federal government at approximately 2% since 1996. As a result, many first nations, especially in the north, are near or past the point of bankruptcy.

The fifth condition is the non-derogation clause. There should be a non-derogation clause protecting aboriginal and treaty rights.

And the sixth condition is first nations human rights jurisdiction. There must be a binding recognition by the federal government that first nations governments have the independent jurisdiction to develop their own human rights regimes, including regional and national human rights institutions. Long before Canada existed, first nations governments enjoyed a rich heritage of protecting collective and individual rights. The regime under the Canadian Human Rights Act may be treated as a fallback for first nations that choose not to exercise their jurisdiction in relation to human rights.

These six conditions are all critical. Most of them reflect the bright line of serious policy development since 2000. In its current form, Bill C-44 is a radical and unexplained departure from that bright line.

In landmark decisions such as Guerin, Sparrow, Delgamuukw, and Taku and Haida, the Supreme Court of Canada has made it crystal clear that the federal government is subject to a constitutional fiduciary obligation to consult and accommodate first nations when a federal proposal is likely to have a negative impact on asserted or established first nations rights.

The extent of the duty depends on the significance of the underlying right and the significance of the likely negative impact. Bill C-44 is very likely to have a very significant impact on significant first nations collective rights. The likelihood of significant impact is magnified many times by the absence of an interpretive provision. It is likely that unmitigated application of the Canadian Human Rights Act will directly interfere with the action of first nations governments on first nations territory. It is also likely the Canadian Human Rights Act will lead to the disabling of significant portions of the Indian Act. One scenario is that the protective land provisions of the Indian Act will be eliminated, opening the way for fee-simple mortgaging and the loss of reserve land.

In view of the likely significant effect on important rights, the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence is clear. At a minimum, a very significant and careful consultation and accommodation exercise with first nations is constitutionally required.

As Bill C-44 represents a radical departure from the bright line of policy discussion since 2000, the federal government cannot rely on past discussions to justify the bill. Most past discussions contradict the approach of the bill.

While I'm respectful of the work of the commission and while I understand the pressure to endorse Bill C-44, I cannot agree with the last-minute revision contained in the presentation to the committee. A statement of general principles will not protect the rights of first nations. There is no guarantee that later unspecified guidelines would make any difference in the face of the black and white terms of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

What is required is a binding interpretive provision developed in consultation with first nations. Before the passage of the bill, anything less would be a foolish act of faith in a federal government that has already shown its true colours by reneging on the 2005 Kelowna accord and scuttling the draft declaration on the rights of indigenous people.

In conclusion, Bill C-44 is a punitive and ham-fisted approach to the sensitive and complex issue of the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The federal government has ignored the bright line of serious policy work since 2000 and proposes to implement the Canadian Human Rights Act without reasonable protection for the collective rights of first nations and the fiscal crisis of first nations.

Bill C-44 is consistent with a negative agenda towards first nations that is aimed at levelling collective rights and destroying whole parts of the Indian Act. The federal government position that there will be no extensive consultation on Bill C-44 is untenable as a matter of Canadian constitutional law and reflects dishonour on the Crown and all Canadians.

As described in detail in our written brief, the repeal of section 67 can only be contemplated if six key conditions apply. I respectfully urge the committee to do the right and lawful thing, which is to reject the punitive Bill C-44 and to adopt amendments and a timetable consistent with the six conditions. In doing that, it will be an incremental step towards rebuilding the relationship with first nations.

The adoption of Bill C-44 as is will be another nail in the coffin. The results are predictable: embittered relations with first nations; possible litigation based on the failure to consult and other grounds; administrative chaos; and an ever-deepening financial crisis for first nations.

That's the presentation I have for you this morning.

Thank you.

[Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard, Regional Chief, Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador]

Thank you very much.

[Greetings in Innu]

Firstly, I would like to mark the death of Ms. Bertha Wilson who, as a member of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, was a champion of issues that are dear to our heart. We were obviously deeply saddened to learn of her death, which was announced this morning.

I am going to begin with a quotation:

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

Cooperation will be a cornerstone for partnership between Canada and First Nations. This requires honourable processes of negotiations and respect for requirements for consultation, accommodation, justification and First Nations' consent as may be appropriate to the circumstances. Upholding the honour of the Crown is always at stake in the Crown's dealings with First Nations peoples.

The aboriginal peoples have the right to directly participate in... decision-making processes that are likely to affect them or their rights. When the status, rights or territories of aboriginal peoples are directly affected, any change to the political... framework of Canada requires the free and informed consent of the First Nations concerned.

Thank you for the opportunity to present to you on this important bill.

My comments today will be brief.

The quotes I read a moment ago are attributable to, in the order that I read them, the former Prime Minister, speaking on behalf of the federal government in 2004; the First Nations - Federal Crown Political Accord on the Recognition and Implementation of First Nation Governments, May 31, 2005, and the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador principle No. 16 from a set of 26 principles adopted by Chiefs in 1998.

I started with those quotes because Bill C-44 was not developed jointly with first nations, at least not so with the members of the AFNQL. Despite its virtuous intent, it is another example of imposition on first nations without our consent, despite the fine promises of the Crown to the contrary. The AFNQL is not aware of any facts that would support the minister's claims and those of his officials that this provision has been debated on many occasions over the years.

I will read another one in the set of the AFNQL's 26 principles. Significantly, it is the first principle on the list.

The aboriginal peoples of Quebec have the right to the full enjoyment, as a collective or as individuals, of all human rights and fundamental freedoms, with no obstruction of discrimination, as recognized under international and internal law.

There is no doubt, therefore, that the AFNQL supports the full range of fundamental human rights of our peoples. Indeed, our very raison d'être is to advance our human rights as first nations peoples.

Ideally, Bill C-44 or a revised version should pass only being fully discussed with and receive the consent of first nations. The protection of individual human rights of first nations people should be a subject of discussion, negotiation and agreement between the first nations and Canada. The interrelationship of individual and collective rights requires a comprehensive approach. Bill C-44 is just one more piecemeal good intention that has as much chance to go bad for first nations as it has to be good for us.

The commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission presented before you a couple of weeks ago a suggestion that a statement of principles to act as a set of guidelines could be produced through its discussions with the first nations after the bill comes into force. Presumably, the principles and guidelines will ensure the CHRC's good intentions to respect aboriginal and treaty rights while they pursue the protection of individual rights.

Excuse my cynicism, but first nations are still trying to heal from decades of paternalistic good intentions. Negotiating principles and guidelines of dubious legal force or legitimacy after the horse has left the barn does not seem like the best approach.

I know that all the parliamentary caucuses have already declared their intent to support the passage of Bill C-44, albeit with the possibility of amendment. I would have liked to confirm to you today the FNQL's full support of an approach that was jointly developed, or to say that our first nations members had been consulted or accommodated. Alas, I cannot say that because the federal government shirked its constitutional obligation and political commitment in that regard.

One option that the FNQL member nations might have considered, had the time been taken to consult us, would be to amend the bill to recognize the power of first nation governments, the band councils, to allow the CHRA to apply or not. There could have been a sort of notwithstanding clause, similar to the one in Canada's Constitution, that allows legislatures to suspend application of their charter of rights for five years on specific legislation.

I could have been further backed up by the ultimate power of the people to decide by referendum within six months if they want the CHRA to apply. The referendum provision could have been mandatory on band councils that would opt to enact the notwithstanding clause. It might have been an interim step in the journey toward proper recognition and implementation of the first nations' inherent right to self-government.

It seems to me that this committee has at least a couple of options to do the right thing, to do what the federal government failed to do. Indeed, if you believe like I and many others do that Parliament shares with the federal government the discharge of the Crown's legal obligations to first nations, you will adopt either one.

First, you can either suspend further progress on the bill until the federal government and the first nations report back that full consultations have been conducted, the consent of the first nations has been obtained, and consequently specific amendments, a new bill, or a new approach are required. Alternatively, this committee can recommend to Parliament that it conduct such full consultations and seek the conditions for first nations' consent.

By adopting either approach, you will be assuring first nations that nothing is being shoved down their throats, even if you think it might be good for us. You will be signaling to first nations that Parliament is taking a non-partisan and thoughtful approach that respects the highest law in the land, the Constitution. It will give adequate time for first nations to analyze and debate amongst ourselves if our collective rights are threatened by the application of the CHRA and if so, how that might be mitigated.

There is no compelling reason or urgent situation demanding that this bill be passed at this time. Let us jointly take the time to do it properly.

I must make two final important points. First, the AFNQL has not been, is not and will very likely never show favour to any federal political party. We're non-partisan. The first nations government to government, nation to nation relationship to Canada is primarily realized through its government, not by political parties. The danger of being sidelined for years if we were to favour one party over another is too great. My earlier references to the former Prime Minister's commitment to first nations in 2004 and to the accord his Minister of Indian Affairs signed on behalf of Canada with the Assembly of First Nations in 2005 have nothing to do with their political party allegiances. Rather, they are recent high water marks in our relations that must be honoured as solemn commitments of the Crown to the first nations.

I conclude by noting the need for adequate resources to first nations to manage any impacts of the bill. History again shows us that no federal bill directed broadly to first nations has ever been adequately resourced, which is another plank in the federal long-term assimilation strategy. The study of possible impacts and the guarantee of adequate resources must be determined jointly with first nations prior to the bill becoming law.

I would be pleased to answer questions. Thank you very much.

[Brief closing in Innu]

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I call to order the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development meeting of Tuesday, May 1, 2007.

Committee members, you have the orders of the day before you. We are continuing our study of Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The witnesses today are from the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, Ghislain Picard, regional chief; and from the Chiefs of Ontario, we have Angus Toulouse, Ontario regional chief. Welcome to the committee.

We're going to allow ten-minute submissions from each of you and then we'll move to questions from the committee members. Who'd like to start?

Mr. Picard, you can begin if you wish.

Aboriginal Affairs

[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, of course our government is very concerned about the state of aboriginal children in Canada. That is why we continue to make very large investments, both in the previous budget and in the current one.

I would like to point out the fact that unfortunately the Liberal Party of Canada is slowing down the process on an important bill that we have brought forward, Bill C-44, which actually brings human rights to people on reserve. This is something that has been neglected for so many years.

We want the Liberals to pass this bill. We would very much like to see this happen. Hopefully the member opposite can speak to the Liberal position on that bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

If you wish to have him speak to Bill C-44, I think the proper way to deal with that would be to recommend it to the subcommittee, but this is separate.

Are there further comments on the motion as presented?

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

That's with the understanding that it will be after the Bill C-44 study.

We'll move on to the next motion, which is from Madam Neville.

The motion is that the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development call Professor John Borrows to present his analysis of the cumulative impact of aboriginal case law in Canada and its potential impact on federal land claims policy development, the duty to consult, and other aboriginal policy development.

Madam Neville, would you like to speak to the motion?

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

Yes, it would be after Bill C-44 is concluded.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

On behalf of the committee, I want to thank the witnesses for their attendance. You had some great insights into what we're doing with Bill C-44, and we really do appreciate that.

We're going to suspend now for two minutes.

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

From what you're saying, it really doesn't sound like there is going to be any change in how the department currently operates, whether Bill C-44 is in place or not.

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

The Auditor General, herself, has talked about the fact that the challenges, in many cases, have been launched when the department has vigorously defended existing policies that were subsequently struck down. In many cases, the department is also the one that makes the decision about whether something is going to proceed.

So with the passage of Bill C-44, it really isn't going to change how the department currently behaves then.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I guess that's the unknown. The challenge for the department is to determine a sufficient level of service, and the expectation of the aboriginal community as to what they think is a sufficient level of service needs to be determined by somebody—and whether Bill C-44 will give that access to make those determinations through case law.

I find some of the questions are really unknowns. Is the amount of money that's needed to bring a sufficient level of service for education $68 million? Is it more or less? Who is to determine that? That was my direction of the question.

We'll move on to the Bloc.

[Chief Patrick Brazeau, National Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

On behalf of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, l am pleased to appear before you today to discuss our perspectives on the draft Bill C-44 under study by the members of this committee.

There are three areas that the congress wishes to address today relative to the implications of the draft Bill C-44. These include our comment on the Indian Act as an impediment to effective human rights protection in first nations communities; our views around band councils and on governance in general in first nations communities; and the need for education and outreach to increase awareness, allay concern, and engender understanding of the value of the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Since 1982, Canada's Constitution and its Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is the highest law of the land, has specifically recognized three groups of aboriginal peoples: Indians, Inuit, and Métis. However, some 25 years after the repatriation of our Constitution, the gap between theoretical equality and government practice in respect of the recognition and protection of aboriginal rights afforded by its provisions is a matter of daily issue for the constituents of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Their concerns and aspirations continue to be dismissed by all levels of government. Time and time again they continue to have to contend with exclusion and ignorance.

l have said many times that the Indian Act should be, and in fact must be, replaced. This archaic legislation represents an artificial and foreign imposition of “Indian-ness” on aboriginal peoples. l reassert this call once again to the committee members present here today.

The Indian Act has resulted in the deconstruction of traditional, historical aboriginal nations. Under its prescriptive provisions, these historical communities were reassembled into Indian reserves, many of which have been home to social and economic hardship for aboriginal peoples for more than a century.

In addition to the establishment of the reserve system, the Indian Act, under section 6, prescribes who is entitled to registration as a status Indian. From that designation flows specific entitlements to programs and services. These include things like funding for post-secondary education, for non-insured health benefits, as well as access to housing and some income tax exemptions. Beyond the written words of the Indian Act and the bureaucratic system that sustains and enforces its colonial provisions are aboriginal peoples and their families.

Right now in Canada there exist many aboriginal families in which individuals within the same family do not share the same access to programs and services based solely on their entitlement, or lack thereof, to Indian Act registration. Reasonable people do not have to spend a lot of time pondering the implications of, for example, the fact that while one parent or sibling can access prescription medications, dental care, or eyeglasses, the other parent or child cannot.

Every parent wants their children to have a better life than they do. Imagine for a minute that parents who have successfully accessed post-secondary funding for themselves may see their own children denied the same access because of the application of the tenets of the Indian Act.

Clearly, the Indian Act, both directly and indirectly, is the foundation for discrimination against the majority of the aboriginal population in Canada today. There is a profound lack of federal-provincial consensus around jurisdiction and financial responsibility for programs and services for registered Indians. This includes education, health care, and social services such as income assistance and assisted living services. While federal and provincial governments argue about who should pay for what, aboriginal families and individuals go without.

That said, does the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples support the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act? Absolutely and unequivocally.

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 a successful and prosperous democracy.

The federal government has spent a great deal of time, effort, and money in trying to support the establishment of the modern fundamentals of good governance on Indian Act reserves. It has also spent an extraordinary amount of money and effort defending the Indian Act from court challenges. Much of this effort has stemmed from the Indian Act's outdated and inadequate direction on governance-related matters within the act's band council governance system.

Since 2003, when the proposed first nations governance act was withdrawn, we have waited for government and first nations communities to present viable alternatives to the much publicly maligned proposed Bill C-7. Nearly four years later we are still waiting. For people who live on Indian Act reserves, the band council is the be-all and end-all in their community. It is the source of jobs, housing, income assistance, education, and training.

CAP and its affiliates across the country continue to be contacted by band members, many of whom have left the reserves because of disputes over access to programs and who report numerous grievances and concerns. They cannot obtain copies of program criteria or policies. They are denied access to redress mechanisms or have had their appeals adjudicated by the same people who denied them access to those programs in the first place.

The provision of on-reserve programs and services is typically done by means of funding from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada under standardized contribution agreements with band councils and their organizations and agencies. These agreements include funding for education, health, social programs such as income assistance, child and family services, family violence, and assisted living. Contribution agreements require band councils to deliver programs with processes that adhere to principles of transparency, disclosure, and redress.

We are aware of a band bylaw that was passed that forced family members to reside separate and apart because spouses or children are not band members. There are also electoral processes that deny individuals the right to run for councils on the basis of their religion, marital status, or residency.

How can we permit these grievances to perpetuate? How we, as aboriginal leaders, and you, as parliamentarians, cannot be morally moved to remedy these situations with speed, conviction, and precision is quite frankly beyond me.

There remains a great deal of debate and controversy in this country about what constitutes a human right and whether or not aboriginal peoples enjoy the same human rights as Canadian citizens generally do.

Sadly, at this point in our history we know that Canada has failed to address a significant source of real and potential discrimination against its aboriginal peoples. Thankfully, the repeal of section 67 from the Canadian Human Rights Act will begin to deal with this pressing issue.

There is an enormous need for education at the individual, band council, organizational, and federal and provincial government levels in order to mitigate and manage what may be a significant conflict of values, program standards, and jurisdictional issues as a consequence of the repeal of section 67.

We, at the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, are under no illusions that the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act to the Indian Act and the full implementation of the Canadian Human Rights Act on reserve will be anything but challenging and at times perhaps even overwhelming. That being said, we do not wish to see a prolonged implementation period for these measures. Human rights are not negotiable, and cannot be deemed negotiable, and their application cannot, and again must not, be deferred in 21st century Canada.

In summary, we strongly encourage the committee to make strong and specific recommendations to the government about the need to work with aboriginal peoples, their band councils, and representative organizations in order to ensure that the implications of the repeal of section 67 are understood and embraced by impacted individuals, communities, and federal-provincial government departments whose existing programs and services have been tied to Indian Act registration and processes.

We live in a nation that enjoys almost boundless prosperity. We, in Canada, are indeed “the true north strong and free”. We need to move quickly and sincerely to ensure that our first nations sisters and brothers, be they youth or elder, living both on or off reserve, enjoy the full freedom, benefit, and protection of the provisions afforded by Canada's Human Rights Act.

So we applaud Minister Prentice and Prime Minister Harper for taking the necessary steps to make this occur, and we encourage the committee to help make these plans a reality.

Meegwetch, merci, and thank you.