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

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand today to speak in support of the amended Bill C-21.

Members will recall that the bill was first introduced into the House in the 39th session of Parliament as Bill C-44. It has been re-introduced into the House as Bill C-21 and has gone through a very lengthy committee process. It has now come back to the House in its amended form for final conclusion.

To recap, members will remember that the act would repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which excludes Indians who live or work on reserve from filing human rights complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in respect of any alleged human rights violations that relate to any action arising from or pursuant to the Indian Act.

I want to make it very clear from the outset that this party, this official opposition, has supported the intent of the bill. The repeal of section 67 of the Human Rights Act has been a long time in coming and it is something that we support very much.

What we did not support was the manner in which the bill was brought forward, both in its initial introduction and in its subsequent introduction as Bill C-21. It was brought forward without any consultation with first nations communities. We heard that there were significant concerns about the legislation, but there seemed to be absolutely no will, commitment, effort or respect on the part of the government to address some of those concerns.

I am repeating myself, but I want to make it very clear. I said, at least 18 times, in the House or in committee, as did my colleagues, that we supported the repeal of section 67 of the Human Rights Act. We did not support the process in which the government chose, as one of the chiefs from Alberta said, to ram it down their throats.

We are proud to support the amended legislation. We are proud of the process that went on in committee. We heard from a host of witnesses who came before the committee. I emphasize that this is not a substitute for consultation; it was about hearing witnesses and their concerns. Out of the 21 or 22 witnesses we heard, only 1 witness supported the legislation in its original form. We heard learned presentations from academics. We heard from leaders in the aboriginal community. We heard from individuals in the aboriginal community. We heard concerns from the men and women who the bill would affect.

We were concerned that there was no interpretive clause. We were concerned that there was no non-derogation clause. We were concerned that there was no attention given to the fiscal capacity. We were most concerned that the transition period was very short. We were also concerned that no study or analysis had been done on the impact the legislation would have on first nations communities. We know an analysis was done on what the impact would be on INAC, but no study was done to determine what the impact would be on first nations communities.

The amended legislation was a model of cooperation by the opposition parties, listening to the representations we heard from individuals, working together to amend the bill to make it a stronger, fairer bill for aboriginal people in our country.

Many times we heard in the House that we had gutted the bill. Far from it. Misrepresentations were mailed out to every household in my riding, misrepresenting my position and the position of my party as it related to the bill.

We proposed a number of important amendments to the bill. We proposed and passed through committee, a non-derogation clause, an interpretative clause, an extension of the time for implementation for three years. This is important. The government originally proposed six months. It was willing to extend it to 18 months, but not beyond that. I am pleased to see the government has allowed it to go in at three years now.

The implementation period of three years will allow first nations to determine their capacity and to look at the implications. It will allow them to prepare their communities for the actual final implementation of the bill.

As the House may recall, the government tried at one point, through a point of order, to remove the non-derogation clause and the interpretative clause. We are pleased that it has come back with amendments. Although they are not what we would have preferred, we will accept the amended non-derogation and interpretative clauses in the bill. They deal with the intent and the protection of the collective rights of first nations communities. We do, however, prefer the amendments put forward in committee, but as an expression of good faith and a desire to get the bill passed, we will support the amendments put forward by the government.

With the amendments, we would be able to grant human rights to first nations people in a way that balances their collective rights with individual rights as well as maintaining all existing aboriginal and treaty rights, as recognized under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

With respect to the transition period, first nations will now have an adequate amount of time to prepare for the legislation. In doing so, the government will have a chance to properly consult with all affected first nations peoples. I sincerely hope the government will take advantage of the opportunity to do this. I hope it will not just tell them but engage them in a meaningful consultation process whereby it will listen to them and work with them to implement the bill.

Once the bill comes into effect, first nations will work with the government to undertake the extensive preparation, the capacity, fiscal and human resources required.

The important part of this is the amended legislation, and it was amended not without acrimony or without challenge, is an example of parliamentarians working together to fix flawed legislation and amend it to reflect the best interests of first nations people.

As I said at the beginning, the Liberals have always maintained our support for the repeal of this section. It was not done in a way which we supported. Since the bill is now in front of us, we are proud to say that we improved flawed legislation to reflect the views of first nations communities throughout the country. They will be able to work with this legislation, and we are proud to support it.

Motions in Amendment

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on behalf of the Bloc Québécois about Bill C-21, which seeks to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

First, I would like to thank my colleagues who sit on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, who have worked very hard and provided some background on all the various stages Bill C-21 has gone through before reaching this House today.

After first reading in this House, Bill C-21 was referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on November 13, 2007. It is identical to Bill C-44, which died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued on September 14, 2007.

Bill C-44 was referred to the committee after second reading in February 2007. From March to June 2007, the committee met 16 times to review Bill C-44 and hear witnesses. My colleagues from Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou worked very hard on this.

The witnesses the committee heard almost unanimously supported the repeal of section 67, but nearly all the witnesses except those from the government, including national, regional and local first nations organizations and communities, the provincial bar associations and other legal experts, also expressed various reservations about one or more aspects of the implementation process and the substance of the bill.

The main sources of concern were the shortcomings in the consultation process preceding the drafting of the bill, the lack of an interpretative clause, the short transition period preceding implementation of the bill and uncertainty over the resources that would be assigned to implementing the bill.

On June 19, 2007, the committee adopted a Bloc Québécois motion proposed by the members I mentioned earlier, recommending that the debate on repealing section 67 be suspended for up to 10 months to allow the government to hold extensive consultations on the matter and that the debate then resume, but that first nations representatives be allowed to testify on the results of the consultations.

On July 26, a majority of the members attending the special midsummer meeting for a clause by clause study of the bill voted to have the committee suspend the study until the government held the consultations called for in the June 19 motion.

The motion was overridden by the committee's November 20 decision to begin a clause by clause study of the new Bill C-21 on December 4, 2007.

Despite the concerns expressed by the witnesses during the study of Bill C-44, the government reintroduced the very same bill, which is now known as Bill C-21. In December 2007 and January 2008, the committee completed its clause by clause study of Bill C-21 and the opposition made five significant amendments to it in response to first nations' demands.

Once again, aboriginals can be proud of the work of Bloc Québécois and other opposition members because the government had reintroduced the bill despite the generalized protest, criticism and scathing comments of witnesses appearing before the committee.

The government insisted on reintroducing the same bill with no amendments. Opposition members worked hard. My colleagues from Abitibi—Témiscamingue and Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou worked very hard, along with other opposition members, to propose five significant amendments.

The Bloc Québécois supports each of the amendments agreed to in committee because they are in line with specific demands of the first nations and of most of the witnesses who appeared before the committee.

In principle, repealing section 67 would give aboriginal people access to all of the rights guaranteed under the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, merely repealing the section could result in the loss of first nations' traditional rights and could be onerous for the Canadian Human Rights Commission because of the anticipated high volume of complaints against band councils and the federal government, which have not previously been allowed.

That would be a good thing when it comes to access to clean drinking water, for example. That is very hard to understand. I hope that all members of this House realize that, as we speak, some aboriginals still do not have access to potable water. That is astonishing.

We hope that once all these amendments have been adopted, these citizens protected by the charter of rights will have access to safe drinking water and will be able to ensure their quality of life.

To guarantee this, the committee suggested other amendments to Bill C-21. That was the Bloc's objective. With the help of the other opposition parties, we managed to introduce amendments that, once the bill is passed, will ensure that aboriginal men and women and people who live on aboriginal territories have direct access to safe drinking water.

It is important to note that the government proposed two amendments, which are now before the House. Many representatives from first nations and other groups who appeared before the House committee said that, despite the two amendments, Bill C-21 needed to be changed to take into account the real situation of first nations.

The Bloc Québécois, along with the other opposition parties, helped improve Bill C-21. The amendments proposed by the government today will also receive the support of the Bloc Québécois. Nevertheless, it is important to understand that we must pass a comprehensive bill, including the amendments adopted in committee, proposed by the Bloc Québécois and the other opposition parties, to ensure that aboriginal men and women will be entitled to the same protection as provided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We specifically suggested adding an interpretive clause that would balance individual and collective rights and interests in cases where a complaint was filed against a government or first nations authority under the Canadian Human Rights Act. A number of witnesses also wanted to add a non-derogation clause to Bill C-21, so that the repeal of section 67 would not end up abrogating and violating the ancestral and treaty rights of aboriginal peoples protected under the Constitution.

Consequently, the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the following amendments. The first is:

1.1 The repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any aboriginal, treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the First Nations peoples of Canada, including

(a) any rights or freedoms that have been recognized by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763;

(b) any rights or freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired; and

(c) any rights or freedoms recognized under the customary laws or traditions of the First Nations peoples of Canada.

The second amendment we are supporting is:

1.1 In relation to a complaint made under the Canadian Human Rights Act against a First Nation government, including a band council, tribal council or governing authority operating or administering programs and services under the Indian Act, this act shall be interpreted and applied in a manner that gives due regard to First Nations legal traditions and customary laws, particularly the balancing of individual rights and interests against collective rights and interests.

As everyone knows, Bill C-21, introduced by the government, is identical to Bill C-44, parts of which were criticized by the aboriginal peoples themselves. That bill, whose text was very limited, was eventually improved, specifically by the two paragraphs I just quoted.

The work done by the Bloc Québécois, with the help of the other opposition parties, definitely added some scope to this bill. The bill seeks to protect aboriginal rights, while guaranteeing all aboriginal men and women individual protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act, in order to improve their lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to the government's motion to amend clause 1.1 of Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, standing in the name of the member for Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians.

As hon. members will know, Bill C-21 proposes to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and in the process, eliminate a source of injustice that has existed for more than three decades.

The repeal of section 67 has been a cornerstone of this government's aboriginal agenda throughout its mandate. Our government first committed to the repeal of section 67 as part of our electoral platform. In December 2006, Bill C-44, the precursor to Bill C-21, was introduced. Although Bill C-44 died on the order paper when Parliament was prorogued in September 14, 2007, our government committed to its reintroduction in the Speech from the Throne delivered on October 16, 2007.

In November 2007, Bill C-21, identical to former Bill C-44, was reinstated. There is ample evidence of strong support among key stakeholders for the repeal of section 67. In the 17 committee hearings devoted to Bill C-44 of the previous session, testimony came from dozens of witnesses, chiefs, members of band councils, representatives of national and regional aboriginal groups, legal specialists and public servants. Although these men and women came from remarkably diverse backgrounds and represented a broad variety of interests, the support for the repeal of section 67 was virtually unanimous.

While this government took a clear and unambiguous approach to the repeal of section 67, on February 4, 2008 the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development reported Bill C-21 to the House of Commons with several amendments. They included the addition of a broad non-derogation clause, clause 1.1, and an interpretive clause, clause 1.2.

Other proposed amendments included: a new requirement for the Government of Canada to undertake with organizations representing first nations a study to address the fiscal capacity and resource requirements of first nations associated with the repeal of section 67; a change to the review of the effects of the repeal within five years so it could be conducted by the Government of Canada working with organizations representing first nations rather than a parliamentary committee; and finally, an extension of the transition period for the application of the repeal to first nations to 36 months, rather than the 6 months originally proposed by government. These amendments do not affect the immediate application of the repeal of section 67 to the federal government upon royal assent.

This government's preference remains a clear approach to the repeal of section 67. However, in light of committee testimony in which most, if not all, groups expressed concern about how the repeal will be implemented and called and for a further extension of the transition period, the government will support all of the committee's amendments, with the exception of clauses 1.1 and 1.2, the subject matter of today's debate.

Clause 1.1 is a very broad non-derogation clause. As hon. members will know, a non-derogation clause is a statutory provision that indicates the statute is not to derogate or abrogate from the aboriginal and treaty rights as protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. In our view, such a clause is unnecessary given that the Constitution takes precedence over all other federal laws. Previous governments have supported the inclusion of a non-derogation clause which clauses are currently found in several federal statutes. Clause 1.1, however, is much broader than any of those existing clauses.

Given the broad and unprecedented nature of clause 1.1, our view is that it has the potential to reintroduce some of the sheltering of discrimination provided by section 67.

In fact, in its most recent report entitled “Still a Matter of Rights”, in which the Canadian Human Rights Commission reiterated its call for the repeal of section 67, the commission indicated concern that clause 1.1 could “have the unintended consequence of shielding first nations, in whole or in part, from legitimate equality claims, thus reinstituting section 67 in another form”.

It would be illogical for the opposition, who, on principle, favour repeal of section 67, to intentionally support the inclusion of a provision that would have the unintended effect of sheltering discrimination. As a result, we cannot support clause 1.1, as adopted by the standing committee.

Therefore, notwithstanding our concern for non-derogation clauses, generally, we propose to replace clause 1.1 with the non-derogation language most recently used in existing statutes, namely, the same that was added to the First Nations Oil and Gas and Moneys Management Act.

Regarding Motion No. 2, clause 1.2, our government shares the view that the Canadian Human Rights Act should be applied in a manner that is sensitive to particular circumstances of first nations communities. However, the fact is that it is difficult to find fail-proof language that would address all of the competing considerations for handling a Canadian Human Rights Act complaint in such a context.

This was the basis for our decision not to include an interpretive provision in Bill C-21. We have always maintained that the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which is the expert in administrating the Canadian Human Rights Act, is best placed to develop an interpretive provision jointly with first nations outside of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This could be done by way of guidelines, a directive, or regulations, which would be binding on the commission.

In spite of these concerns, the committee chose to insert an interpretive clause in the bill. We recognize that many witnesses called for such a clause, so we are willing to accept this provision.

However, as with clause 1.1., we have concerns with the broad language of the interpretive clause adopted by the committee and the potential for discrimination to be sheltered. We are particularly concerned that women might inadvertently be discriminated against as a result of this clause.

Therefore, we are proposing to include a provision to ensure the principle of gender equality applies to this clause. Such an amendment would be in keeping with the 2000 Canadian Human Rights Act review panel report, which noted, specifically, that an interpretive provision should not justify discrimination on the basis of sex or condone other forms of discrimination.

As well, the previous government's last attempt to repeal section 67 included an interpretive clause with a similar provision related to gender equality.

The government is committed to improving the lives of aboriginal Canadians and to the repeal of section 67. We are committed to creating, for the first time since the Canadian Human Rights Act was enacted 30 years ago, a right of complaint for first nations in relation to the Indian Act.

Therefore, I urge members to vote in favour of these necessary motions.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my Liberal Party colleague for her presentation on Bill C-47. She is obviously well versed on this subject given that she has sat on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for a number of years.

I would also like to point out that she was part of the previous government when an agreement was made with first nations stating that each time legislation concerned them and could change their way of life, the government had to consult them.

In this regard, be it with Bills C-44, C-21, C-30 or C-47, is the current government consulting and respecting this agreement?

Specific Claims Tribunal Act

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

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Bloc Québécois, I joined my colleagues in voting in favour of consideration of this bill for which, as usual, this government did not consult first nations, despite the many reminders it was given during consideration of Bill C-44.

We also had some concerns about some of the consequences to the first nations communities in Quebec and to certain municipalities, not to mention our concerns about the flexibility of the Government of Quebec's involvement.

The lack of consultation caused some disagreement about the procedure and some of the claims that could otherwise have easily been settled in respectful meetings with the nations.

Establishing a specific claims tribunal that makes binding decisions is a progressive step compared to the usual legal games the first nations have been subjected to so far. However, improvements could have been made to how quickly the claims are processed. It will be a shame to have to come back to this in a few years in order to complete this exercise, which requires a lot of energy, time and money from the taxpayers and from the first nations, when there are other matters to deal with.

The current 784 claims could be processed more quickly and a number of others might be added to the ongoing process, even though the Indian Claims Commission itself has not accepted any new claims since the end of 2007.

Of course there has been consultation, but only after much insistence. Furthermore, it is important to note that a number of communities were not consulted because there was not enough time. There has never been enough time to resolve first nations issues.

The most worrisome thing in all this is the possible accumulation of small agreements here and there into increasingly complex legislation. That is caused by this patchwork approach that has no continuity and will only serve as an excuse not to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People that has been signed by 144 countries.

A number of world leaders are putting Canada in the hot seat and in an embarrassing position on the international stage, which shocks us as representatives of the Quebec nation in particular, to be associated with this country that we do not identify with at all when it comes to its culture, its economic vision or its recognition of individual and collective rights and freedoms.

Despite the repeated calls for consultation that have been made to this government as Bills C-44, C-21, C-30, C-47 and C-34 have been tabled, the government has remained indifferent to what the vast majority of United Nations member states want.

It is truly shameful to see this government in the very small minority that is opposed to this declaration, and it is even more shameful to see members of the governing party from Quebec who lack the courage to go against such a vision.

Hon. members will certainly understand why Quebec is in such a hurry to join the community of nations and why the various communities distrust this government's interference in the legal system.

That is why the chief of the AFN reacted so strongly to the speech the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development gave at the United Nations. I want to quote the various statements the minister made at the United Nations. In a press release, the Minister of Indian Affairs said:

The Government of Canada continues to address a number of key areas for First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples, including fundamental human rights through Bill C-2... For 30 years, section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act has exempted First Nations communities governed by the Indian Act from human rights protection. We believe this has gone on too long—

I would like to digress a moment and remind this House that Bill C-44, which sought to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, was vehemently denounced by all the first nations, as well as by the AFN women's council. The first nations were not prepared to welcome a law or be excluded from the Indian Act when they did not have the means to enforce the Human Rights Act, with all the duties it imposes on the various communities.

Canada has long demonstrated its commitment to also actively advancing indigenous rights abroad. But that is not what happened at the United Nations. The minister also highlighted a number of areas where the Government of Canada is making substantial progress: education; resolving specific claims; safe drinking water; protection for women and children; and matrimonial property rights on-reserves

In addition, the minister talked about the important step in the Government of Canada's commitment to the Indian residential school settlement agreement, with the naming of Justice Harry LaForme as the chair of the truth and reconciliation commission. This may be the only good thing this government has done to date. The minister said this:

“Canada remains committed as ever to deliver real results for our Aboriginal population...We believe in moving forward for all Canadians with results that are not simply aspirations or non-binding.”

In response, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil Fontaine, had this to say:

The Conservative government’s sustained opposition to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has tarnished Canada’s international reputation and branded Canada as unreliable and uncooperative in international human rights processes. It is clear that the Conservative government’s domestic political agenda is taking precedence over the promotion and protection of human rights for Indigenous peoples in Canada and worldwide. The federal government’s stance is a particularly regressive and limiting basis upon which to advance fruitful Indigenous-state relations in Canada and abroad. It seems that this government has been unwavering in their resolve for a weak Declaration and weak human-rights standards in Canada despite their rhetoric to the contrary.

The Conservative government’s opinion regarding the UN declaration is contrary to widespread legal expert opinion. In an open letter issued yesterday, more than 100 legal scholars and experts noted that there was no sound legal reason that would prevent Canada from supporting the UN declaration. The same conclusion was drawn by human rights and legal experts, ... and experts within the UN system have echoed the same opinion. As a result, Canada is becoming increasingly isolated on the international stage for adhering to an unsubstantiated position against the declaration and for using their position on the Human Rights Council to achieve their own political goals in Canada. Canada cannot cherry pick which international human rights instruments they will choose to respect. These short sighted decisions have serious long term implications for Canada's international standing on human rights.

Moreover, the Conservative government's decisions have failed to address fundamental fiscal inequities in education, housing, health and other social and economic conditions that are the source of the poverty in first nations communities, despite this government’s claims “about getting the job done”. The National Day of Action on May 29 will draw national and international attention on the shortcomings of the federal government to make meaningful investments or address the serious quality of life issues our communities and people face. Such important policy decisions must be made in consultation and with the consent of first nations.

The UN Declaration is a foundational document that sets out “the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of Indigenous peoples” (Article 43). With an overwhelming majority of 144 states and only 11 abstentions, the UN General Assembly adopted on September 13, 2007 a Declaration which upholds the human, political, spiritual, land and resources rights of the world's Indigenous people. Only Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the United States voted against the Declaration. Australia has since reversed its decision and has declared its support of this unique human rights instrument to advance Indigenous rights in Australia and abroad.

That is what the first nations national chief thinks of our minister's statement at the United Nations.

Immediately after that, Chief Conrad Polson, from Timiskaming, submitted a text to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. A press release from the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador explained:

Speaking on behalf of the chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador (AFNQL), he delivered a message about the precarious funding conditions of First Nations education in Canada.

Year after year, the Canadian government continues to close its eyes on the recommendations of more than 35 years of studies, consultations and various working groups, most of which it has contributed to. In refusing to consider these recommendations, the Canadian government keeps First Nations institutions in a highly precarious position.

Our schools and post-secondary establishments are underfunded. A number of our students cannot undertake their post-secondary studies because of a lack of finance.

This is why, on behalf of the Chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, I regard it as my duty to denounce this situation loudly and clearly, stated Chief Polson.

“It was important for us to call on the United Nations so that all can be done to put an end to this situation. We must ensure that the wrongs we have suffered do not worsen so we reach the point of no return,” declared Ghislain Picard.

As stated in a press release issued in New York on May 2 and distributed by CNW, at the end of the seventh session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Mr. Picard declared that Canada had lost all credibility. He attended the session with an important delegation that spoke. At the meetings, they were “able to give a clear picture of first nations' situation in Canada. Today, the Canadian Government has lost all credibility in this respect on the international scene,” he said, reiterating Mr. Fontaine's comments on this subject.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development claims he did everything he could for education. The following is from a Radio-Canada article:

For months, Mashteuiatsh, Essipit and Nutashquan chiefs have been trying to meet with the Minister of Indian Affairs...The chiefs want to move forward the negotiations that were the result of the Agreement-in-Principle of a General Nature concerning Innu self-government, signed in 2004 by the government—

The process has been stalled since the appointment [of the minister] last fall.

However, the minister...has declined the offer. “He told us that for the time being, he is not able to meet with us, despite our insistence. We need to speak with the federal government about the main issues of the negotiation,” said Mashteuiatsh Chief Gilbert Dominique.

[The minister] said that he did not have enough time for a meeting that he did not deem necessary.

Gilbert Dominique said that he doubted the Conservatives had any desire to sign territorial agreements with aboriginals when they were elected in 2006. He wonders if the fact that the Innu signed the first-ever agreement in Canada to protect the ancestral rights of an aboriginal community has not put the brakes on the government.

The Innu have called on Premier Jean Charest to try to convince Stephen Harper—

I am quoting the article; I am not naming the Prime Minister—

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome.

Ms. Archibald touched on an important point earlier when she spoke of the government's duty to recognize native women's associations. Her comment called to mind Bill C-44. The Assembly of First Nations gave its opinion of this bill and of native women, while the Native Women's Council of the AFN issued a different opinion of the bill. We also saw how opinions differed in the course of the debate on the sharing of matrimonial interests. We also hear talk of aboriginal gender equality.

Do you not get the sense that we are stuck in the mud, spinning our wheels? Canada has not even acknowledged the equality of first nations and non-natives. How do you expect it to recognize gender equality? It defies logic, to my way of thinking. I think first nations have to start by recognizing gender equality in the context of self-government. If Canada is incapable of recognizing that first nations have the same rights as non-natives, then how do you expect to make any headway at all?

I will turn the floor over to you for a response.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am going to show our colours right away, just as we have done previously. The Bloc Québécois is here with the goal of representing the interests of all Quebeckers, whether they be First Nations or not.

The Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador has come out strongly against Bill C-21 which reproduces Bill C-44word for word. Discussions on Bill C-44 had been suspended in order to allow the government to consult First Nations. All stakeholders asked for this, except one. Ten months were allowed. Instead of holding the consultations, the government called together the committee again in an attempt to break that motion that has been confirmed not once, but twice.

Now they come to us with Bill C-21. Even if the government were to do a complete about-face tomorrow and offer all of Canada to the First Nations, we would say no, because First Nations have not been consulted. Under section 35 of the Human Rights Commission, there is a commitment to consult First Nations.

When the Human Rights Act was put into effect, a section was included requiring consultation with people. This is also why section 67 has been put on hold as First Nations wait to be consulted before the act is changed completely, which has never been done.

For this reason, the Bloc will be voting against.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of my party, the Bloc Québécois, about motion No. 296 from the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, which reads as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House, the government should immediately adopt a child first principle, based on Jordan's Principle, to resolve jurisdictional disputes involving the care of First Nations children.

The Bloc Québécois supports the motion in principle. However, it is important to remember that Quebec and some provinces have already put in place legislation and assistance procedures. The federal government must therefore do its part by helping to fund services for first nations children. We must understand that the principle of this motion is based on shared jurisdiction between the provinces and the federal government.

Jordan's principle is the name given to the child first principle, which puts the interest of the child before constitutional conflicts when it comes to access to services. The Canadian Constitution does not specify which level of government is responsible for providing services to first nations children.

There are multiple jurisdictional disputes involving child protection. Who has the constitutional, fiscal and moral responsibility for first nations children? The answer to that question has repercussions on the availability of programs and services for aboriginal families and children.

It is important to mention that the average Canadian gets almost two and a half times more services from federal, provincial and municipal governments than first nations citizens, according to the review by the McDonald-Ladd commission in 2000.

According to a number of stakeholders, the best way to manage jurisdictional conflicts is to prevent them. Jordan's principle is more of a provisional measure, while waiting for the federal and provincial governments to reach an agreement on jurisdictions. If Quebec were a country, this problem would have been resolved a long time ago.

As far as jurisdictions are concerned and who is responsible, I will try to provide a brief overview of the jurisdiction problem that Motion M-296 addresses. The motion seeks not to resolve the problem, but to place first nations children and families on an equal footing with Canadian children and families when it comes to receiving social and health services.

As stated in the report of the Joint National Policy Review on First Nations Child and Family Services, the different levels of government are passing the buck with respect to jurisdiction.

The federal government has said that the provinces are responsible for providing child services to first nations, in accordance with section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. Participation by the federal government in the provision of programs and services, in its view, is quite simply discretionary.

I will read section 92:

92. In each Province the Legislature may exclusively make Laws in relation to Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.

16. Generally all Matters of a merely local or private Nature in the Province.

As for the provinces, they believe that the federal government is responsible for native people and reserves, pursuant to section 91(24) of the Constitution Act, 1867:

91. —the exclusive Legislative Authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all Matters coming within the Classes of Subjects next hereinafter enumerated; that is to say,

24. Indians, and Lands reserved for the Indians.

That is the text the Government of Canada used.

The provincial and territorial governments are worried that the federal government is offloading its responsibilities with respect to aboriginal peoples onto them and they argue that “the federal government has the constitutional, historical, and fiduciary responsibility arising from the treaties with aboriginals who live on and off reserves”.

According to a report published in 2005 by the First Nations Child and Family Caring Society of Canada, the first nations have adopted the same position as the provinces.The first nations therefore support what the provinces and territories are saying.

The first nations are the only peoples to suffer from the lack of responsibility and accountability of the federal government and are asking that it maintain “its tutelage and its fiduciary duties towards the first nations, including its children, families and community services”. Moreover:

The federal government funds first nations child and family support agencies pursuant to Directive 20-1—hence a matter of administration—and not, in its view, because of its fiduciary responsibility. The federal government refuses to change its position and has stated that the delivery of programs and services to first nations is discretionary.

That is always the big problem: the federal government does not want to recognize that it has responsibility for the services provided for first nations.

I would like to give some background on Directive 20-1. The current funding formula was developed in 1989 in an effort to standardize funding levels for first nations child and family service agencies in Canada. The directive was issued and requires that agencies operate under provincial legislation when it comes to child protection, but does not include any funding to help agencies adjust. It includes a guiding principle whereby services must be comparable to those provided for children living in similar circumstances off-reserve, but it does not contain any mechanism to ensure that this can happen. Once again, the federal government issued the directive, but did not provide any money to go along with it.

In Quebec, the Youth Protection Act contains provisions that apply specifically to aboriginal youth. In fact, Quebec has always been in the forefront in this area. The fifth paragraph of section 2.4 stipulates that the socio-cultural characteristics of the community in which the young person lives must be taken into consideration:

5) of opting for measures, in respect of the child and the child's parents, which allow action to be taken diligently to ensure the child's protection, considering that a child's perception of time differs from that of adults, and which take into consideration the following factors:

a) the proximity of the chosen resource;

b) the characteristics of cultural communities;

c) the characteristics of native communities.

Quebec's Youth Protection Act therefore ensures protection for aboriginal communities. Furthermore, agreements between the Government of Quebec and aboriginal communities can be reached in order to promote the protection of young people in those communities, by adapting the legislation to their reality.

Of course, we feel it is important to consult first nations. The Bloc Québécois believes that the future does not lie in pointless opposition, but rather in constructive partnerships that respect the legitimate interests of all parties. On the federal scene, the Bloc Québécois makes aboriginal issues one of its priorities. With regard to future relations between the government and aboriginal peoples, we recommend a more comprehensive approach, one that recognizes the aspirations of aboriginal peoples and favours negotiating agreements nation to nation. The Bloc Québécois believes that Quebec is a nation, and that we must negotiate, nation to nation, with aboriginal peoples.

In 1996, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples submitted a comprehensive report that proposed far-reaching changes over a period of 20 years leading to self-government for aboriginal peoples by respecting their customs, cultures, languages and ancestral institutions.

Our party, the Bloc Québécois, believes that in order to develop harmonious relations with Quebec's aboriginal peoples, we must first listen to them and understand them by taking an interest in their reality, their differences and the challenges they face. The Bloc Québécois maintains an ongoing dialogue with the first nations. Our party is suggesting that the government should follow our lead when considering future bills. It has not done so with Kelowna, Bill C-44 and all the others.

In closing, the main issue in this debate is determining who will assume the cost of protecting children. Quebec's Youth Protection Act already contains provisions whereby first nations communities can play an active role in youth protection. Motion No. 296 allows for the protection of children, based on the child first principle, while waiting for the federal and provincial governments to reach an official agreement on various terms and conditions for services, and the payment of services, provided to children in first nations communities.

We support the principle behind the motion. However, we must remember that Quebec and some provinces already have legislation and assistance procedures in place; the federal government must assume its share of the responsibility by providing some of the funding for services provided to first nations children.

Specific Claims Tribunal Act

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

I would like the NDP members to be more attentive and less distracting.

If we just look at Bill C-44, there too, the Conservatives said that they had consulted the first nations. But when the bill was published, there was an outcry from aboriginal women from Canada and Quebec, the leader of the Canadian Assembly of First Nations and the leader of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador in protest against this lie.

They have introduced a bill and now they are saying once again that they have consulted. Many people are unsure whether this time that is the truth.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Okay.

If I can comment, Mr. Chair, I think we're in this conundrum that we're in because....

Well, let me back up. I don't think there is anybody around this table who opposes the repeal of section 67. I certainly don't, and my party doesn't. I don't think there is anybody here who does, and we have said that countless times. The issue is the manner in which it is being done.

What I'm hearing right now reaffirms the importance of an interpretive clause, the importance of responding to the twenty-plus groups we heard from, who came before the committee, and the importance, as well, of further consultation.

For me, the sadness of it is that the opportunity was lost when the House prorogued. When I first met with the new minister right after we reconvened, and he indicated that he was reintroducing the old Bill C-44, he didn't at that time tell me that it was exactly as we had it before. My hope was that there would be some consideration and accommodation by the committee from the various representations we had before us.

When I listen to Mr. Hendry, it reaffirms even further for me the importance of responding to the communities' anxieties, fear, perhaps their lack of trust--I'm not sure whether that plays into it as well--but the need for as much detail as we can have within the bill.

I'll conclude with that.

Canadian Human Rights Act

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the special order made previously, I would like to inform the House that this bill is in the same form as Bill C-44 at the time of prorogation.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

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, we have actually been quite clear in relation to the UN draft declaration. It is something that we did not support because we believe that Canada actually is one of the most progressive countries in the world, in terms of acknowledging aboriginal people. They are right in our charter.

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms acknowledges first nations people, Métis people and Inuit people. This ambiguous agreement actually does not impact aboriginal people in Canada like extending the Canadian Human Rights Act would. This is something that this member is against and is not supporting.

Hopefully, we will bring forward Bill C-44 very soon and hopefully she will support it this time.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue with this line of questioning as well. It is, as the member said, a human rights issue. I was a little confused by the Conservative question because it seems to me that the Conservatives are saying that if we do not agree with Bill C-44, then they will not agree to provide health services for first nations children on reserve.

I want to know how the hon. member understood that question.

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

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

In regard to the parliamentary secretary's question, it is always interesting when we start to talk about hypocrisy in the House. I also want to make a small correction. The repeal of section 67 applies only to the Indian Act. First nations, both on and off reserve, already have the right to appeal outside of the Indian Act under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

It is really interesting that the Conservatives are talking about hypocrisy when they are also members of the party that has asked for leave to appeal in the Sharon McIvor case in British Columbia, in which a first nations woman who was being discriminated against won her case. The Conservatives said, “Wait a minute, we are going to make this woman wait even longer around her status and we are going to ask for leave to appeal”. If we are going to talk about hypocrisy in the House, we should be consistent.

The other issue around this is that when we are talking about Bill C-44, if we are going to respect first nations' inherent right to self-government and self-determination surely what we should do is institute an appropriate consultation process, which the government has failed to do on Bill C-44.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Health]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan raised the issue of human rights. Certainly everyone in the government feels that human rights should be extended to all first nations people, yet the other parties in the House are preventing the government from bringing forward Bill C-44, which would include first nations people in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Currently, and I think most Canadians find this shocking, first nations peoples on reserve are excluded from human rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Bill C-44 would include all Canadians, first nations and others, within the charter.

It seems hypocritical that on one side the member brought forward the motion but opposes including first nations people under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The government believes that human rights come first, yet the NDP member and her party oppose doing the right thing and bringing human rights to everyone.

Could the member address that issue?

Resumption of debate on Address in Reply

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations to you on your reappointment. I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for West Nova.

On Tuesday evening we had the opportunity to listen to the government's vision for Canada. It was a Speech from the Throne that was vague, offering little new hope for Canadians and indeed, offering little new, claiming success of failed programs and often the rebranding of old policies and programs.

However, I want to speak tonight about a number of things in the very short time I have. I want to touch on some of the issues that impact on my community, and I want to talk on matters that are related to first nations, Inuit and Métis.

What can Manitobans really take away from the throne speech? The government said it has given real choice for families through the taxable child care benefit, but has forgotten to speak on the reality of child care in Canada. On September 27, the headline in the Winnipeg Free Press read, “Tories say they made a child care boo boo”.

The Minister of Human Resources and Social Development admitted his government could not live up to its commitment to deliver 125,000 child care spaces. Millions of dollars were cut from child care in Manitoba, from $176 million under the previous Liberal government to only a $9 million annual direct payment to the province. In Winnipeg there are more children's names on wait lists than there are children who receive child care in the city.

How can the government say that a taxable monthly $100 allowance gives parents a real choice when indeed there is really no choice for them: no places for children; no opportunities for their mothers to go back to school, to enter the workforce; or often, indeed, to remain in the workforce?

Yesterday, in a speech in Winnipeg, Dr. Fraser Mustard linked the outcomes of early childhood education to the reduction of criminal activities and positive mental health during adolescence. He said that the annual cost to individuals and Canadian society of poor early childhood development is estimated at $120 billion for crime and $100 billion annually in mental health and behaviour.

What will this also mean for the federal spending power? We know that great national cost shared programs brought us together as citizens, regardless of where we lived: medicare, Canada pension plan. The list is long; the list goes on.

In the last session of Parliament the members opposite introduced 13 crime and justice bills. The official opposition supported a majority of these bills and offered to fast track eight of them. Despite their mantra that their government is getting tough on crime, the Conservatives decided to delay their own legislation. There was no obstruction by the opposition. Indeed, on March 21, an opposition day motion would have immediately resulted in the passage of all stages of four of the bills. Again, there was no cooperation.

The government has also failed to act on its campaign commitment to hire more police officers. Now we see this commitment reannounced once more. This time we hope the government will follow through.

Over the past months I have met with many community groups to discuss community safety. Over and over again we have heard the need for more community policing, but a lack of resources and not enough policemen to assign there.

Also, from the young people at Macdonald Youth Services, I heard about the importance of programs: programs to rehabilitate, programs to support, and programs to keep young people out of the justice system.

Last month I attended here in Ottawa when a Manitoba delegation, led by the Premier, met to discuss issues of crime and safety. I want to assure them that I want to see their concerns met, most particularly making auto theft an indictable offence.

The throne speech said a new water strategy will be implemented to help clean up our major lakes and oceans. What about Devils Lake? Between June and August, North Dakota turned the Devils Lake outlet on and off three times, breaching the agreement the previous government negotiated with the White House. Again, there was silence from this government. Where is a realistic plan and where are realistic resources to act on the clean up of Lake Winnipeg?

There was nothing about education in the throne speech, nothing about the alleviation of the debt load for post-secondary students, and nothing about increasing access to post-secondary education for students who have less. There is a $13 billion surplus and no investment in young people.

We know the Conservatives have silenced the court challenges program. The government has silenced those who cannot speak for themselves. Yesterday we celebrated the accomplishments of six women who received the Governor General's award for the commemoration of Persons Day. These women made a difference in their communities by working for the advancement of women in significant ways.

The government has taken away the tools for advocacy dollars for women. Equality seeking is not acceptable.

In my riding individuals and organizations are calling on the government to take action on Darfur. In my own riding, not far from where I live, the Shaarey Zedek synagogue is next week having a large gathering calling on the congregation to mobilize and speak out on the genocide in Darfur, and from this government there is not a word. It is not in its neighbourhood.

I want to touch on the issues of aboriginal peoples. We know that with aboriginal peoples relations were at an all time high under the previous Liberal government with the signing of the Kelowna accord and then they reached an all time low on June 29 of this year with the national day of action provoked by the inaction of the current government.

I acknowledge the Prime Minister's indication that he will apologize on behalf of Canadians for the legacy of residential schools. I support that. I salute that. As the Leader of the Opposition said, we all support the decision but it is long overdue. Members on this side have been asking for this apology for over a year. There is still much to do to repair the damage that has been put upon the aboriginal peoples.

It is imperative that the government treat aboriginal peoples with respect, that members of the government speak about aboriginal peoples with respect today and in the future, and that they treat their concerns about legislation and the legislative process with respect.

The government brought shame to Canada with its actions on the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous people. Not only was it one of four countries voting against the declaration but its active lobbying against it, against the advice of the officials of three departments, was a blemish on Canada's international reputation.

The declaration fortunately was adopted by 144 countries. Indeed, it was an embarrassment for Canada. Aboriginal people want respect.

The throne speech indicated that it would be reintroducing legislation that would repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. I have said it many times in the House, and in committee, and I will put it on the record once more, the official opposition supports the intent of Bill C-44, but what we do not support is the process, the lack of consultation, the lack of consideration, and the lack of respect shown to aboriginal peoples.

I want to add that human rights also means clean water, safe communities, a house to live in and an opportunity for education. We look forward to the introduction of legislation to deal with the outstanding specific claims. We look forward to it with optimism and are hopeful that in this case with consultation and cooperation there will be a positive result. We acknowledge the intent to take action on behalf of the Inuit, but the throne speech was silent on the Métis and there was no mention of an urban aboriginal strategy.

Closing the gap between aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians remains a number one priority for Canadians. First nations people face a horrible injustice when the level of poverty in their communities is staggering. The future for aboriginal Canadians is Canada's future. More than half of first nations people in this country are under the age of 23.

Education is critical for aboriginal people, the first nations aboriginal children in the cities and Métis children. It is the government's responsibility to act now to stop first nations poverty from perpetuating into future generations.

As I said, the throne speech offered little new for Canadians. It continues to bring forward old news. I will continue to speak up for the interests of my constituents and for aboriginal, Métis and Inuit Canadians.

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and colleagues, for allowing me to reply to the Speech from the Throne delivered yesterday by Her Excellency the Governor General.

In 2006 Canadians went to the polls and voted for change. Our government ran on a clear platform. We received a clear mandate and we are delivering what we promised.

Now, a mere 21 months later, I believe we can say with pride that the government is clean, the economy is strong, and the country is united.

In the eyes of the world, Canada is back. This change, after years of scandal, inaction and threats to national unity, brings home to us the strength of Canada’s foundational values.

We have a love of freedom, a commitment to democracy, a reverence for human rights, and an adherence to the rule of law. Notwithstanding our imperfections, we have built a society that genuinely aspires to the highest ideals of civilization.

We balance the rewards of individual initiative with a collective commitment to help those in need.

We value people for who they are and what they contribute, and not for who they know or where they come from. We leave the conflicts of older worlds behind to live together here in harmony and we reach beyond our shores to help resolve those conflicts.

The generations that came before us set our country on this noble path: the Aboriginal people who established Canada’s first settlements, long before the arrival of Europeans; the French adventurers who laid the foundations of the Canadian state on the shores of the St-Lawrence nearly 400 years ago.

The British settlers brought their democratic ideals and institutions that we have modelled into our own and of course the immigrants from every corner of the earth have enriched our society with their traditions and ambitions.

Canada is their legacy to us. Enriching this heritage for future generations is our duty to them. Every day millions of Canadians are doing just that. They are setting the nation's moral compass by teaching their children right from wrong. They are building our economy with their hard work and they are making our communities better by giving more than they take.

In return for all that they give to this country, Canadians expect one thing from their government: principled, focused and effective leadership so that they can confidently plan for their future in a prosperous, safe and united country.

We titled our first Speech from the Throne “Turning a New Leaf”, reflecting our mandate for change. We have delivered on that mandate.

Now that we have turned a new leaf, it is time to fix our sights on Canada's longer term horizons, on where we want to go into the 21st century and how we will get there. That is why, for the second session of the 39th Parliament, our throne speech is titled “Strong Leadership. A Better Canada”. Strong leadership delivers more than it promises rather than promising more than it can deliver. We promise Canadians simply this: a better Canada for all of us.

We take inspiration from the great explorers of our true north Radisson and Des Groseilliers, Hudson and Franklin, Bernier, Amundsen and the rest. Just as they were guided by the North Star, we will be guided by a five point agenda for Canada. Our plan is principled and focused. We will strengthen the Canada of tomorrow while delivering real benefits to Canadians today.

For this session of Parliament, our government has five core priorities for a better Canada. We want to strengthen Canada’s sovereignty and place in the world; protect our environment and the health of our fellow Canadians; steer our economy toward long-term prosperity; modernize our federation and democratic institutions; and make our streets and communities safe again.

I do not intend to elaborate on everything included in the Speech from the Throne, but allow me to touch briefly on some aspects of the government’s agenda.

I would be remiss if I did not begin by addressing briefly the comments of the Leader of the Opposition. I, of course, take him at his word that he does not intend to force this Parliament to an election and that he will allow, indeed, the throne speech to pass and the government to proceed with its agenda.

As I listened to the Leader of the Opposition, it reminded me a little of the professor who goes through our term paper, marks all over it everything he disagrees with and then passes us anyway.

I have a bit of a different interpretation than the leader of the NDP on the remarks of the leader of the Liberal Party. While there was much criticism, I thought there was, if we actually cut through some of the verbiage, a fair degree of agreement, or at least apparent agreement, on the main priorities.

I note on Afghanistan that the main problem of the Leader of the Opposition seems to be calling it a combat mission rather than a military mission. I did not hear a claim or a call for Canada to simply leave cold turkey and abandon the Afghan people.

On crime, the Leader of the Opposition said that he would now consider passing all the government's crime legislation. Of course, we will be watching to see that happens in both Houses.

On the economy, I did not hear anything that differed substantially from the government's main lines of approach to the economy. In fact, I think he praised the very strong record that the Minister of Finance had created on the performance of the Canadian economy. I know he would like to take credit for that, but he has to be in power to do that.

On the federation and on democratic reform, whether it was the spending power of the Senate, I was not clear whether he was against those things or they were his ideas in the first place.

Most important, the Leader of the Opposition did not repeat his claim today, as he has so often in the past, that he could actually meet the Kyoto target, because we know that he could not and cannot.

Most important, of all the things I take note of, the Leader of the Opposition said that I was in fact his role model as the Leader of the Opposition.

Let me begin in terms of the substance of the throne speech with Canada's place in the world.

It is an understatement that we live in a global village where the economy, the security, the ideas and ideology and even the diseases of any one part of the world can be immediately linked or transmitted to another part. Canadians have always understood the critical nature of our connections to the rest of the world. We have never been an isolationist country.

Whereas in the past Canada participated in the world through its membership in the French and British empires, today we are a fully sovereign country. For the federal government, there is nothing more fundamental than the protection of this country's sovereignty.

Our most important potential sovereignty challenge is on our arctic doorstep.

Our most important potential sovereignty challenge today is on our Arctic doorstep where retreating polar ice, rising global demand for resources and the prospect of year round shipping are creating new challenges and exciting opportunities for the north. As Stan Rogers once sang, Franklin's dream of tracing “one warm line through a land so wild and savage” to “make a Northwest Passage to the sea”, seems about to be realized. However, it must be on our terms.

To ensure this we cannot just point at a map and say it is ours. Protecting and inserting our sovereignty in the Arctic and elsewhere requires real effort, expense and sacrifice. We cannot go 10 years without sending a single ship to the passage as our predecessors did. We have to use the north or we risk losing it.

Conservative governments going all the way back to Confederation have understood the importance of Canada’s true North.

John A. Macdonald, who oversaw Canada’s acquisition of our vast lands to the north and west, was the first to apply the “use it or lose it” principle of sovereignty.

Macdonald said, “were we so faint-hearted as not to take possession of it, the Americans would be only too glad of the opportunity and would hoist the American flag”. And so he assured our possession over the Arctic claims of Britain, just as he had created the Northwest Mounted Police to assure our sovereignty in western Canada.

Half a century ago, Prime Minister John Diefenbaker extolled his northern vision. He foresaw that Canada's future development and prosperity would depend on efficient transportation networks linking northern resources to southern markets. “Roads to resources” he called them. Therefore, he built, among others, our northern most road, the 700 kilometre Dempster Highway from Yukon to the Mackenzie River delta.

The opposition of the day has always dismissed such initiatives as unnecessary, fanciful and even wasteful, and history has always proven it wrong.

That is why our government established a strategy for the North, and why we have already taken a number of steps to affirm our presence and sovereignty in the Canadian Arctic.

In our first two budgets, for example, we have taken strong measures to strengthen the ability of our territorial governments to deliver services to northerners, with particular emphasis on northern housing for first nations and Inuit.

We are expanding our military and coast guard presence into the high Arctic and improving our surveillance capacity, including strengthening the Arctic Rangers.

We are stepping up our environmental activities and increasing the number of protected areas, as reflected in our recent announcement concerning a massive expansion of the Nahanni National Park Reserve in the Northwest Territories.

And to mark International Polar Year, we are enhancing research in the High Arctic.

These research activities will help confirm our unassailable ownership of the Arctic Archipelago and the waters around them, including the Northwest Passage, along with the resources that lie beneath the land, the sea and the ice.

We will proceed with the first ever comprehensive mapping of Canada's Arctic seabed as well as the establishment of a world-class research station to be located in the Arctic itself. It will become the hub of our scientific activities in the north, gathering knowledge that will support our sovereignty and assist with resource development and environmental protection. The other Arctic nations of this planet already have most or all of these capabilities. Under our watch, Canada will not be left behind when it comes to the Arctic.

I should add that many of my colleagues will be working on these northern initiatives. They will be led by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who has done such a terrific job of getting Canadian agriculture back on track.

Of course, our role in the world is not just about our own sovereignty. It is also about effective action beyond our borders, in concert with our friends in the international community.

And we cannot be completely effective in either of these respects without solid, well-led and well-equipped armed forces.

That is why our government will continue rebuilding our long-neglected Canadian military. We want to ensure that our men and women in uniform are able to do the work that we ask of them at home and abroad as safely and as effectively as possible.

I have visited our troops in Kandahar twice in the past 21 months. The Minister of National Defence, the Minister of National Revenue and former national Defence minister, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages, the Minister of International Cooperation, and several other colleagues have as well.

I have also attended Red Friday rallies and other events where communities, friends and others show their support. I have spoken to many of our soldiers and to their families, including some who have lost loved ones.

The soldiers who are serving this country in Afghanistan and the families and the friends who are supporting them back home rank among the finest Canadians I have ever known. Their compassion for the people of Afghanistan, their resolve in the face of a barbaric opponent, their manifest skill and professionalism and the diplomats and development officers they work with are a credit to our great country.

Our mission in Afghanistan is a noble and necessary endeavour. It is making a difference in the lives of men who were victims of Taliban oppression, for children forced to live in ignorance, and for women who had no human rights.

Remember, all of us, that these are ordinary human beings like ourselves, the vast, vast majority of whom just want to live in peace, give their families hope and build a future for their communities.

Parliament will have to make some decisions on the future of the Afghan mission post-2009 within the next year. I hope all parliamentarians will pay attention to the analysis and advice, which the former deputy prime minister, John Manley, and this panel of eminent Canadians will share with us in the near future.

For our part, both in and out of power, this party has faithfully supported our military and their mission since it began in Kabul in 2002 and, of course, since our forces were sent to Kandahar in 2005 by the previous government.

We cannot understate the responsibilities we have undertaken to the Afghan people, to the international community, and to the men and women of our diplomatic, development, and defence forces who have made such enormous sacrifices on behalf of all of us.

Once again, we cannot understate the responsibilities we have undertaken to the Afghan people, to the international community and to the men and women of our diplomatic development and defence forces who have made such enormous sacrifices on behalf of all of us. This Parliament must not let those people down, Mr. Speaker, and I can assure you we will not let them down.

The mission in Afghanistan reflects our conviction that Canadian foreign policy must promote our values and defend our interests. This philosophy is at the very heart of all our international policy initiatives. It was behind our call to confer honorary Canadian citizenship on Aung San Suu Kyi, who has waged a heroic struggle to bring democracy to Burma. It is seen in our participation in the United Nations mission in Haiti. It guides our international assistance programs, which will be refocused and strengthened over the coming weeks.

Our conviction that foreign policy must promote our values and serve our interests drives our effort to renew Canada's engagement in the Americas. Many nations in Latin America and the Caribbean are pursuing market reforms and democratic development, but others are falling back to economic nationalism and protectionism, to political populism and authoritarianism. That is why it is so important for countries like Canada to engage in their own hemisphere, to demonstrate that there are alternative models that can meet people's aspirations. Their choice is not simply between unfettered capitalism and cold war socialism.

The Canadian model of democratic freedom and economic openness, combined with effective regional and social support, offers a middle course for countries seeking democratic institutions, free markets and social equality.

Canada can make a difference in the world.

I do have to respond to a couple of things that were said earlier on Africa. This government is the only government among the G-8 that is meeting its commitments in Africa. It has to be said.

In Darfur, a brutal, brutal tragedy for so many people, this government has been involved in assisting the United Nations and the African Union. When I met last month with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, I made it clear that he can expect Canada's help in any way that the United Nations requires that help in Sudan.

We can make a difference. But we will not make a difference by returning to the days when the government lurched from one fashionable international cause to the next, never pausing to assess whether we were making an impact or whether we even had the necessary capabilities to do so. In short, we will not be returning to the days of a government with an announcement on everything but a plan for nothing, as was the case with the previous government, most notably on the environment and climate change.

I met with leaders who helped draft the consensus climate change statements at the G-8 and APEC. They were not asking me how we were going to achieve our Kyoto target. They had figured out a long time ago, when Canada's last government spent a decade raising emissions year after year after year, that that government had no intention of meeting the Kyoto target.

What those leaders want to know is simply what target we are going to achieve and do we have a plan to achieve it. The Minister of the Environment has been clear. The targets he has set, a 20% reduction by 2020 and a 60% to 70% reduction by 2050, are among the most aggressive in the world going forward and have been recognized internationally to set the stage. He is moving now to implement the plan to achieve them.

And thanks to his efforts and those of his colleagues, we are engaged in a major effort to establish an international protocol that is to include all large emitters, including giants like the United States and China. The government will move forward with its plan for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and air pollutants.

There is no time to lose arguing about yet another “new plan” that will never be implemented.

It is time. We have heard enough from the Leader of the Opposition with his seventh, eighth or ninth plan. It is time to pass the throne speech and let the Minister of the Environment get the job done, just as it is time to let the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Industry and all of their colleagues get on with the job of strengthening the position of the Canadian economy for long term prosperity.

I am pleased to report, wherever I go in the world, that Canada's economic fundamentals are very strong.

The Minister of Finance just announced one of the largest paydowns of federal debt in Canadian history, the direct result of which will be a reduction in personal income taxes under our Tax Back Guarantee legislated in Budget 2007.

Canada continues to enjoy one of the longest periods of economic growth in its history.

Unemployment has fallen to its lowest level in nearly two generations. Inflation and interest rates remain low. The real disposable income of Canadian households has been increasing strongly since this government took office, but we cannot be, and are not, complacent about the continued growth of the Canadian economy.

Recent volatility in financial markets emanating from the U.S. sub-prime market may be with us for some time to come. There is weakness in some of our export markets. Good jobs are threatened in some of our traditional industries and cost pressures in some parts of the country are creating their own pressures on the budgets of working families. Our government is aware of these challenges.

We have responded and, in this session, we will pursue our action in struggling sectors such as the manufacturing, forestry, fishery and tourism industries. We will also continue to take steps to bolster Canadian agriculture.

Speaking of agriculture, this spring when it looked like there would be marketing choice for western barley farmers, prices went up. When marketing choice was swept off the table, prices went down. The Canadian Wheat Board is supposed to be getting the best prices for farmers. That is what marketing choice will deliver and we will not rest until we deliver the choice that western farmers voted for.

Just as we will not stop defending producers in supply-managed industries.

The Minister of Finance will soon be presenting the fall economic and fiscal update, which will report on our progress. Our plan for Canada’s future prosperity is clear.

We are undertaking the largest public infrastructure investments in this country in over half a century. We are strengthening policies on science and technology, research and education. We are helping the disabled and those in poverty move into the workforce.

As the 20th anniversary of our free trade agreement with the United States approaches, we are reinvigorating our trade negotiations to open more markets to Canadian products, as we have done with EFTA. Of course we are dedicated to paying down debt, keeping spending focused on results and reducing taxes for Canadians.

We have cut the GST by one point, cut corporate taxes, and provided specific tax incentives for families, students, children’s sports, tool expenses, and public transit.

We will also be bringing forward a further long term plan of broad-based tax relief in this session.

I notice that the Leader of the Opposition, after voting against every single tax reduction this government has introduced, has now become outspoken in calling for tax cuts for large corporations. They cannot contribute any more. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, we will reduce taxes for all businesses as well as for all individuals and families in this country. Because in this country, there is only one party which, over the long sweep of our history, has been consistently committed to low taxes, direct benefits for families, fiscal discipline, and a free and fair market powered by the energy and creativity of the private sector, and that is the Conservative Party.

One of the intangibles that has recently been working to the advantage of all Canadians and to the advantage of our economy has been the clear improvement in national unity since our government took office. I know the Bloc is not happy but that is the idea.

One of the important steps along this road was the recognition that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada, a measure widely supported in this House last year. That was a controversial act and some predicted, and I know they genuinely believed, that it would lead this country in the wrong direction. I have spoken in various parts of our country and outside our country in French and English, not just Quebec. I have urged, and I continue to urge, all Canadians to look at the beneficial effect that this historic recognition has had on the national unity of this country. Canada is more united today than it has been at any time since our centennial 40 years ago.

I believe that the results of the last election and reaction to the action taken since then—action on UNESCO, the nation, fiscal balance—are sending a very important message to us all.

Canadians, and Quebecois in particular, want to move forward. They have had enough of the old quarrels. They are fed up with the bickering between centralists and separatists, between those who would keep all the power in Ottawa, and those that would give all the power to an independent Quebec.

George-Étienne Cartier, MacDonald and their colleagues created a federation that, although not perfect, has served Canadians well for 140 years. In fact, the federation of 1867 created one of the most solid political institutions in the world, unbroken by tyranny or conquest, unbroken by social disorder or economic chaos.

And we mustn’t forget that Canada—a country born in French, a country with two languages and a multitude of cultures, which will soon be celebrating the 400th anniversary of the founding of its first capital, Québec—is one of the biggest success stories in history.

Of course, I do not argue that Canada is perfect, and so we are committed to reforming it for the better. Our government has worked hard to respect the federal division of powers, to strengthen long-neglected federal jurisdictions, and to work cooperatively with the provinces.

In the next session, in accordance with our government practice, we will be introducing legislation to place formal limits on the use of federal spending power with respect to new programs in areas of provincial jurisdiction without provincial consent and to provide for opting out with compensation.

This is a historic measure, one that has already been welcomed by the government of Quebec.

I noticed that the Leader of the Opposition talked about why this would be a bad thing. One of the reasons he stated for how this would be a bad thing is that this might prevent him from trying to take the child care allowance from Canadian families and instead give it back to lobbyists, to researchers, to advocates and to other politicians. We are going to make sure we get that money directly to Canadian families.

We will also act within the federal jurisdiction to strengthen Canada's economic union, which is a fundamental responsibility for the national government, one that it must take in the interests of all Canadians.

When I say that Canada is not perfect, I think most Canadians recognize immediately that the Senate, as presently constituted, is one of its obvious imperfections.

I must admit to being rather disappointed that the Senate chose not to adopt the tenure bill, even after an excellent report on the subject prepared by the former Speaker of the Senate, Dan Hays. The government will reintroduce in the House, in a slightly amended form, the bill to shorten senators' tenure from a maximum of 45 years to eight years. I am tempted to say that such a reform should be a no-brainer, but I have been surprised before.

On the other hand, the government, while still supportive of allowing for the direct consultation of voters in the selection of senators, does recognize that this is a complex and controversial measure for some members. As such, the government will, upon reintroducing this bill, ask that it be sent to committee before second reading in order to get as wide-ranging a parliamentary input as possible.

Let me just say that I remain convinced the country deserves a reformed Senate, and an elected Senate for that matter, but the country needs the Senate to change, and if the Senate cannot be reformed, I think most Canadians will eventually conclude that it should be abolished.

In terms of reform, let us also hope that the opposition will see fit to stop delaying the adoption of the former Bill C-44. In this country, we are long past the time when the rights of aboriginal people living on reserve should be fully protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I noted with great interest, of course, the leader of the Liberal Party talking about compassion and help for the less well off, but I do have to point out that ours is the government that signed the residential schools settlement and that is now implementing it and preparing the apology; that has cut the right of landing fee to people who have come to this country; that has increased funding for official languages communities across this country; that has redressed finally, after so many years, the Chinese head tax; that has established the Air-India inquiry which was so demanded; and that has concluded a settlement with the sufferers of hepatitis C. These are our proudest moments and they show the difference between talking and acting.

Last but not least, I would like to draw attention to the fifth part of our government’s long-term agenda for a better Canada, a point that affects many Canadians.

Canadians have always been proud of their safe streets and communities—something that long distinguished us from our friends across the border. Today, however, crime is erasing the promise of our Constitution, the promise of peace, order and good government.

Canadians want their safe streets and communities back. They want leadership that is tough on crime and reliable on national security and that is exactly what they are going to get from this government. Under our government, the protection of law-abiding citizens and their property is once again becoming the top priority of our criminal justice system and this will be the agenda we will pursue if Parliament adopts this throne speech. In short, the opposition cannot allow it to pass and then obstruct our core priorities.

That brings me to our first piece of legislation. Last year, our first bill was our historic anti-corruption law, the Accountability Act. This year, our first bill will be our comprehensive justice reform bill, the Tackling Violent Crime Act.

Just as the accountability act cleaned up corruption in government, the tackling violent crime act will be a first step in cleaning up crime in our streets and communities. And it will be a matter of confidence, because the time for talk has passed and the time for action has long since arrived.

Canadians are fed up with a criminal justice system that puts the rights of criminals ahead of the rights of law-abiding citizens, fed up with a revolving door bail system and soft sentences for serious offenders, and fed up with feeling unsafe in their homes and public places.

In the first session of Parliament, our government introduced 13 justice bills. Seven have been passed into law, but six, which included several key policy measures, were held up by the opposition.

Though we accommodated many opposition amendments, the bills were held up in opposition-controlled House committees or by the Liberal majority in the Senate for a grand total of 976 days. That is simply not acceptable.

Canadians are losing patience, so Bill C-2, our tackling violent crime act, to be spearheaded by the Minister of Justice, will reintroduce the key elements of those bills. It will, for example, take action on sentencing for gun crimes. Too often, people convicted of violent crimes involving firearms do little or no time. That is unacceptable. Under our law, serious gun crime will mean serious mandatory prison time.

Furthermore, in too many cases bail has been granted to people charged with serious weapons offences, and while on bail some of them have committed appalling new crimes. That is also unacceptable. Our bill will make it tougher for accused gun criminals to get bail.

The Tackling Violent Crime Act will also crack down on sexual predators. For far too long now, these predators have gone after our children. That too is unacceptable. This legislation will protect our children by raising the age of protection.

Our legislation will also crack down on drug- and alcohol-impaired driving. Too many innocent people have died at the hands of drunk or stoned drivers. Again, that is unacceptable. The tackling violent crime bill will give police and prosecutors more tools to get impaired drivers off our roads and keep them off.

Finally and perhaps most importantly, too many of the most violent, repeat and dangerous offenders in this country wind up back on our streets where they can offend again, again and again. Each time they do, Canadians look at their records, their rap sheets, and ask, “Why on earth was this person ever let out of prison?” There is nothing more unacceptable than that.

Again, let us be clear. We are talking about a few dozen of the most violent, dangerous individuals in this country. Our bill will make sure they stay behind bars, where they belong.

I have no doubt that some people will say we are being too aggressive. From high up in their academic ivory towers or from the boardrooms of their law firms, they will look down on the streets they never set foot on and say things like, “Criminals are really just victims of injustice, oppression and social exclusion”.

Try telling that to their real victims. Tell it to women who do not feel safe walking in their neighbourhoods at night or having their children in those neighbourhoods during the day. Tell it to the innocent teenager killed in a gang shootout on the streets of Toronto.

Tell it to the young girl in Quebec who was out riding her bike when she was struck by a drunk driver.

Tell it to the two Prairie boys who were kidnapped and horribly abused by a serial pedophile.

Tell it to the police, the prosecutors and the elected politicians of all stripes at all levels of government, including municipal and provincial, who have been clamouring for these laws for years.

There is no good reason for the official opposition to oppose or to delay Bill C-2. In fact, the official opposition campaigned in favour of virtually all of these initiatives in the last election and has had enough days, weeks and months, and in some cases over a year, to delay their passage. That is why we are making the tackling violent crime act a matter of confidence. We will be seeking timely passage of this legislation and, as is the case with confidence measures, the government will not accept amendments to the substance of these initiatives.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I open this Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development of Thursday, July 26, 2007.

I will ask the media to discontinue recording, as this meeting is being recorded by the House of Commons. Thank you.

Committee members, you have the orders of the day before you. Today we'll be dealing with Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 21, 2007.

Technical witnesses with us today are Douglas Kropp, senior counsel, resolution strategy unit; Martin Reiher, senior counsel, operations and programs section; Jim Hendry, general counsel, human rights law section--

Aboriginal Affairs

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, we are supporting the delivery of drinking water to first nations communities, but let us talk about human rights because for 21 years first nations women on reserve in this country have not had access to matrimonial property rights. For 30 years first nations women on reserve in this country have not had access to Canada's human rights legislation. The member, together with the Liberal Party, is supporting that sad state of affairs by blocking Bill C-44.

Yesterday in committee she said, “It doesn't matter whether first nations women's rights are postponed for six months, eight months or a year. It makes no difference to them”.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

With haste I'll just quickly respond to the argument that was put forward by Mr. Russell and Ms. Neville in relation to the consultation that's being called for on new legislation being brought forward to bring about independence at the Indian Specific Claims Commission. This was something the minister has been calling for for a number of years. There's no question he had; it's been on the records for years when he was a commissioner at the Indian Claims Commission. That's an argument we don't need to make.

The point I will make, though, is that this is new legislation that hasn't been debated in the past. This is a new piece of legislation that will make an important change to the Indian Specific Claims Commission, and he has suggested that he's going to be consulting with the Assembly of First Nations and others. That's something he's going to be doing over the summer.

However, in relation to Bill C-44, and this is where I argue your point, there's been a multitude of debates, discussions, consultations, a word that is without definition—there is no definition to the word “consultation”. I know Ms. Neville just suggested there wasn't consultation. Unfortunately, there isn't a definition of “consultation”, on what that is. I'm arguing that it was consultation and you're arguing that it's not, but there's no arbiter who's deciding what the word is. So as such my argument is that over 30 years there was consultation, and that's the difference. We now have the opportunity to move forward with legislation. We have heard a multitude of opinions.

Again, I will offer up that we must go to clause-by-clause. We need to put this behind us, because, as was mentioned by Mr. Albrecht, this House might not sit forever. We are on ground that we can't say is strong, because this is a minority government. It could go to an election at any time. Priorities change.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to speak to the motion, and in favour of the motion.

The motion is predicated on the fact that we will repeal section 67. The motion speaks to consultation. On those two very basic premises I support this particular motion. It is based on repealing section 67 and it's based on consultation.

It should be noted, I believe, that when we talk about consultation, the government seems to have the notion that we could never come out of consultation with any positive impact or any positive recommendations, that consultation is some process that leads nowhere, but in fact that is not the case. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that this is the law and the government has a duty to consult. In fact, I would say that the government is a bit hypocritical on this particular point, because they say we don't need consultation on Bill C-44 but we will consult in the drafting of new legislation when it comes to specific claims. That announcement was made last week.

Without having an argument about the two pieces of legislation, or the two directions we're going in, I would think that this particular bill or this repeal requires consultation just as much as consultation is required on the drafting of a bill to deal with specific claims or a specific claims tribunal and process.

At the end of the day, if we're going to respect human rights, we have to respect the duty to consult. We have to respect self-government. We have to respect the impact it's going to have on communities. If you don't, you're in essence trampling on human rights themselves when you don't do that. You can't separate the individual from the aboriginal community and the duty that the Crown owes to both the community and individuals. You can't separate them in such stark contrast.

This is why we are in the conundrum in which we find ourselves after just a few short months of the Conservative government. The relationship with aboriginal people has been very tense. We all know that. We have had a number of blockades already. There is a call for a day of action. The government is trying to put in place some mechanisms to cool this down, but the essence of this, Mr. Chair, is a relationship issue. It is a relationship issue. If the government proceeds in the way they want on this particular bill and in other venues, the relationship will only deteriorate.

What we're asking in Mr. Lemay's motion is to try to heal that relationship in some way by respecting what the aboriginal voices have said at this committee table and in public, and ten months seems to me to be a reasonable amount of time in order to hold a consultative process.

What I like about this particular motion is that it's not too prescriptive in terms of how that consultation process would take place or what would be involved in the consultative process because, again, if we're going to be respectful, and if the government would honour the direction the committee may give today, then they would sit down with the respective organizations and design a consultative process that is, in itself, respectful and doesn't prescribe too much.

For all those reasons, I would certainly support this motion.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I remember that as soon as the press release came out from the minister announcing the introduction of Bill C-44, the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, the Assembly of First Nations of Canada and the Native Women's Association of Canada immediately responded, saying that they agreed that section 67 be repealed and that Bill C-44 be passed.

However, since that time, some people have said that the lack of consultation was unacceptable. I understand the principle that one nation should demonstrate respect towards another. It is not up to us to shove something down another person's throat that we wouldn't want to have shoved down our own throats. So I don't believe that delaying the bill would be bad for Canada, in terms of our standing at the United Nations or internationally, contrary to what the government fears. Perhaps a delay would even be more favourably received. In our capacity as parliamentarians, perhaps we have found all the solutions to truly implement the bill in a respectful manner. However, it is not up to us to decide by ourselves whether or not to consult people. They will perhaps come to the same conclusions that we did. At least, we will have respected the First Nations. They are entitled to such respect. Then, even if there is not unanimous agreement, we could propose the repeal of section 67 in the most reasonable manner possible. There will no longer be protests that people were not consulted. And so, Mr. Chairman, the consultations would be justified.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I share my colleague's concern with the procedural correctness of what we're doing. However, we haven't had a ruling on that at this point.

I just want to go back to a comment Ms. Karetak-Lindell made. I think she said something to the effect that 99% of the people who were here were not in agreement with Bill C-44 in its current form. I just want to remind all of us that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples represents a very large constituency of aboriginal peoples. Just to quote directly from their statement: “Does the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples support the repeal of section—”

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

Mr. Chairman, I fully understand the position of the department, the Conservative Party and those who will vote against this motion we tabled. I do not agree with it, but I can understand it.

Over the past few weeks, members of the Assembly of First Nations told me that they had waited 30 years and that they were prepared to wait another 10 months. The ten-month period mentioned in my motion isn't an arbitrary thing. I wasn't the one who thought of it and who said that if everyone displayed some good will, 10 months from now, the consultation process with First Nations will have been completed. If we comply with subsection 1(a), (b) and (c), if my motion is passed, the ball will be in the government's court.

The problem is that the department has not done any study of the impact of Bill C-44. This has been clearly stated to us on two occasions: at the beginning of the hearings, when representatives and the minister appeared, and at the end, when representatives of the Department of Justice and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development informed us that an impact assessment had not been done.

I think that we can move forward, but we will need to show some good will. I am here to pass legislation that will make things better in Canada and especially in Quebec. If we were to pass Bill C-44 today as written, I do not think I could face First Nations in my riding and tell them that I have properly represented them.

However, if we adopt the motion that I tabled today—and I swear that I will not score election points with First Nations—I could tell them that the ball is now in their court and in the government's court as well, and that they have 10 months as of today. I am prepared to say “as of today” to show that real consultations on Bill C-44 and on the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act have been undertaken.

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

Thank you.

Just to comment on what you said about how we'll never know all the implications of any policy or legislation, that doesn't mean that we don't go with what we know. We've heard from enough witnesses using Bill C-31 as an example of what can happen when you don't try to mitigate some of the consequences that are going to definitely come about, and you know that hasn't been done.

Going back to some of the comments that Mr. Storseth made about being procedurally correct, I'm not a lawyer and I don't follow court cases, but sometimes a case can go exactly by the book, all the right procedures, the people in the courtroom following everything. But is justice done at the end of the day when you don't take into consideration the people who are involved?

Let's use child custody cases as an example. I sat on a special committee on child custody cases. Talk about hearing painful witnesses' stories. It's never easy when parents are fighting over children. But if the court just said parent A gets the child without any conditions whatsoever, do you then feel justice is done, because it was a very simple statement—parent A gets the child? That's as simple as you can get. Mr. Bruinooge talked about the very simple—This is just stating a fact. Well, just stating a fact like that does not take into consideration all the conditions you should apply, whether it's visitation, whether there's money for child support, whether the grandparents can visit, whether the children can travel outside the province or state they live in. There are so many other situations that you have to take care of that making just a simple statement like that does not take care of the people who are affected by that decision.

This is the same. You can't just say this very short bill is going to take care, if you don't look at how it's going to impact the people. Again, as Ms. Crowder said, how can you as a member, including myself, not listen to 99% of the people who said there have to be other considerations? There have to be resources. There has to be a longer time to implement this. You can't take any of those and just disregard them and say this will solve everything, because that is being irresponsible.

I go back to what I used to say when I used to be chair of this committee. Don't do things for the wrong reasons, because the consequences are too high. If the members opposite want to be able to say over the summer that they took care of human rights for people on reserve as far as the Indian Act is concerned, then they should want to be able to do it feeling good that they did everything possible to make sure that it did not result in dire consequences for people who are affected by it, not because they just want to be able to say they passed Bill C-44.

Let's not do it for cheap political points, because that is going to have such serious consequences, as we've already seen with our history. Why add more to the list of things that have caused aboriginal people grief and despair? Why add to that? This is what passing Bill C-44 will do, because we don't know what the consequences are going to be. We don't have any resources to go with it. I just can't see how we can not listen to all these people saying that Bill C-44 does not take care of them because it doesn't take care of all the possible consequences after that.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to respond to my colleague. When we began our study of section 67, my initial impression was that everything had already been said and done, and that we would quickly pass the bill. In all sincerity, I admit that my first surprise was seeing Phil Fontaine, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, representatives of the Human Rights Commission, the Assemblée des Premières nations du Québec et du Labrador, and the Native Women's Association of Canada appear before us. They came to tell us that certain steps had not been taken and that they were not ready.

I had a long discussion with representatives of the Assemblée des Premières nations du Québec et du Labrador. They told me that even though we've been hearing about this for 30 years, nothing had ever been done to prepare First Nations for the repeal of section 67.

However, I do not want—and I say this in all sincerity— the House of Commons to oppose a bill that has the support of First Nations. They want section 67 to be repealed, but they are telling us that the groundwork must be laid and consultations must be held.

I will conclude on that note, because I want my other colleagues to have an opportunity to speak. The last person who testified before the committee was Grand Chief LaBoucane-Benson, who was from Saskatchewan, I believe. I will remember this for some time to come. She confirmed what I feared: today, June 19, 2007, First Nations are simply not ready for section 67 of the Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to be repealed until such time as mechanisms are put in place to deal with the situation.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Well, Mr. Chair, I know that a number of the opposition members have highlighted the fact that some people who have come before us have called for a repeal of section 67, yet they believe they haven't been as interested in Bill C-44.

The argument I had hoped to make in the previous round was that there isn't a bill that is more in tune with a repeal before the government currently. This is the repeal of section 67; that's exactly what this bill is. It isn't something grander than that. It's simply the repeal of section 67. So it's illogical, in my opinion, to suggest that it's anything but a repeal of section 67, which everyone has universally called for. That's what we're delivering here in this committee.

I know that the member opposite has received various viewpoints and is calling for this suspension, but this is outside of our ability as a committee. We can't just put off work on this important bill for ten months. I just can't see how this is possible.

We need to proceed. We've been commanded by our House. The parties all agreed, sent this bill to committee. Mr. Lemay's party sent this bill to committee to be worked on, amended, sent back for a vote. Send it back to the House, and then you can vote it down and you'll have a longer delay of the implementation of this section of human rights to first nations people.

That's where I'll leave it.

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

Mr. Chairman, you do realize that I have already tabled a motion that we will need to debate today.

However, while I find Ms. Crowder's motion to be complete, I must tell you that everyone who has appeared before us has been in agreement about the need repeal section 67. They all agreed that Bill C-44 should be passed, except that—and this is the difference between the government and those of us who are here at this table—the vast majority of witnesses who appeared before us asked for consultations, within the meaning of Supreme Court rulings, before this bill is passed.

I don't want to go over the list of witnesses, but if you look at the blues, the testimony, you will see that the vast majority said that they wanted adequate consultations to be held before Bill C-44 is adopted.

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

I think we have to come back to the basic principle of what we're trying to accomplish here in Bill C-44 and ask whether we are in favour of repealing section 67 or not. We've agreed around this table that this needs to happen, and the majority of the witnesses have said that. So I think we need to answer whether we're ready to end discrimination against a particular group of citizens that's been going on for at least 30 years.

We've also had individuals approach us, either by letter or in person, asking us to please pass Bill C-44.

Back to the question of consultation, I agree with your statement, Mr. Chair—and almost every witness agreed—that it would be almost impossible to have a degree of consensus, as it's referred to in this motion, or any degree of consensus.

Another point I'd like to make is that the motion we're dealing with right now is longer than the bill, yet we're expected to deal with it within a committee meeting or two.

There is no definition of consultation, and there is no definition of what is meant by degree of consensus. As I mentioned last time, even the Canadian Human Rights Commission does not agree with the inclusion of a non-derogation clause. There are no costs indicated here, so it would be out of order for us as a committee to approve a motion that would add unknown costs to the House.

So there are multiple reasons why I cannot support this motion before us today.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully to the member opposite. He and I have had conversations beyond this table over this bill. I guess where I differ from him.... He just commented now that we've heard a multitude of opinions. We have heard many, many opinions here, from legal experts to first nations leadership to individuals who have come before the committee. Overwhelmingly we have heard the need to consult with first nations, to talk about the impact that the repeal of section 67 would have into first nations communities, to deal with first nations communities with respect.

I don't believe that the majority of those who came before the committee are opposed to the intent of Bill C-44, which is the repeal of section 67, and that has been our position from the outset. We support the intent of Bill C-44, which is the repeal. But I sat on the committee, as did my colleague beside me, when we dealt with Bill C-7, where we also spoke about the repeal of section 67 and the importance of it. The major flaw of Bill C-7 is the major flaw of this process and this bill.

Bill C-7 was brought forward with only a token gesture to consultation in a meaningful way, and it didn't succeed. I would say that the same is happening with Bill C-44. I don't even think there has been a token gesture to consultation, and the processes of it. We know from all of the expert testimony we've had and we know from all of the individuals who have come before the committee, whether it's been from national leadership or local leadership, that this can't happen without understanding what the impact will be on collective versus individual rights, what the impact will be on the capacity of communities to respond to it.

I think it's important that we look at a delay. Members opposite have talked about 30 years of consultation. I would argue that it's not been consultation. It's been discussion and it's been looking at the issue, but there has never been a meaningful consultation on this bill. If we've waited 30 years, what difference does a number of months more make to do it properly, so that it's not challenged in the courts?

I have here, and I've been carrying it around, the Supreme Court of British Columbia judgement on the Sharon McIvor case. We see the implications of bad legislation. We see the implications of people having to go forward and appeal. I can't help but say it: the McIvor case was done under the court challenges program. I despair for anybody else who wants to take an issue forward.

Six months, ten months, a year, I don't see what the difference is, and particularly in light of the McIvor decision and Bill C-31. We talk about protecting women and children. The minister indicates that he's going to appeal this decision, which is a protection of women and children. So there's no need to rush it, and I would certainly support some delay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

The chair would like to make a statement about the motion, as the chair feels that the motion is out of order. I'd like to give the reasons that follow.

The committee is at the pleasure of the House. The purpose of the committee is to review and suggest amendments to bills through debate based on relevant information supported by witness testimony. The action recommended by this motion does not relate to the substance of the bill, and the motion also recommends department expenditures, which is ultra vires to the committee's mandate.

Second, the motion does not specifically mention Bill C-44, so it is questionable if it is relevant to the legislative process.

Third, the chair also believes that the House is the appropriate body to debate the essence of bills. The committee is to debate the substance of bills. This motion, in my opinion, crosses the line and alters the integrity of the bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, not to define the duty to consult. The motion is addressing the principle of the duty to consult, yet that question is very abstract and, the chair determines, too vague to resolve.

For these reasons, the chair determines the motion is out of order.

Do you wish to challenge the chair?

Committees of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's comments. I certainly like working with her on the aboriginal affairs committee. I know that she has a desire to see the lot of aboriginal people in Canada improved, as we all do.

However, I do take exception to some of the statements that she made to the effect that some of us do not want aboriginal people to become educated or to succeed. I need to say that one of the reasons that I requested to serve on the aboriginal affairs committee was from exactly that kind of motivation: to see the lives of aboriginal peoples improve. I would ask her not to imply in comments about being insensitive or something that simply because we approach the topic from a different perspective we do not have a concern equal to that of members opposite.

Our government has implemented a lot of key measures in the past year to improve the lives of aboriginal people. There has been $308 million for post-secondary education and $105 million for the aboriginal skills and employment partnerships. We have Bill C-44 and also the recent announcement that deals with specific land claims and a process to speed up that entire system.

I have two questions. Should the government fund 100% of post-secondary education for aboriginal students and other Canadians? If it did, how much of a budget would it require to fund that kind of request?

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

Mr. Speaker, I have much to say on this matter. It is true that Bill C-44, which we are currently studying in committee, contains only nine operative words. Those nine words, however, will have serious repercussions on first nations people. Once the Canadian Human Rights Act applies in a community, this means that, immediately, anywhere in Canada, legal action can be taken against a band council or against the department any time there is no water, no hospital nearby or if people are not receiving the same level of care as anywhere else in Canada.

Earlier, in my response to another colleague, I said that real consultation is absolutely essential. The government must go to first nations communities to hear how first nations people want to repeal this retrograde legislation. Everyone wants to repeal it. We must find the mechanisms to ensure that this is done in full respect of the wishes of first nations people.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my presentation, the amount of $300 million is something that I believe can be more efficiently allocated. I think that efficiencies are the most important part of making this allocation work better for first nations people. I know that some of those recommendations are in the report and hopefully possibly will advance this outcome.

In relation to human rights violations that might be occurring in Canada, I think that as a government that is one of the reasons why we are bringing forward Bill C-44. We are not going to stop because there might be a flood of complaints. We do not think that is going to be the case, but that is no reason to put off such important efforts.

[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, it is a pleasure to rise today on this important topic before the House. The member who has called this concurrence debate is a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development and is a passionate advocate for aboriginal people throughout Canada and, of course, students.

This was an important study that was the first that I took part in as a member of Parliament and, as such, was not only a study on education but was very much an education for me.

We received many submissions and it was an extensive study. We also, in my opinion, found important information about the process for which aboriginal students across Canada are learning.

If there is one thing that everyone can agree on, it is that the path for individuals to succeed, for communities to escape poverty, for societies to flourish and for economies to prosper lies through education, education and more education.

Despite heroic efforts by thousands of students, parents, teachers and educators and many green shoots of progress, we all must admit there has not been enough of that progress. Too few aboriginal children finish high school. Too many schools lack the labs and libraries or the access to extra support services that make a difference. They have little measurement, no real system and no education act, just schools, lots of funding, agreements and people trying to make it work by throwing money at a system that may not work in the short term but suffices for the here and now.

However, it will not last. We need deeper renovation. We must do better. It is essential for all students across Canada and especially aboriginal students. We cannot wait.

Thankfully, we have seen a process begin in British Columbia. First nations people have led the way by forging a unique three-way partnership with the two levels of government. This partnership marries old ideas of first nations people along with new models of clear accountability for results in interconnection to the provincial standards for students and teachers.

Parliament passed this law to support the partnership last December. It is something that all members of the House were very proud of. We are moving swiftly, not just to implement it in B.C., but to offer similar partnerships in other parts of the country.

We have also learned from successes in Nova Scotia and the James Bay coast of Quebec. We have forged solid working relationships with experts in provincial ministries and universities.

We are still not sitting in a way that is urgent to press forward on these problems but we will in fact move forward and invest more than $50 million in important new school projects and extend the SchoolNet program that supports these schools with the Internet connections that they need to become the schools that everyone expects in this modern age.

This fall we will be doing a lot more as well. We cannot let this story end with an improvement in high schools. We also know that it is crucial to build bridges from these secondary schools to the labour markets and how important these further skills can be, whether that means university, college or accreditation for trades.

That is why our budget presented in March made an investment of an extra $105 million over the next five years. It is more than double the size of the aboriginal skills and partnership initiative which will fund skills training for thousands of aboriginal people.

That is why we sign partnership deals, bringing together first nations with private sector firms like EnCana and Siemens. We have renovated and extended for another five years the urban aboriginal strategy with a tighter focus on employment.

I have visited many communities throughout the north, including the community of Thompson. I know we have the member of Parliament from the Thompson area here today. I witnessed some of the work that was done with the aboriginal strategy in that fine city in which I was born and I can say that it has worked for the citizens of that community.

The one thing we learned in our study was that it is essential for post-secondary students to actually graduate. Perhaps the most important point that I personally learned as part of that study is that first nations students on reserve, in fact all aboriginal students throughout Canada, when graduating at the high school level are just as likely to proceed to post-secondary education and achieve success as other students in different demographics in Canada. This is an important fact that was learned by myself and other members of the committee during that important study.

As a government, we feel that we must focus much of our energy on improving the standards of secondary education throughout first nations communities. Unfortunately, there is a patchwork of systems in place that governs education. I know British Columbia has moved forward with an important initiative but many other provinces in Canada have yet to embrace these models. This is something that we as a government must do.

I want to highlight some of the other things we learned in the study since today we have been called upon to have this debate. One of the areas that I particularly focused on was the area of funding provided to first nations communities and how that funding is then further allocated. There is debate in relation to the amount, which is roughly $300 million. Some have argued that there should be more and some have argued that this amount needs to be more efficiently utilized. Of course, I believe there could be new efficiencies brought about to improve the outcome of that $300 million.

That is an area that I believe needs more work. There is really no general accountability on that $300 million. In fact, it is invested directly into the bands' general operating funds. If there were a new system that allowed for these communities to specifically allocate those funds to universities, I think new efficiencies could be found.

Of course, if an individual on reserve wanted to complain about the fact that there is not necessarily assurance in the way that $300 million is spent, they currently cannot do so within the Canadian context but, thankfully, we are bringing an important bill before the House, Bill C-44. I know the member for Churchill is not interested in this topic.

Bill C-44 extends the Canadian Human Rights Act to first nations people on reserve and that is important.

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, I am very proud to further highlight from earlier this week the fact that the Prime Minister announced a new process which will extend $250 million a year to settle specific claims.

Further to that, right now we have the opportunity to extend human rights to first nations people with Bill C-44. The only thing standing between first nations people and human rights on reserve is the Liberal Party, the Bloc Québécois and the New Democratic Party.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to address that in the affirmative in a moment but there is more that we should know about in terms of the business we are doing.

We will continue today with Bill C-42, the quarantine act, Bill C-58, the railway transportation bill and Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Firearms Act (non-registration of firearms that are neither prohibited nor restricted).

Tonight we have the emergency debate pursuant to Standing Order 52 that the Speaker has determined should proceed.

On Friday we will call Bill C-33, the income tax bill and Bill C-6, the aeronautics bill.

Next week is got the job done week when the House has completed the nation's business for this spring's session. During the got the job done week we will continue and hopefully complete the business from this week, as well as some new legislation and legislation that will be out of committee or the Senate.

The list of bills that are currently on the order paper, in addition to those I have identified for this week that I would like to see completed by the House before the summer recess are: Senate amendments to Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act.

There are also the following bills: Bill C-32, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts; Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and Bill C-53, An Act to implement the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States (ICSID Convention).

Another bill includes Bill C-54, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (accountability with respect to loans).

By the end of next week, Canadians expect that the Senate will have completed its consideration of budget Bill C-52 without any amendments so that they can relax for the summer with the knowledge that $4.3 billion in the 2006-07 year end measures will be in play.

If there are amendments, we will have to be here in the House to respond and protect measures that might otherwise be lost, such as a $1.5 billion for the Canada ecotrust for clean air and climate change; $600 million for patient wait times guarantees; $400 million for the Canada infoway; $100 million for the CANARIE project to maintain the research broadband network linking Canadian universities and research hospitals; $200 million for protection of endangered spaces; and much more.

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, I find it bizarre hearing this logic from the member opposite. We have before the House of Commons Bill C-44 which actually extends human rights to first nations people in Canada. This is something that has been historically unjust.

We have the opportunity today to move forward and extend human rights to first nations people. I would ask that the opposition parties come on board with the government and bring human rights to first nations.

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

Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't want to second-guess my colleague's motives, but I have a number of problems with the motion that's before us.

First is the sheer size of the motion; it is much longer than Bill C-44. To expect us to engage this motion with any degree of vigour and come up with a reasonable solution within a two-hour period is rather unrealistic.

There are a couple of comments, words, or phrases used here that I think are problematic. For example, under number 1, it refers to “a degree of consensus”, and I think that gets to the heart of what we talked about with a number of our witnesses. Virtually every witness who appeared before us admitted that getting a consensus on this would be a pretty tall order. There are really no degrees of consensus; either we have it or we don't.

She refers to a non-derogation clause. When the Canadian Human Rights Commission appeared before us, they did not support including that.

There is no addressing of the timeline or costs of the steps that she proposes. What would the timeline be? What would the cost be?

There are too many unanswered questions for me to give any degree of support to this, so I'd definitely be voting against it.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Well, I'm not sure that I'm in question period yet, but I will try to give you an answer.

As we've discussed, and as I have chatted with some of the members opposite on ways we can move forward with this important legislation, I think this committee is the master of its own destiny and we will be able to find solutions to rectify any situations that are perceived to be preventing Bill C-44 from proceeding. In that sense, there is no question that we can have those discussions, and we will do so over the next few hours and days—hopefully, preceding summer.

But getting back to the motion, it flies in the face of our being able to do that, as it calls for a different process to begin. Just trying to take this debate back to the motion, I would suggest that we as a committee have to vote against this motion and continue our work to bring forward a repeal of section 67.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

I didn't speak to the motion in my last submission, but I will speak to the motion right now. Again, I think one could predict at least where I'm going to start.

In Madam Crowder's motion she compares matrimonial property study to the fact that there was a process that was set up. You're indicating that's somewhat of a precedent. I feel that the types of consultations and discussions that have occurred in the last 30 years—and it can't be denied that over the last 30 years there have been a lot of attempts to do what we're doing today—are quite dissimilar from the current initiative of the minister and Ms. Grant-John on matrimonial real property.

I think there is no direct comparison of consultation, but we must remember the fact that what we're doing here through our repeal of section 67 is to bring the opportunity for individuals, for people who currently don't have a voice, to express their human rights cases. It puts a challenge on me as a legislator, and I know on everybody on this side, to further delay that.

I think we've been given a number of submissions from many of the leaders within the aboriginal communities—first nations specifically, but others as well. I believe we have received considerable information to be able to actually do the work we're currently doing.

In light of the fact that we're in a minority government, there is no guarantee that we're going to be here forever. We have that opportunity now to be able to do something historic. Therefore, unfortunately, your motion would cast some doubt on what we would be doing as a committee. You don't specifically reference Bill C-44. Likely, you did that for the reason I just mentioned—that you didn't necessarily want to influence the discussion of the bill. Nonetheless, this motion is still in our discourse right now. It will influence what we're doing. Naturally, as a member of the government side, I can't support it.

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

My challenge with this, Mr. Chair, is that there are a couple of issues. One is that there is no assurance that we will actually be sitting next week. If we are not sitting next week, then if my motion—which would encourage the government to move forward with consultation—were passed by the committee, then consultation could start fairly soon and take place over the summer, instead of there being no action whatsoever taken over the summer.

My motion, specifically, does not reference Bill C-44. It references a consultation process around the repeal of section 67, so it could proceed whatever the discussions are around the bill. In fact, it would be a good-faith gesture on the government's part if they would agree to consultation while we sorted out what other proposed amendments should be in the bill.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, of course the member raises the issue of human rights and hopefully we will be able to soon pass Bill C-44, which would extend human rights to first nations people on reserve.

She also raises the point of throwing money at a broken system. This is something that our government has taken major issue with, because we feel the systems are broken. Investing money in broken systems is not the right approach for delivering to people on the streets of first nations communities.

This is one of the reasons why Canada's new government is moving forward for first nations people, thankfully, and bringing about system change to the Indian Specific Claims Commission as well as system change to the Canadian Human Rights Act, which would extend human rights to first nations people. Hopefully the member will help us in fixing the system.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to follow up on my question posed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on May 18. Similar to other responses I have received from the government, the answer I was given that day was empty, unsatisfying and entirely rhetorical.

However, providing adequate responses is not the only thing the Conservative government seems to be struggling with lately. In recent weeks it has grown increasingly evident that the government continues to struggle with maintaining strong partners within the Canadian federation.

It began by abandoning the historic Kelowna accord and ignoring first nations health, education and poverty issues, which has led to a deterioration of the government's relationship with first nations communities. We have seen the true colours of members opposite in their style of government as they have turned their backs on first nations and now they have turned their backs on Atlantic Canada and other provinces. Rather than working together in a collaborative fashion, we are witnessing a divisive and appalling approach to government. I encourage those sitting on the government side of the House to consult with Canada's first nations, Métis and Inuit on what true consultation actually means.

I would like to point out that the member referred to the Kelowna accord as a “quasi-plan”. The member opposite used that term when he responded to my question on May 18. It reflects that party's inability to understand the issues facing first nations.

The Kelowna accord was the result of 18 months of aboriginal round tables, including all aboriginal groups in Canada. This was not to satisfy a legal obligation on consultation, which we know the Conservatives know nothing about, but was a good faith process.

If the Conservatives could deviate from their slogans for a moment, maybe they could hear what first nations are saying on such issues as matrimonial real property, Bill C-44, the anti-poverty campaign and even the human rights complaint they have been forced to file against the government on first nations child welfare. First nations want change but not in the paternalistic manner of decades past in the days of the Indian agent.

In my question to the minister I cited Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine when he commented on the Kelowna accord. He said, “for the very first time, we had...a plan...based on reason, thoughtful consideration”. He said, “That deal was set aside, dismissed”.

Under the previous Liberal government, the Kelowna accord was built on a foundation of respect, accountability and shared responsibility. It outlined five year targets in the areas of education, health, housing, infrastructure and water.

What will it take for the government to take all issues relating to first nations, Inuit and the Métis nation in Canada seriously? Why does the Conservative government treat our partners within our federation with such disdain? When will it work with aboriginal leaders on all issues to improve the quality of life for first nations?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. If the Bloc members say they are in favour of human rights, they should support Bill C-44 dealing with the rights of women and children. We still have not heard from the hon. member on this matter.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member could devote some of this new-found enthusiasm and fervour for human rights to the subject of first nations, particularly first nations women in Canada.

Bill C-44 has been before a committee of the House, including before the hon. member, for 83 days at this point, I am told. It is nine words long, including complicated words such as “is” and “the”. To this point, not a single amendment has been proposed by the hon. member or anyone else.

Perhaps she could dedicate the same enthusiasm to protecting first nation women in Canada.

[Candice Metallic, Legal Counsel, Assembly of First Nations]

I think the position of the Assembly of First Nations has always been that in an ideal world, consultation takes place first. I had the benefit of listening in on your question to the representatives from the Native Women's Association about this point. I agree with your proposed approach to consultations, and the law certainly points to that very process as well, with consultation at the beginning. But the Crown has an ongoing role to consult, and I think that's very important. They have an ongoing duty to consult throughout the various processes and stages of legislative and policy development.

In the circumstances in which we find ourselves with respect to Bill C-44, we gave it a lot of thought when we were looking at the position the Assembly of First Nations would take. We structured our amendments to extend the transition period to 36 months. And we tried to build in a consultation element. That's the reason we extended it to 36 months. It was to have a review period between immediately and within 18 months so those consultations can take place and so there will be this operational review and assessment to ensure that first nations have the necessary capacity to bring their buildings, their policies, and their laws up to the standard that would withstand the scrutiny of the Canadian Human Rights Act. But it was also to look at ways in which first nations governments can sustain the protection of human rights in general.

So there's a two-stage process here that we have to consider, and the way we have structured the amendments takes into account all of that.

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

National Chief, there is no way that Bill C-44 will be passed as presently drafted. We are going to propose amendments. With your agreement, we will use yours. Would that meet with your satisfaction?

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

My colleague was very concise. I am going to be even more so. I have your proposed amendments in my hands. I have just read them in French and English. If they were included in Bill C-44 and it was amended accordingly, would it satisfy you? That is what I want to know.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

Very quickly, Mr. Chairman, if the proposed amendments fairly represent the consensus view of the witnesses who appeared before the committee, and you share their concerns that Bill C-44, as drafted, is flawed and would not give fair protection to our people, because our governments wouldn't be in a position to deliver, due to lack of capacity, then that will be okay. But if it's obvious that we need more time to give you ample opportunity to reflect on the validity, legitimacy, and appropriateness of our proposed amendments to make this bill as good as it ought to be, then that's what we would ask the committee to consider.

It's important that we note some of the technical considerations regarding this bill that make it extremely difficult for us to accept as is.

Richard.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

I'll give you the general overview and then call on my able support team to speak to the technical details of your question.

It's clear that most recognize that our communities are in a very difficult situation. In an ideal situation, these communities ought to be in a position to protect the interests of all their citizens, whether we're talking about housing, water, health, education—you name the program or the service—that these programs and services be delivered in the most appropriate and effective way possible.

Given the situation we're in, the crisis we face with housing, the fact that there are too many first nations communities operating under a boil water advisory, and the fact that we're still struggling with attaining success rates in education equivalent to the mainstream, we need to ensure that the capacity within our first nations communities is such that all of our first nations governments will be in a position to deliver effective, fair, and just government services to all of their citizens.

That should be an overriding concern on the part of this committee, and in fact the House, when they consider the effects and impacts of Bill C-44 on our communities. It's pretty clear that if it were to pass as is, it would cast our leadership in a completely unfair position and we would be judged on standards that are completely unfair. Canadians believe in fairness; Canadians are fair-minded people. If they knew the dangers inherent in this bill as it is cast, they wouldn't support it.

[Chief Phil Fontaine, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations]

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, and my thanks and appreciation to committee members for giving us another opportunity to present on a matter that we consider of vital importance to all of us. There should be absolutely no question or doubt that first nations leaders are concerned or committed to protection of human rights for all of our citizens. We are all very committed. We are all very interested. We all want to see the most appropriate protections be afforded all of our citizens: women, men, young people, and elders. We will do whatever we can as a national organization to ensure that these protections are in place for all of our citizens, on and off reserve.

I think there was some question or doubt about whether we were in fact committed. I want to underline that it's very important for us, and it's very important for you to know that we are committed. We've pushed very hard to ensure that all of the right and appropriate steps are taken so that Bill C-44 reflects all of the interests of all first nations citizens, and that whatever decision is ultimately taken on Bill C-44 it will not result in further jeopardizing the rights and interests of all of our people.

We've already made it very clear that we're very concerned about impoverished first nations communities. We're very concerned that too many of our communities can't access safe drinking water; that too many of our communities lack good schools; that there is a tremendous backlog in housing; that we can't access quality health care; that suicides are still far too high; and that there are too many children in care—27,000 now, mostly in western Canada. All of those matters are directly related to the human rights of our people.

Water, for example, is a human right. That right has been violated, not because chiefs and councils are corrupt or not sensitive or caring about all of their peoples. We didn't contaminate the water to begin with, so I don't know why people continue to blame leadership for those conditions. We didn't create the housing crisis that our communities face. We didn't insist that our people be unemployed to the levels they are. The list goes on, and it's completely unfair to keep pointing the finger at first nations chiefs and councils for being the cause of all of what challenges our communities.

So dispel the notion that we are somehow not concerned about human rights or committed to the human rights for all of our people; we are. But we need you to help us ensure that these rights are protected to the same degree that the human rights of all Canadians are protected. That shouldn't be too much to ask. In our view, it's a very straightforward and simple proposition.

That is the preamble to my speaking. I had a more detailed presentation, but I know you're pressed for time. I apologize that we arrived here late, and I know that some of you have to leave. I don't know how you want to proceed.

If you'll permit me the time, I want to make three points. These points are very important for the discussion you're having here.

I'll quickly summarize the key amendments that we advanced in our submission. I'm also tabling a list of amendments that we feel best address what we heard as a consensus of concerns raised about Bill C-44 from the witnesses who appeared before this committee in the last little while.

The first issue that underlies this whole discussion is the duty to consult. Inherent in this is the duty to accommodate and mitigate adverse impacts on aboriginal and treaty rights or undue hardships on first nations. We note this is completely absent in this bill.

Second, there is the need to amend Bill C-44 to include safeguards for the unique collective inherent rights and interests of first nations.

Finally, the last point relates to the need for effective and appropriate transition and implementation measures.

I should note that we've been following the presentations of the various witnesses who have appeared before this committee. It's pretty clear, from our perspective, that there's agreement on the need to address the human rights of first nations, as well as the need to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. There's no hesitation on our part to advocate for that. However, it's also become very clear that Bill C-44, both in process and substance, may not have been the best way to do this.

I'll leave it there.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Okay. And the current minister is well aware of your proposal on consultation on the repeal of Bill C-44?

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

I have read the Supreme Court of Canada decisions.

If an amendment to the bill says that Bill C-44, which repeals section 67, will come into effect after—, it is vital that there be an interpretive clause which must be defined in conjunction with the first nations. I do not have the exact words. This is why I was rereading the clause, and I am going to read it to you: “In relation to a complaint made under the Canadian Human Rights Act against an Aboriginal authority, the Act is to be interpreted and applied in a manner that balances individual rights and interests with collective rights and interests.“

This is what the Human Rights Commission suggests to us as an interpretive clause. Is this what you disagree with, the clause I have just read to you, that is?

It protects rights and interests of both types.

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

Good morning.

Good morning, ladies. I appreciate you being here.

I have listened carefully to what you said, and I have one very specific question, more or less. I will try to speak generally. The issue that concerns us today is the reason we asked you to come back to see us, and we would like to hear what you have to say. The issue is as follows. The question is a fundamental one. I assure you that we will ask the Assembly of First Nations the same thing. Several groups have come before us and have asked for consultation within the meaning of the Supreme Court decisions before Bill C-44 is passed. Perhaps I did not understand very well, I do not know, but I really want to be sure. You say that you would be ready to see the bill passed on the condition that it was amended to contain an interpretive clause, a delay in implementation, etc. We can look at the amendments again, and evaluate whether they should be included in the bill. My question is simple. We are torn at the moment. Should we interrupt our work so that another consultation can take place, or should we pass the bill—or recommend that it be passed—with very specific amendments? That is the issue at the moment. This is why I am asking for your opinion. You understand that it is very important in the context of the debate that will be taking place over the next few hours.

[Yvonne Boyer, Legal Advisor, Native Women's Association of Canada]

Thank you very much for the time considerations.

My name is Yvonne Boyer. I am one of the legal advisers to the Native Women's Association of Canada. My colleague, Mary Eberts, is with me. I will be making the opening statement, and together we can answer questions following my presentation.

President Jacobs and Ellen Gabriel were before you not that long ago and gave you a fairly detailed outline of where the Native Women's Association stands on these issues. Just to recap, I have eight points that I would like to clarify that came out of their presentations. I'll start with those, and then we would like to comment on the position of Indian and Northern Affairs and also the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

First of all, in relation to the repeal of section 67, we want to state that there is full agreement that this is long overdue. But there must be meaningful consultation as a strong first step in an evolving and collaborative process.

Capacity-building and education are necessary, and these are key factors in communities when they're implementing their own mechanisms of protecting human rights. What we're looking at as a timeframe is a minimum of 36 months from the repeal of section 67 to the coming into effect. This is to provide adequate consultation and to put into place capacity-building and education.

There has to be a balance between collective rights and individual human rights, without jeopardizing either set. A core of this issue is to address conflict through various forms of indigenous legal traditions that allow the communities to decide how best to address the conflicts themselves.

An interpretive mechanism is also very important to guide the application of Bill C-44. The process for deciding what would be included in the interpretive provisions would be addressed during the 36-month period before the act came into force.

In relation to INAC's position on some of the key areas, the Native Women's Association disagrees with INAC's stance that there already has been consultation because of various initiatives in the past to repeal section 67 and respectfully disagrees with the statement that there have been significant consultations in the past 30 years.

Further, the position that INAC has taken that there has been no direction from the Supreme Court of Canada regarding a duty to consult before passing legislation is directly contrary to the recent ministerial representative's report on matrimony and real property and the legal opinions she garnered—

Do you want me to slow down? I'm getting excited.

In relation to her ministerial representative's report on the duty to consult, Wendy Grant-John garnered legal opinions on this important issue. In fact, the result of these legal opinions was that she strongly stated that Canada needs to develop a policy on consultation and hasn't done so.

In their presentation, INAC minimized the potential impact on first nations of repeal of section 67, while also admitting they had done no real analysis of that impact.

In sharp contrast with its present position, the government expressed a number of concerns to the La Forest commission. This is recorded by the commission in its year 2000 report, and it's on page 129. These included: that the lifting of section 67 might lead to retaliation against claimants and extra costs to aboriginal governments called to defend their actions; that a period of transition would allow aboriginal governments to review their practices; that new litigation against the department might have an adverse effect on resources available for aboriginal programs; and that aboriginal people, especially women, will need to be educated about asserting their rights. Those statements that were made by INAC are in direct contradiction to their present position.

The Native Women's Association has made a well thought out proposal dealing with all of these issues, including consultation, capacity-building, education, and the bridging of indigenous legal traditions as a foundation and implementation of human rights after the repeal of section 67. To date, the government has not responded to the Native Women's Association's proposal.

NWAC's opinions on submissions made by the Canadian Human Rights Commission are as follows.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has recommended that the minimum of 18 months before the act applies to first nations should be extended to a significantly longer period. NWAC agrees with this position but prefers a minimum of at least 36 months.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission would like to see an interpretive clause, as recommended by the La Forest review in 2000. NWAC agrees that an interpretive clause is necessary.

On June 7, 2007, the Canadian Human Rights Commission suggested wording for this clause. NWAC, however, disagrees with that approach and believes the final wording should be settled during the consultation phase that NWAC has called for.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission points out that to date no new resources have been allocated to support the commission's initiatives to engage with first nations stakeholders or to plan implementation. NWAC considers the need to provide resources for capacity-building and consultation is very urgent and must be attended to promptly.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I would like to convene the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development of Tuesday, June 12, 2007.

Committee members, you have the orders of the day before you. We're continuing our study on Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. We'll have two sets of witnesses today. The first witnesses are from the Native Women's Association of Canada. With us today we have Mary Eberts, legal adviser, and Yvonne Boyer, legal adviser. After, we will be entertaining the Assembly of First Nations, the national chief, Phil Fontaine.

I apologize to the witnesses that we were interrupted by votes. I would ask the committee if they would like to extend the meeting past the one o'clock time set, if we can.

Extension of Sitting Hours

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

Mr. Speaker, I will not play politics. I will quickly ask my question.

I am very surprised to hear the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons talk to me about Bill C-44 when he is not familiar with the file. In fact, he is talking about Bill C-34 instead of Bill C-44. He should come to committee to see the work we are doing.

I have a very specific question. We have an all-party agreement on Bill C-51 on lands in the far north claimed by the Inuit, who have been waiting for 10 years. There is also an agreement on Bill S-6. We have an agreement among all parties, including the government party.

Why not put these two bills to a vote tomorrow? It would be done and resolved. There is no need for a study, especially since everyone agrees on fast-tracking these two bills.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our way of operating is very simple. We are trying to deliver results for Canadians on the things we committed to do in the last election. Unfortunately, some other parties are more interested in political gamesmanship, or advantage, or delay or obstruction.

The hon. member for Yukon referenced Bill C-44, which has an operative clause of nine words. The bill's real effect is to give human rights to our first nations people, human rights they have been denied under the Canadian Human Rights Act. We are ready to proceed with that, we want to proceed with it and we would love to proceed with it. Opposition parties are intent on delaying the bill at committee. They would rather go on a summer vacation than give first nations human rights, and that is a shocking thing to me.

I cannot share the member's sentiment at all. We are determined. We are trying to get things done. We made commitments to Canadians in the last election, and now we are delivering on those commitments. The budget implementation bill is an important part of that.

The overall budget does great things for Canadians. In two budgets, in two years, we are paying down $13 billion and $9 billion on the debt, $22 billion paid down on the debt. That is a real benefit for every Canadian.

Canadians elected us to do these things. They elected us to keep spending under control, to help families make ends meet on the things—

Budget Implementation Act, 2007

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

Mr. Speaker, before question period I talked about the dire need in the country for affordable housing and for a range of housing. I talked about the fact that an organization in Nanaimo said that housing was a part of a stable community. In the south end of my riding in the Cowichan Valley we also know that affordable housing is a crisis.

Homeless shelters have opened up. We have had some tragedies where people were squatting in buildings and the building caught fire. We desperately need affordable housing and not only in Nanaimo—Cowichan or British Columbia.

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives report said:

Increasing income inequality has further aggravated housing affordability issues for many Canadians. The rental market has stagnated in terms of supply, with a net increase of only 2,000 units across all of Canada between 1996 and 2001

The CCPA recommends the development and implementation of a national housing strategy which should be drafted in consultation with first nations and aboriginal groups where appropriate.

The budget does not contain the kinds of long range fundamental solutions to our affordable housing crisis and money that has been earmarked for housing is often flowed through the province with no accountability measures put into that flow through of money.

The budget also does not do enough to address questions of improving infrastructure of Canada and B.C. in particular. The federal and provincial transfers have declined by 37% in the past decade. Not only does the Conservative government have responsibility for this, so does the previous Liberal government.

As a result, Canada's municipal infrastructure debt is estimated at $60 billion and growing by $2 billion each year. An additional $21 billion is needed to improve urban transit. When we talk about infrastructure, that infrastructure includes roads, sewers, water treatment plants and also important heritage items.

In my riding we have a very important heritage item called the Kinsol Trestle, which spans the Koksilah River in the southern Cowichan Valley. It is one of the largest and highest wooden trestle bridges in the world. It was built in 1921, though there was an unfortunate fire and a number of years of neglect of this important artifact. That kind of infrastructure money is part of a trail system and infrastructure money has not been earmarked. We can designate things like the Kinsol Trestle as a heritage site, but there is no money to maintain it.

The budget also does not provide money more broadly on other infrastructure items. I point specifically to the flooding that is going on right now in British Columbia. There is a long term need for dealing with the dike system in British Columbia. That has been neglected year after year. This year flooding is removing people from their homes and cutting communities off. I encourage the government to take a look at that longer term need.

I will talk about forestry for a moment. My riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan has been reliant on the forestry sector for its economy for a number of years, and has been in transition. Over the last several years, between softwood lumber and raw log exports, we continue to see jobs lost in many communities in Nanaimo—Cowichan and Nanaimo—Alberni. I mentioned earlier that 185 jobs were cut last week. We continue to see lack of adequate attention paid to the forestry sector in British Columbia.

When we talk about economic prosperity, we need to ensure that we foster economic prosperity and make the kind of strategic long term investment. I would argue that British Columbia's forestry sector deserves that strategic long term investment.

When we talk about the pine beetle in the House. We have had nothing but hollow promises to deal with the pine beetle epidemic, which is decimating forests in B.C. Although there have been promises, that money still has not flowed. I will to read from an article dated Friday, June 8, entitled “We say when will the feds give a damn about beetle?”. In this article it says, “This is a disaster that directly affects the finances and pocketbooks of individuals every bit as much as other natural disasters like floods and ice storms”.

It goes on to say, “This is the case no matter how we might quibble over the definition. People struggling with the pine beetle devastation aren't asking for a free ride. They would simply like an indication that the federal government gives a damn. They would be grateful to receive even a small percentage of the cost”.

The article talks about the fact that there are $62,000 from the federal government toward the continuation of the Kamloops beetle wood pickup program, and that is it. We know we need to have a long term view of what is happening in British Columbia. Forests are being cut because they need to be, but what is the long term economic survival of the community? What is the transition plan for workers in those communities? We must pay attention to that. Thousands and thousands of hectares have been impacted.

It is clear when we look at housing, the forestry sector, fishing, health care and seniors in British Columbia, many of these issues critical to the health, safety and well-being of our communities, that they have not been a priority in this budget. It is also clear that citizens in British Columbia have not been a priority for the government.

I will turn my attention for a moment to an issue that confronts us on a national scale, which is the aboriginal peoples of our country. As the aboriginal critic, I was particularly interested in what the government saw fit to put in the budget. When it comes to first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples,we see there is very little commitment in the budget.

Close to one million Canadians identify themselves as aboriginal peoples, including over 600,000 first nations, 300,000 Métis and 50,000 Inuit. The aboriginal population is young, incredibly diverse and growing much faster than the rest of Canada, yet the government continues to miss the opportunity to pursue programs that benefit both aboriginal peoples and ordinary Canadians.

A budget is, at its core, a set of numbers that demonstrate a government's priorities. Canadians expected fairness toward first nations, Inuit and Métis people to be a priority, but as this budget clearly shows, it was not.

When adjusted for inflation and population increases, the INAC budget has dropped in real terms by 3.5% since 1999-2000. As a result of the discriminatory 2% cap, core services, which include education, social development, capital facilities and support of self-government for first nations people, have declined by 13% in real terms during the same period.

There are more numbers. Aboriginals make, on average, only 60% of what ordinary Canadians make. They are two to three times more likely to be unemployed. They are three times as likely to live in poverty. Aboriginals are two to three times as likely to suffer chronic health conditions and live in inadequate, crowded housing. This is an embarrassment for Canada. It is time we refocus on the issues that are central to Canada's aboriginal communities, good housing, good jobs and a bright future for their children.

When we talk about this we often forget there is a natural face. In a speech that National Chief Phil Fontaine gave on Tuesday, May 15, he put a face to the conditions in Canada. I will quote from his speech. He said:

We must admit that First Nations People in Canada live in the most disgusting and shameful conditions imaginable in any developed country.

In...Northern Manitoba, Chief Shirley Castel tells us that some two-bedroom homes have as many as 28 people living in them. People are forced to sleep in shifts and many parents often go without sleep to ensure their children are able to learn and play.

The Conservative answer to that is to put $300 million into market housing, but no additional money into on reserve affordable housing and no additional money into off reserve affordable housing. The fact is that $300 million in market housing only addresses one small part of what is needed in first nations, Métis and Inuit communities.

Further in National Chief Fontaine's speech he says:

The UN Human Development Index ranks Canada at about sixth in the world. First Nations on reserves rank somewhere around 63rd, according to Indian and Northern Affairs...

The Department's own officials have warned the federal government that First Nations' socio-economic status will continue to worsen and the gap widen—yet these warnings have not been heeded.

Later in Chief Fontaine's speech, and I noticed that the Ottawa Citizen ran a story on this very sad tragedy that took place in Ottawa, he says:

And so where is the public outcry about the loss of Kelly Morriseau...especially now with the Robert Pickton trial underway in B.C.

It's estimated that more than 500 First Nations women have disappeared or died violently during the past 30 years.

That is a litany of the tragedies facing many first nations communities in our country.

When the Assembly of First Nations put out a report on the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, it gave an overall grade of meeting their recommendations in that report as F. In one section of the report called “First Nations Homes”, and I talked a little about homes, but I will read the statistics. It says:

In addition to a higher rate of overcrowding, First Nations homes are about four times more likely to require major repairs compared to Canadian homes and mold contaminates almost half of First Nations homes.

1 in 3 First Nations people consider their main drinking water unsafe to drink, and 12% of First Nations communities have to boil their drinking water.

Six percent (over 5,000 homes) are without sewage services, and 4% lack either hot water, cold water or flushing toilets

I remind the House that this is in Canada. We would not expect that many citizens in Canada are living in third world conditions. When I talk about the international stage, I want to turn to a report that the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination published in March, pointing out Canada's shameful record in a number of areas in dealing with first nations, Métis and Inuit people.

Under Item 21, it talks about the commitments made in 2005 by the federal, provincial and territorial governments under the Kelowna accord. It goes on to say:

—the Committee remains concerned at the extent of the dramatic inequality in living standards still experienced by Aboriginal peoples. In this regard, the Committee, recognising the importance of the right of indigenous peoples to own, develop, control and use their lands, territories and resources in relation to their enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, regrets that in its report, the State party did not address the question of limitations imposed on the use by Aboriginal people of their land, as previously requested by the Committee. The Committee also notes that the State party has yet to fully implement the 1996 recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.

In the same report we have heard Conservative members talk about the fact that Bill C-44 will address human rights on reserve. What they fail to acknowledge is that Bill C-44 does not allocate any additional resources to the things that might arise in human rights complaints around water, housing, adequate education. There is no remedy and this report cites, in fact, that without those remedies, human rights cannot be addressed on reserve.

We have often heard talk about the 2% cap. Again, I want to turn to the government's document. In a cost drivers report it indicated:

The rationale is that after nine years of a 2 percent cap the time has come to fund First Nations basic services costs so that population and price growth are covered in the new and subsequent years. Over the period of the 2 percent cap departmental per capita constant dollar expenditures for basic services have declined by six percent.

This is the context of the fact that population both on and off reserve continues to grow. Aboriginal population in the country is the fastest growing of any population in the country, and yet we have seen a net decline of 6%. This is the government's document.

I would suggest that when this budget was developed, surely the government would have received advice from its own departments in developing a budget that would adequately address even a minimum standard of care in the country.

Later on in the same cost drivers report, it talks about socio-economic influences. It talks about the fact that:

The real costs associated with First Nation schools implementing programs that assist those students affected by adverse socio-economic conditions, in achieving school success, however that may be defined.

It says that is a problem.

It includes things like remedial programs relating to basic skills, nutrition programs, extracurricular programs associated with sports and recreation, after school programs and so on.

It talks about the fact that when we compare the services of on reserve schools with off reserve schools, there is a funding gap of $64 million in the band school system for the year 2004-05. We know that the gap has continued to grow.

I could continue to talk about the overcrowded housing, the lack of clean drinking water, the lack of mould remediation programs and the lack of education. The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development in the spring completed a report on post-secondary education. The committee called upon the government to recognize the 2% funding cap, to address the serious shortfalls in post-secondary education. There was no new funding.

We know that one of the ways that economic disparity can be addressed in first nations communities, Métis communities and Inuit communities across this country is by making sure that education is accessible.

With our aging population, it is really important that we invest in the skills and labour shortage. Although there was some money in the budget for the skills and labour shortage, I would argue that it was not nearly sufficient to meet this country's needs. If we fail, as this proposed budget does, our economy and society will not only forego this great potential, but also continue to incur large social costs. I have called for more funding for skills and development training, but it has to be a much broader base than what is in the current budget.

Justice Thomas Berger's report on Nunavut's education system pointed out that indigenous language training is vital to developing a skilled workforce. There is no money for indigenous language training in this budget. In fact, the program was gutted by $160 million. Many of the indigenous languages across this country are in serious trouble, so it is important that we continue to support language training because it helps the health and well-being of communities.

Perhaps one of the most important elements of any community is the hope that it has for its children. Yet, this budget robs aboriginal children of this hope.

There is no funding to provide child welfare on reserves to meet provincial standards. It is $109 million short. In fact, there has been a human rights complaint filed because of that funding gap.

We continue to see a 2% gap on programs and services, a 3% gap on health care, and there are countless other ways that this budget nickels and dimes aboriginal people. There is no additional funding for friendship centres. There is not the kind of support for infrastructure that is required for water or housing.

We have seen many broken promises over the years. This budget is just a continuation of the broken promises to first nations, Métis and Inuit people in this country.

Aboriginal Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the aboriginal affairs committee the opposition parties continued to block Bill C-44, further preventing Canada's aboriginal people from enjoying the same human rights protections as the rest of Canadians. Even though they have run out witnesses to hear, they are trying to continue the delay by calling the same witnesses back again.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs please tell the House why after 30 years it is time to take action on delivering human rights to aboriginal Canadians?

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will be continuing with the business of supply.

Tomorrow we hope to conclude third reading of Bill C-52. In answer to the question on priorities, I would point out that Bill C-52, the budget implement bill, is the number one priority of this government. We can talk about other priorities after we see an indication that it will be heading for royal assent. If we do not have it, it will result in the loss of $4.3 billion in 2006-07 year end measures which include: $1.5 billion for the Canada ecotrust for the provinces; $600 million for patient wait times guarantees; $400 million for Canada Health Infoway; $200 million for protection of endangered species; $30 million for the Great Bear rain forest; $600 million for labour market agreements for the provinces; $30 million for the Rick Hansen Foundation; $100 million in aid for Afghanistan; $100 million to Genome Canada; and so on. It is a long list of important priorities financing that will be lost if the bill is not passed by the end of this session in June. That is obviously our number one priority.

Next week will be getting things done for all of us week when we consider a number of bills that are in their final stages of the legislative process.

The following bills will be placed under Government Orders for debate: Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Canada Transportation Act and the Railway Safety Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, which the Senate reported with amendments and which is now back before the House to receive the approval of the members, and Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal procedure, language of the accused, sentencing and other amendments).

We are awaiting the Senate's report with amendments on Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and the Public Service Employment Act.

Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, including amendments in relation to foreign investment entities and non-resident trusts, and to provide for the bijural expression of the provisions of that Act, Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Quarantine Act and Bill C-47, An Act respecting the protection of marks related to the Olympic Games and the Paralympic Games and protection against certain misleading business associations and making a related amendment to the Trade-marks Act, will probably be passed by the House at third reading.

Discussions have taken place with the opposition parties, and there may be consent to fast-track some or all of the following bills: Bill C-59, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (unauthorized recording of a movie), Bill S-6, An Act to amend the First Nations Land Management Act and Bill C-51, An Act to give effect to the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement and to make a consequential amendment to another Act.

There is also a possibility of quick passage of a new bill entitled “An act to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, an act to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society and the Trademarks Act”, which appears on today's notice paper.

There are a number of other bills I am still hoping we could get included in getting things done for all of us week, provided that they get reported back from committee, in particular, Bill C-6 aeronautics; Bill C-27 dangerous offenders; Bill C-32 impaired driving; and Bill C-44, the bill to grant first nations people the human rights that every other Canadian enjoys. First nations people expect the House to get things done for them as well, so I urge the aboriginal affairs committee to stop delaying Bill C-44 and report it back to the House early next week. It is a priority for this government.

[David Langtry]

As you know, we did launch a national aboriginal program, and that was prior to Bill C-44 being introduced. It took a long time to develop because we recognized that we don't have, and have not had, a relationship with many first nations because of the existence of section 67. We have developed an aboriginal outreach program or strategy, which is to enter into that engagement and dialogue, from an educational...to describe the work of the commission, as well as to learn from first nations communities.

When the chief commissioner indicated that we've embarked on that in a modest way, it's only because of not having additional resources. But it is our intention to continue to do that, to develop that, to work in partnership with a number of communities, whether or not Bill C-44 passes or doesn't pass. So we want to engage in that education, and as you know, section 67 is not an absolute bar, and we deal with complaints coming to us from reserves.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I want to thank the witnesses.

I have two brief comments, and I have a question about the Indian Act.

One is that we are actually missing an opportunity. I would argue that we should do the consultation before Bill C-44 is put in place. But we would also be missing an opportunity if we didn't provide the commission with some appropriate resources to undertake education and awareness right now. As we all know, the Canadian Human Rights Act does apply on reserve for non-Indian Act issues. So there would be an opportunity to do some work there.

The other point I want to quickly make is about the remedy. It is outside your mandate, but there has been a lot of concern expressed by the witnesses that if complaints are filed, they do not have the resources to actually address the remedy.

The piece I wanted to deal with was the Indian Act. The reason I wanted to raise it was because it wasn't just witnesses; there were also some experts in the area that raised concerns related to the Indian Act. One was the Bar Association. Their submission, on page 8, which I will not quote, quoted Justice Muldoon of the Federal Court of Canada, who speculated on the fact that the repeal of section 67 could have some substantial impacts on the Indian Act.

The second piece I wanted to bring to your attention was from the Native Women's Association of Canada on access to justice and indigenous legal traditions--it's on page 11 of that brief, in English. They actually quoted from the commission's own report. The commission indicated that they urged the repeal of section 67, but they actually went on to say, “However, the Commission would prefer that the Government take a proactive approach to preventing potential discrimination and not wait for complaints to be filed”, and so on. And it says:

The Commission, therefore, urges the Government, in consultation with First Nations, the Commission and other relevant bodies, to review provisions of the Indian Act and relevant policies and programs to ensure that they do not conflict with the Canadian Human Rights Act and other relevant provisions of domestic and international human rights law.

Although that doesn't talk about necessarily dismantling the Indian Act, it does address the fact that there are some serious problems with the Indian Act. So I think there was enough concern being raised about the potential one-off impacts of the Indian Act.... A number of people have talked about the fact that they feel a much more comprehensive review is needed.

I wonder, in light of this, if you could comment on your comment.

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

We might say that Bill C-44 is very important since it is going to change the life of the First Nations. Can you tell us if they have been consulted by the government since it made the commitment to consult them, on May 31st, 2005, two years ago?

Furthermore, I am quite sure that you were here when the department officials testified before us. You probably heard Mr. Watson's presentation. You have said that after repeal and in the implementation of Bill C-44, an interpretation clause would be necessary. You heard Mr. Watson express a contrary opinion. Do you maintain your position despite Mr. Watson's statement?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

We're happy with five minutes, Mr. Chair. We're anxious that everybody have a chance as well.

I will ask a brief question and hope there's time for Mr. Russell to pick up on it.

Thank you for your presentation. You've addressed a number of important points of clarification, and I certainly appreciate it.

Mr. Pryce, who was here before, indicated that this bill has a broad impact, in spite of the nine words that are constantly referred to, and it is important that we do it well.

As you know, we met yesterday with the Human Rights Commission, and an interpretive principle was proposed to us. I am aware that aboriginal communities have suggested that you include the words in your principle, “indigenous legal traditions and customary law”. For some reason you're choosing not to include that in the interpretive principle.

You referenced in your closing, Ms. Lynch, that you respect the legal traditions, customary laws, and systems of dispute resolution. Why would you not include it, and could you tell us how those apply to those first nations that currently would not fall under Bill C-44--those that are currently exempt from it in your dealings with them?

[Charles Pryce]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, to sound a little indecisive, in the Supreme Court case of Haida, there was definitely a very fact- and site-specific claim to aboriginal rights over title, dealing with a specific first nation, the Haida Nation or the Taku Tlingit First Nation. This current bill, Bill C-44, is a very different animal, if you can put it that way, in what the legislation is intended to do. It has broad impact across every first nation.

You mentioned fact- and site-specific, but that is how the jurisprudence on aboriginal treaty rights has evolved or exists. Different groups have different rights, so as far as how exactly this legislation will impact on particular first nations goes, it will vary. It is a very different animal.

The Supreme Court has not addressed the issue, first, of whether the duty to consult applies to the passage of legislation and, even if it does, whether it's engaged in this particular kind of legislation, which is about amending the Human Rights Act.

There would certainly be some difficulties or challenges if the court wanted to go down the path of finding the duty to consult in the legislative process. You know, there are well-established traditions of parliamentary supremacy, and the courts generally get involved once legislation is passed rather than during the passage of legislation. So it would require some deep analysis or thinking by the Supreme Court if they were to move in the direction of saying, in this particular context, that there is a duty to consult.

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

Thank you.

I want to reiterate that on page 9 of your presentation there seems to be a section missing. When you say that all witnesses testified that they support the principle, many of them said, “but not Bill C-44”. I think that's very critical to the discussion, and also to answer what Mr. Storseth was insinuating, that we're stalling because we don't want to give rights to people who live on reserve and are under the Indian Act. I think that is very misrepresentative.

You're asking people to trust a government that with those nine words says the impact will be minimal and that there will be new resources to deal with these complaints. We've already heard from many chiefs that they don't have enough resources to offer the very benefits that people across the way are saying they're entitled to. Already they don't have enough money to give proper housing. They don't have enough money to give education to all the people who are applying. They don't have money to give proper health care.

These people are supposed to trust a government that says there will be resources to be able to deliver those very services that they will most likely receive complaints about for not receiving, while at the United Nations, Canada is one of the two countries that is not supporting the declaration for the rights of indigenous people. They are supposed to trust a government that on the one hand is fighting to get Bill C-44 through and on the international level is fighting against the declaration for the rights of indigenous people.

These people are supposed to trust a government that is still calling itself “new” after 16 months. They are indicating, “Give us time to learn to run a country. Give us time to learn to work on a new relationship with people.” I feel a government should not have to be legislated to be respectful to people who are going to be impacted by legislation, and they should not have to be legislated to form a good working relationship with people.

I'm really puzzled as to how people should trust the good word of the government without an interpretive clause, without a non-derogation clause, and without legislation stating there will be resources and capacity-building. They're supposed to take the words--as I say, nine words in a bill--and assume that all good trust is going to come after that. It's very hard for me to believe that.

Thank you.

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

One moment, please.

I am a lawyer, you are a lawyer. I have asked you a direct question. I am quite sure that you have read the Corbiere and Haïda decisions of the Supreme Court. So, do you believe that the government has the duty to consult in accordance with the rules of the Supreme Court, well before the implementation of Bill C-44? My question is clear.

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

On behalf of the 600 members, I noted that there does not seem to be any trust between the department and the Assembly of First Nations. I do not know if you have noticed the same thing but this is what I have concluded after having heard all the witnesses.

There is a matter on which I would very much like to hear you and I will put the question to you. All the witnesses from the First Nations, men and women — because some female chiefs have also appeared before us — talked about a lack of consultation. I suppose that there is around this table someone who has read the Corbiere and Haïda decisions of the Supreme Court.

How would you define consultation in the context of Bill C-44? Have there been consultations or not?

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Okay. That's important to know. Thank you.

I'm also struck by your comments--and we've had so many discussions on the impact of the implementation of Bill C-44 and the repeal--that you don't think it's going to be significant. What we are struck by, or what I am struck by, is the lack of any kind of impact analysis. You haven't been able to take some community as a model and try to do some analysis of what the impact would be. We've heard from some delegations that have come before the committee that the impact is going to be far-reaching, that they don't have either the capacity or the resources to deal with it, and that there's no attention to enhancing capacity or resources. So I'd like a little bit more comment from you on the impact, because the views we've heard have been widely divergent.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you very much, and thank you again to all of you for being here today and to those of you who have returned. Your presentation raises more questions, I fear, than it provides answers--at least to me it does.

You note at the end, Mr. Watson, that with the exception of two witnesses, all witnesses have indicated that they support the intent of Bill C-44. You did not note the many, many concerns they had, whether with substance or process, which they expressed. I think their expressions of intent have very significant qualifications with them, and I think that has to be acknowledged.

I don't know where to begin. Let's talk about the interpretive clause to begin with.

What I'm hearing is trust the government, trust the Human Rights Commission. You know the Human Rights Commissioner is coming before us to present an option of an interpretive principle as opposed to an interpretive clause. Can you comment a little further on the whole issue of an interpretive clause? Then I have many other questions.

[Daniel Watson, Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy and Strategic Direction, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

I've timed it, and I think I can keep it to a bit less than 10 minutes.

My colleague, Monsieur Ricard, has been unavoidably detained, but he should be here very shortly.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is a pleasure to be here once again to discuss Bill C-44. Today, I would like to comment on some of the testimony you have heard, and then my colleagues and I would be pleased to answer your questions.

As you are fully aware, Bill C-44 addresses an important principle. Simply put, this Bill will ensure all Canadians share in the right to be free from discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. This Bill responds to repeated calls for repeal of section 67 and would remove a discriminatory provision which was originally intended as a temporary measure.

Let us talk about the difficult matter of balance. Mr. Chairman, your committee will soon have the extremely important work of determining how to deal with clause-by-clause study of Bill C-44, a task that will no doubt be informed by the vast testimony provided.

Witnesses have addressed the wide range of issues and offered many different perspectives. I think it would be fair to say that there are many areas in which testimony provided has not pointed to a clear consensus. On some issues, greater clarity may be useful to assist you in your deliberations.

In particular, we could highlight the discussions on the question of whether or not there is a need for an interpretive or a non-derogation clause. This is clearly a key issue for which there is no simple or consensus-based solution and around which there are many different conceptions.

Some witnesses have called for a non-derogation clause. Others have proposed interpretive clauses. Still others have proposed both or have used the terms interchangeably. Some witnesses have suggested that a provision be included in the Canadian Human Rights Act, while others, most notably the Canadian Human Rights Commission, have proposed that guidelines be developed outside the act, in concert with aboriginal communities.

It is important to distinguish between these two kinds of provisions. A non-derogation clause is a provision that sets out the relationship between a statute and the aboriginal and treaty rights protected by section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The CHRA, like all other statutes, is automatically subject to the operation of section 35.

As the commission indicated in its report on the repeal of section 67, a non-derogation clause in the CHRA referring to section 35 of the Constitution would be redundant. In addition, such a clause may be problematic, as courts may treat the provision as giving additional protection to aboriginal and treaty rights beyond that provided by section 35.

In contrast to a non-derogation clause, an interpretive provision is a substantive clause that directs officials or tribunals to apply or interpret the statute in a particular way. In the context of the CHRA, in complaints against first nations it could be a provision that ensures that discrimination and defences under the CHRA are interpreted in a way that respects the collective and cultural interests of the first nation.

There are differing views about whether such a provision should be inside or outside of the CHRA and whether it should be a statement of principle or a substantive provision, and there have been various formulations proposed with differing effects. We have seen from experience that in an attempt to reach some consensus, interpretive clauses inevitably end up with language that is general and rather vague. The job of determining the precise meaning to be given to an interpretive clause will therefore fall to the tribunal, resulting in litigation to ultimately determine the issue on a case-by-case basis.

In our view, for the reasons l've just set out, including a statutory non-derogation or interpretive clause may result in legal challenges with uncertain or unintended consequences, including a possible weakening of the protection that the repeal of section 67 would bring.

Moreover, we don't believe a non-derogation clause is required. Rather than including a statutory interpretive provision, the commission could work with first nations and other aboriginal communities to develop appropriate guidelines, regulations, or policies to ensure that the CHRA is applied in a manner that is consistent and sensitive to the particular needs of those communities.

The commission's aboriginal employment policy is a key example of how the CHRC has already exercised its authority to address the needs of aboriginal people.

The other topic I would like to comment on today is the preparation for and impact of repeal. Many concerns have been put forth to this committee. It is certainly not the Minister's or the department's objective to further burden the First Nations as a result of repealing section 67.

The application of the Canadian Human Rights Act to federal programs and to First Nations is not entirely new. As Professor Chartrand pointed out in his testimony, the Commission and the courts have interpreted section 67 narrowly. Many activities that take place on reserves or are administered by the Department are already subject to the Act. So, while the repeal of section 67 is extremely important, we should not overstate the potential impacts.

Chief Commissioner Lynch testified that the Commission currently handles over 40 cases per year and Professor Chartrand concluded that the impacts would be “moderate” following repeal. We do not anticipate a huge influx of complaints. But we all knowledge that it is not possible to accurately predict the number of individual human rights complaints that would be directed to band councils, as these would be fact-specific, driven by whether an individual chooses to lodge a complaint if, for example, they feel that they have unjustifiably been denied a job or service.

Safeguards have been provided to give first nations time to adjust and to help them prepare, that is, there will be the six-month delay of the coming into force of the repeal and guidance from the commission.

As you are aware, the commission's funding is being adjusted to support its extended responsibilities following the repeal of section 67. It has established a national aboriginal program and is committed to the introduction of human rights redress mechanisms in a manner consistent with the diverse cultures and modes of decision-making of first nations in Canada.

You may wish to question commission representatives further on this matter during their appearance today and to also discuss with them the work they plan to undertake under their program. I'm certain that their testimony will go a long way towards alleviating some of the fears expressed by first nation groups and individuals that they will be alone in shouldering the impact of repeal.

Bill C-44 also includes a means to address unintended consequences, should they result, by way of clause 2 of the bill. This mandatory review of the effects of the repeal must occur within five years but could occur earlier if the designated parliamentary committee so chooses. The committee could also request a comprehensive response from the government on its findings.

Your committee has heard various views on the length of the transition period. Although six months has been viewed by many as insufficient, I would suggest that it is an adequate amount of time for first nations to begin to prepare for full implementation and for the commission to work with communities. And of course work with the first nations does not end after the transition period. Rather, work will be ongoing as the effect of the repeal becomes more clear and as we gain experience. On this and other issues, Minister Prentice welcomes the recommendations the committee will reach after hearing such a broad scope of witnesses.

In closing, Bill C-44 committee hearings have provided witnesses with an opportunity to express their concerns about the need to ensure Aboriginal rights, traditions and cultures are protected. This testimony has been passionate at times. I would like to acknowledge the concerns raised. I would also note that with the exception of two witnesses, all witnesses have testified that they support the principle of repealing section 67, further demonstrating the overwhelming desire to eliminate this exemption. I would respectfully suggest any considered changes to Bill C-44 need to be assessed against this important principle and the urgency of taking action.

Once again, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, thank you for your invitation to reappear before you today. My colleagues and I are prepared to answer your questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I'll open this Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development of Thursday, June 7, 2007.

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

We have two panels today. The first witnesses are from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. With us today are Daniel Watson, senior assistant deputy minister, policy and strategic direction, and Daniel Ricard, director general, litigation management and resolution branch. From the Department of Justice we have Douglas Kropp, senior counsel, resolution strategy unit; Charles Pryce, senior counsel, aboriginal law and strategic policy; and Martin Reiher, senior counsel, operations and programs section.

Welcome, witnesses.

We will begin with a 10-minute presentation. Mr. Watson, are you going to do it? Then we'll move into our question period.

Thank you.

[Louise Mandell, Mandell Pinder, Barristers and Solicitors]

Thank you very much.

I'd like to begin by thanking the panel for inviting me here, and also by stating what I believe to be obvious: that aboriginal organizations unequivocally support in principle the repeal of section 67.

The topic I'd like to address briefly is the process engaged in Bill C-44, which basically makes a unilateral amendment to the act and then engages consultation later.

I'd like to address you briefly on the legal point—that is, the point as to whether this is contrary to the principles of reconciliation and the honour of the Crown that have been articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada. It will be my submission that the whole process of amendment and then later consultation is contrary to the basic principles that have been articulated since 1977, when Parliament enacted the Canadian Human Rights Act unilaterally and then deferred this discussion to now, this date, as to how to incorporate the problems associated with the Indian Act and how we're to deal with it.

What has happened in the jurisprudence since 1977 and with the entrenchment of section 35 is that there has been a wholly changed legal landscape, and the movement in the jurisprudence is away from governance under the Indian Act and towards the general principle of reconciliation, which the Supreme Court of Canada has said is at the heart of aboriginal-Crown relations.

In terms of reconciliation, what is being reconciled is the pre-existence of aboriginal societies, including their legal systems and their laws, with the assertion of crown sovereignty. There's been a general recognition in the courts at both the lower and the higher levels that the assertion of crown sovereignty didn't extinguish the sovereignty of aboriginal people, so the reconciliation involves both the recognition of the aboriginal rights of governance and subsequently, with the recognition, the reconciliation of them. Corresponding duties have arisen on the Crown; they have been articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada, most notably in the Haida case, in order to achieve reconciliation. The duty of germane interest to your panel is the duty of consultation about accommodation.

I'd like to briefly address some of the major elements of the duty, because it does impact greatly on the issues of consultation engaged in this case.

The leading case is the Haida case, and I want to make it clear that this case didn't arise in the context of amending legislation; it arose in the context of crown conduct, in a situation in which the Crown granted a tree farm licence to a large forestry company up in Haida Gwaii—the Queen Charlotte Islands—to basically engage in a multi-year large-scale logging project on the island, and there had been no consultation with the Haida. The issue was whether, in the absence of proof of title or in the absence of concluding a treaty, the Crown was obligated to consult. In the landmark case in the Supreme Court of Canada, the court held that yes, there was a duty on the Crown. This is the duty that is engaged now; it's a government duty. I'll just go through some of its basic parameters.

The court considered where the duty to consult arises. Well, the duty to consult with aboriginal people, they say, is grounded in the honour of the Crown. It arises from the assertion of crown sovereignty, says the court. It continues into the process of treaty-making in all actions between the Crown and aboriginal people. They say the honour of the Crown is always at stake in its dealings with aboriginal people, but in particular the duty engages—and I'm going to read you what the court said:

But, when precisely does the duty to consult arise? The foundation of the duty in the Crown's honour and the goal of reconciliation suggest that the duty arises when the Crown has knowledge, real or constructive, of the potential existence of the Aboriginal right or title and contemplates conduct that might adversely affect it—

In this case we have an act that is definitely going to affect the governance rights of aboriginal people—not just the band council governance, but also the aboriginal governance rights, which are broader than band council rights. Many band councils, in light of the Indian Act, do exercise both rights that are considered to be more traditional in nature—not arising from delegated authority under the Indian Act—and also rights arising from the delegated authority.

The content of the duty—and it is to this point we say this committee must pay attention--is in proportion to the assessment of the strength of the case and the seriousness of the potentially adverse effect on the right or title claimed.

In all cases, the honour of the Crown requires the Crown to act in good faith to provide meaningful consultation appropriate to the circumstances. So we have in this instance the courts signalling a movement now away from the Indian Act and a movement toward reconciliation being the goal, with the duty to consult being part and parcel of how that reconciliation will occur. The court describes elements of the duty as including an obligation to consult as early as possible in the process of decision-making, providing all relevant information to the aboriginal people, flexibility and willingness to consider alternatives or make changes to its proposed action based on information obtained through consultation, and not promoting but listening with an open mind.

So applied to this legislative amendment you have Parliament being very aware of the potential existence of governance rights and that the constitutional recognition and affirmation of aboriginal rights is meant to reconcile indigenous and Canadian legal systems. Parliament is considering amending legislation in such a way that there is a potential to interfere with these governance rights. Prior to actually passing Bill C-44 and amending the act, the honour of the Crown suggests that Parliament should engage with first nations to determine what the potential effects are and to discuss options for avoiding or mitigating infringements and for reconciliation. Consultation should consider whether the process in the Canadian Human Rights Act is the right one for human rights complaints against a band council or whether a different indigenous institution, perhaps different legislation, might be more appropriate.

Before finishing on this, I'd like to also stress the fact that in 1977 there was a political commitment made by the federal Crown to first nations leaders that there would be consultation that would precede the application of the act, and that commitment directly engages the honour of the Crown.

We turn to the question, then, of who should be consulted. I know there's been some consultation about this, but because first nations across the country are organized according to different levels and types of power and authority, many have their own means of dealing with human rights issues, and all are affected by the operational framework of the Indian Act. So because of the very strong interference and the great impact, which I'm sure this committee has heard about, expressed by aboriginal people across the country as to what could happen and will happen, once human rights complaints are able to be adjudicated in respect of band councils in particular, there will be a great impact on aboriginal communities. So it suggests, because of the test, that merely canvassing the views of aboriginal organizations is not going to meet the test of consultation for all the aboriginal governments and governance issues that will be affected by this bill.

I wanted to briefly touch upon the Corbiere case, which was an analogous kind of situation in the sense that subsection 77(1) of the Indian Act, which excluded off-reserve members of Indian bands from the right to vote in band decisions, was held by the court to be inconsistent with subsection 15(1) of the charter. So it raised the question of how we are going to amend subsection 77(1), which was unconstitutional, in light of the fact that band members who lived off-reserve would be affected, or could be affected, by the regulations that needed to now get brought into being in order to repair the constitutional problem caused by the Corbiere case.

What happened in that case was that having concluded that there was a violation of the Constitution, the court suspended the implementation of the decision for 18 months in order to allow consultation with on-reserve and off-reserve band members before amending the legislation. Canada then engaged in a two-stage consultation process, first with aboriginal organizations, and during that time Canada funded the four national aboriginal groups to consult with their membership. So there was a mandate given by the membership to the organizations to represent their views, and INAC regional offices were funded as well, so there could be meetings and workshops.

Then there were reports. After about nine months of consultation in the first stage, draft amendments to the regulations were released. These were the subject of consultation. Then there was further communication with the chiefs and councils who were invited to comment on the draft regulations. And after input was received, the regulations were revised. Then after the regulations came into force, a second stage of consultation took place. It involved broader discussions on the Indian Act, governance, and accountability.

We think the issues involved in repealing or amending section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act are similar to those in Corbiere. In Corbiere, there were important difficulties and costs associated with trying to set up a system that balanced on- and off-reserve membership. Similarly, the cost of setting up systems and changing current systems to bring them into compliance with the Canadian Human Rights Act could be large, and defending challenges would be expensive.

I'd like to spend the last few minutes of my discussion to suggest that the real initiative, right now, in light of the jurisprudence, needs to include, in our view, not just a discussion focusing on the narrow issue of whether and how the Canadian Human Rights Act should apply to band councils making decisions under the Indian Act. To keep current with the jurisprudence and also current with the issues that are actually fully engaged by the negotiation of land claims agreements, self-government agreements, and the evolving jurisprudence that is forcing the recognition of pre-existing legal systems by the legal system of the Crown, what is required is a broader discussion on how to move away from the Indian Act towards aboriginal governance within the Canadian federation based on the recognition of the inherent right of aboriginal people to govern themselves.

If we simply focus on the Indian Act and on making the changes that are engaged there, there are innumerable problems with the Indian Act and innumerable problems in trying to sort out the problems of the Indian Act. But more importantly, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, and others that have been looking at the law and looking at the evolution of how to create reconciliation, have strongly recommended that the impetus for any move to self-government must include a movement away from the Indian Act towards the full potential and realization of aboriginal laws and legal systems and aboriginal institutions that co-exist with those of the Crown in a federation. It would be based on a reconciliation. It would not be based on the unilateral imposition of legislation, especially legislation, as the Indian Act is, that is almost 100 years old and that carries the colonial baggage of requiring, in the legislation, a particular kind of government, and in addition, a particular kind of federal imposition as to how that government, over time, is to become civilized. These are problems that we now know to be problems created by the past but that we are really trying to move away from at this point.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I open the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development of Tuesday, June 5, 2007.

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

As witnesses today, we have Jerome Slavik, a lawyer from Ackroyd, Piasta, Roth & Day; Louise Mandell from Mandell Pinder, barristers and solicitors; and Professor William Black from the University of British Columbia's law faculty.

Welcome to our witnesses.

We'll hopefully proceed with a 10-minute presentation from the witnesses, and then we'll move into a question period from the members of the committee.

I'd like to begin with Mr. William Black, please.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely sure what the hon. member is speaking to but perhaps he could direct some of the same vigour, enthusiasm and zeal toward Bill C-44, which is currently before the aboriginal affairs committee of the House.

The operative clause of the bill is nine words long. The bill has been at the committee for 20 weeks which has allowed the committee, on average, 10 days to study each word, including complicated words such as “is” and “the”.

The member and others have had 20 weeks to study the bill. Perhaps he should get on with protecting human rights.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the Liberals will not support Bill C-44. Why do they not want aboriginal Canadians to have the same human rights that other Canadians enjoy? Shame on them. Get on the program and support the government's initiative to bring human rights to first nation Canadians.

[Brian Jean, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the minister has contacted Chief Phillip. We remain committed to building positive working relationships with first nations, Métis and Inuit groups, but nobody is fooled by the Red Green comedy hour across the way.

The Liberals are trying to change the channel because they say they support our troops, they say they support tough on crime legislation, and they say they support aboriginals, but they keep voting against it. Support Bill C-44 and bring human rights to aboriginals.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to the last point, we have already addressed that.

However, with regard to the balance of Thursday's statement, I am pleased to respond that today and tomorrow we will continue with Bill C-55, the expanded voting opportunities bill; Bill C-14, the adoption bill; Bill C-57, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act; and Bill C-45, the fisheries act.

In the last Thursday statement, we indicated that we were hoping to have this week as “enhancing the quality of the life of first nations people week” but this was cancelled by the opposition parties when they did not release Bill C-44 from committee, the bill that would give the first nations protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Not only is it being held up now but, as early as this morning in this House, the opposition obstructed our efforts to get the bill dealt with forthwith so that first nations people could have the human rights that every other Canadian enjoys. We know that if all parties would agree to proceed with that, as we saw when we sought unanimous consent, it could proceed, but some would prefer to obstruct it.

Next week will be welcome back from committee week, when we welcome business that has been at committee, including some that has been stalled there for some time. We will deal with Bill C-52, the budget implementation bill, which will begin report stage on Monday and, hopefully, we can get third reading wrapped up by Tuesday.

Following the budget bill, we will call for report stage and third reading of Bill C-35, bail reform. After that, we will call Bill C-23, the Criminal Code amendments. I hardly remember when Bill C-23 was sent to the committee by this House. That took place long before I was even House leader 228 days ago.

Thursday, June 7, shall be the last allotted day. There are a number of other bills that we would like to include in our welcome back from committee week. I still hope we can see Bill C-44, the amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act, to which I just referred; Bill C-6, the amendments to the Aeronautics Act; Bill C-27 dealing with dangerous offenders; Bill C-32 dealing with impaired driving; and Bill C-33 dealing with foreign investment, if the opposition parties will release those from committee.

[Chief Marie-Anne Day Walker-Pelletier]

I cannot comment on what the impacts would be. Right now, our communities need to understand what's going to happen with this legislative process. In my community, nobody knows what Bill C-44 is.

What they want to know is, are they going to get proper housing tomorrow? Are we going to have clean water? Are we going to have good sanitation? That's what they want to know. But to connect that to human rights, in our traditional ways of thinking, we've always been keepers of our human rights as first nations people, as community people in our communities. We've always done that through our oral history.

We need to ensure that what's coming from here needs to get to the community, needs to be understood, and needs to be communicated properly. We need to ensure that the understanding from our perspective is also included in how you understand us.

Thank you.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Welcome, Chiefs.

I read Bill C-44 at second reading. I had spoken against the way it was presented. I looked at other agreements signed by the government and I disagreed with the fact that you had not been consulted.

If I remember correctly, there was a political agreement on May 31, 2005. In 1977, section 67 had been promulgated to protect the Indian Act. In 2005, after various disagreements and a lack of negotiations with First Nations, there was a political agreement aimed at improving the collaboration between First Nations and the Canadian government. There was also a statement indicating that First Nations would be consulted on any piece of legislation applying to them or that could have important consequences for them.

The parliamentary secretary said something very important a few minutes ago. He said that 18 communities had negotiated government rights. They had negotiated. Did the government sit down with you, if only for a day, to negotiate anything relating to repealing section 67?

According to the Canadian Human Rights Act, you have to provide drinking water, water systems, as well as minimum levels of adequate housing, education and healthcare. Would you be able in six months to provide all those services as you would be required to under the Bill? What would be the financial consequences for your communities if some of their members were to sue you because you did not provide such services?

Chief Day Walker-Pelletier, let us take the example of the First Nations University of Canada in Saskatchewan. Could you have received the type of education that you hoped for since it has been established and been operational? I will let you answer.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to each of the witnesses for being here.

I want to underline the fact that all of us around this table are here because we do want to see improvements made in how we deal with aboriginal people's concerns. I personally requested to serve on this committee. And I don't question the motivation of my colleagues across the table to try to work at workable solutions, but we will disagree on process. I hope that regardless of where we come out of this meeting, we will not cast innuendo on each other, implying that we don't care, because that simply wouldn't be factual.

The questions that Mr. Merasty asked were rather easy to say no or yes to, depending on the question. I think the harder question, and I don't think we'll be able to answer it, is who then is responsible. If it isn't your fault, whose fault is it? There's enough blame to go around for many centuries.

Ms. Day Walker, you mentioned that you support Bill C-44 in principle. You said that it would decrease the gap between the first nations people and the rest of Canadians. I think, if I'm correct, you said that you would be, as first nations people, in a better position to lobby government because they will have to follow their own laws. So there are a lot of ramifications to any changes to this bill.

I think another statement that one of you made, and I'm not clear on which one, was that no one in your community knew what Bill C-44 was. I can accept that. Is it not true, though, that there have been a number of attempts over the last 30 years to deal with section 67, which isn't Bill C-44, but it was dealing with the heart of this matter of having first nations people excluded from the ability to file human rights challenges? So can you say that no first nations communities were aware that in the last 30 years there have been attempts to deal with section 67? I think that's the real heart of what we're after here today.

Can you address that, one of you?

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Do you feel that fair and reasonable consultation has occurred in unrolling Bill C-44 forward?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Just as some further background, and this doesn't necessarily apply to the future, the amount of human rights cases that might come after Bill C-44 is put in place is somewhat unpredictable.

There are about 18 first nations communities that have negotiated self-government agreements, where their communities live under the Canadian Human Rights Act. According to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, they have not seen a disproportionate amount of violations coming forward.

Over time, as the opportunity becomes known to first nations people, they will know that there is this vehicle for them to consider.

As background, this is the evidence that was brought forward in this committee.

[Erica Beaudin, Executive Director, Saskatchewan First Nations Women's Commission Secretariat, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations]

Thank you very much.

The consultation process that has been discussed in Saskatchewan is that before Bill C-44 goes any further in the legislative process, a fair and considerate consultation process that builds on a respectful nationhood must occur.

We believe the topics that follow must be thoroughly considered when analyzing implementation.

First of all, there is the role of culture, language, and traditions. When undertaking a comprehensive consultation with first nations, the government must understand that our cultures, spoken languages, and traditions, including our oral history, must be an essential component.

What is an understanding on a topic in one language is very much different in another. Also, our oral history may have an ability to approach the subject and define human rights in a way that may not be considered in foreign world views and languages, such as our two languages of French and English.

In terms of an operational analysis, in order for first nations to meet, at the very least, the minimum standards that will be required in first nations communities once the CHRA applies, what we're looking at is an operational analysis that considers that financial, capacity-building, and human resources are needed. In this process it's important that first nations and the federal government work together to provide a joint analysis that is agreed upon and that both are committed to fulfilling.

In order to look at the financial resources and capacity-building, the operational analysis needs to provide a foundation for further financial resources to build capacity in first nations. If first nations and the federal government work together, they'll have a greater chance of meeting the requirements of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

In terms of the first nations institutions, historically we as first nations have had mechanisms in place to adjudicate when a person or party has felt aggrieved. The application of the CHRA on first nations is an opportunity to strengthen and support our justice institutions and the processes and decisions they make that are relevant and meaningful to their community members.

In terms of document language and definitions, currently Bill C-44 narrowly defines aboriginal authority. It would be wise to have the language and the definitions in Bill C-44 discussed at length at the community level to ensure relevancy, understanding, and clarity. It's common sense that if people understand the language and the meaning of the language, they will understand and support its importance.

[Chief Marie-Anne Day Walker-Pelletier, Okanese First Nation, Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations]

Good morning, and thanks for the opportunity to be here today. I have Erica with me, who will discuss the consultation process, but I'll deal with the other issues.

I'm Chief Day Walker-Pelletier from the Okanese First Nation in Saskatchewan Treaty Four area. I have been chief of my first nation for 26 consecutive years. During my tenure I have witnessed many changes and many challenges within our first nations community—within my own community and within other communities that I'm from and that I represent.

I'm here to discuss my perspective on Bill C-44 and the repeal of section 67. I also bring common themes from my colleague Chief Sarah Gopher from Saulteaux First Nation, who was unable to be with us here today because of pressing commitments in her community.

I first want to state that I support the ideology of the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act on first nations land. I believe and, further, act every day to support our first nations processes that carry out just decisions for everyone.

In fact, there is potential for me as a leader to have greater access to funding from the federal government. This act may enable me to provide opportunity for my members in a way that I cannot do right now with the resources that are available. In the event that the Canadian Human Rights Act becomes applicable, additional resources for drinkable water, more housing, sustainable schools, and health centres now seem a possibility.

Further, as a leader I'll be in a better position to lobby the government to fulfill their obligation to us as first nations, because they will have to follow their own laws.

I have several concerns about Bill C-44 as it is presented and communicated.

First, I feel that the government is using a negative perception of first nation women living on reserve. I hear their lives have few rights and, further, little opportunity. As a woman who has grown up and lived on reserve all my life, other than leaving for schooling, I know this is not the case. We have issues that do affect women differently; however, these are part of the greater social considerations on the reserve. As a woman chief, I am more concerned about the vulnerability of all my members and believe that every situation is unique and must be considered differently.

Further, I feel that Bill C-44 is a premature bill to go before the House for further approval. If the intent is to bring federally legislated fairness and equality to our first nations and our members, then the government must ensure proper diligence be given to a first nation process for community input and guidance, and additionally, that once first nations have spoken, the government will respect that voice and enact their own recommendations, protecting our inherent and treaty rights.

In Saskatchewan, apart from our inherent rights as first nations people, we also have six other treaty areas and the rights that were negotiated with them. In fact, it is our belief that our inherent rights and the rights of the land treaties and the promises the Crown made to our ancestors must be paramount. We as chiefs hold the responsibility of keeping these promises alive in our present-day lives.

We believe that any legislation that will impact our collective inherent and treaty rights must go through a thorough review and recommendation process with our elders. This must happen before we as leadership even entertain endorsement or rejection. It is with their teachings and memory and guidance that they will provide an understanding and world view that must be considered.

Further, we believe that the government must give serious consideration to and take action to support our governance processes in trying to accommodate new mainstream legislation, especially if it is not first nation contrived. This is one of our inherent rights.

Finally, any legislation that is meant to protect individual rights of first nations must include language that will protect our collective rights. This is our unique status that we, as first nations, hold in this country. This language right must include provisions to guide and support the adjudicators who are entrusted with the interpretation of the Canadian Human Rights Act for first nations and their communities.

As for consultation with first nations, we have several issues to reference that demonstrate the negative impacts on first nation people when legislation is passed that does not have first nation approval for process, analysis, and implementation. We only have to mention Bill C-31 to see the lasting impacts on communities and how communities are still torn apart by that legislation.

As the chief of my individual community, which is part of the File Hills Qu'Appelle Tribal Council and the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, I know that the consultation process from the community level to the provincial level has been next to nil. In fact, when I mentioned to my community members that I was going to Ottawa to sit before this committee, not one of my members had even heard about Bill C-44. However, 20 years later, if you ask my members about Bill C-31, they still have much to say about its many effects—mostly negative—on our community. It is the general consensus that Bill C-31 created more inequalities than any measure of equality for our first nations women and children, despite it being purported to eradicate these inequalities.

Apart from the promise of the government in 1997 to exempt the Canadian Human Rights Act from being applicable to the Indian Act, without full consultation with first nations, my fear as a chief is that if a proper public education and communication process is not done, the impact will create a misinformed membership that will be further confused about their rights as well as their responsibilities.

Currently, the transition period that is referenced in Bill C-44 is six months. If a conscious, cautious, and respectful process is to be carried out, including elders, women, and the disabled in the community, then the six-month process is not realistic. I would suggest that the transition period be extended by at least 30 months. It would also be prudent to say that the consultation process should be adequately funded to ensure a comprehensive community voice.

On the process of consultation, I will turn it over to Erica to describe the process to you.

[Chief Rose Laboucan, Driftpile First Nation]

Good morning to everyone. I thank you for the opportunity I almost didn't have, but in saying that, I don't feel I should have any more drama than my plane ride and the responsibility and accountability to be here to speak on behalf of first nation women and children in my community, and that's the reason why I'm here.

I want to say that when I initially took this opportunity to speak, I didn't want anything in writing, because I think from my oral history I'm able to voice my concerns without having to write them down. So I didn't pass out any documentation.

The one thing that I saw in this process, the first flaw I saw, was that no genuine consultation occurred. In 1977 there was a promise broken, because the federal government said they would engage prior to the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act regarding any changes that were to be made. That was not my promise; it was the promise that was made.

So even from that point of view, I don't know how I'm going to be able to say that my human rights and my benefit are being reassured by the changes that are going to occur on section 67.

As the leader of a small community in northern Alberta where the collective rights when it comes to the land base supersede the human rights, I have no other option but to protect that small piece of land that has been designated to me as a reservation. And knowing that and knowing that the collective and individual rights issue is going to be an even bigger burden to us than you will ever know, I can't begin to say how the matrimonial real property rights issues and the other issues stemming from the land management act.... All of these are connected to the repeal of this bill, and I want to be consulted. I want to know what the future outcomes are going to be in this process. I want to know how to address those prior to that.

When Bill C-31 was imposed, no one looked at the future and the impact of that bill. In this case, I definitely want to be reassured that any financial burdens are not on me, because when you look at individual human rights and issues that will come forth, you can see there will be a financial burden to that. There's no way anywhere in my budget that I can accommodate that.

Do not get me wrong. I am for the women. I am for the children and the protection of the children. I'm a mother, I'm a grandmother, so no one can deny me that opportunity and say that this is not about those rights. It definitely is.

As for the principle of Bill C-44, the repeal of section 67 I don't have a problem with, but let's talk about the process and what has to occur prior to that, instead of ramming something down my throat again. I say that as a first nations person who has had to live under the Indian Act all my life.

I just want to say that there are other things I would like--definitely the transition period. There are other accommodations that could be made to this bill before it's passed in the House, but number one and foremost, without consulting me you have already violated my human rights as an individual. You can't have both, You can't have your cake and eat it too, and say collective rights are only this part of me, and individual rights are only this part of me. No. It's either that they encompass me as a whole individual or not. And don't strategize so that I'm isolated on one part of my human rights and not the other.

I know it's a really big issue, so when we look at it and we look at the land base and we look at the collectivity of our way of life, I need more time. I need to talk about this more openly and discuss all the alternatives and strategies that I could bring forth in this process.

It is from that perspective that I chose to come to speak to you today. Hopefully when there's a question and answer period, we'll get into more detail about it.

That's where I'm coming from. I just want the opportunity to have these discussions and move forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for Thursday, May 31, 2007.

Committee members, we are continuing with our study of Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Today as witnesses we have Chief Rose Laboucan from the Driftpile First Nation; Chief Marie-Anne Day Walker-Pelletier from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations; and Erica Beaudin, the executive director of the Saskatchewan First Nations Women's Commission Secretariat.

Welcome to our witnesses.

We're going to provide time for our witnesses to make presentations, and then we will move into questions. I'd like to start with Chief Rose Laboucan.

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, a similar motion was moved and adopted on October 3, 2006, concerning Bill C-24, the softwood lumber bill. That motion was challenged and the Speaker ruled the motion in order. The Speaker said at that time:

In fact, the effect of the motion is not unlike the effect of adopting a motion under Standing Order 26, which provides for the continuation of debate on a matter before the House, which is to say that it provides for an open-ended extension of the sitting for purposes of continuing debate on a particular matter. This, it can be argued, can be seen as the House managing its business and arranging its proceedings.

As I read the motion moved by the hon. the government House leader and adopted by the House, every member wishing to speak to the amendment and the main motion, who has not already done so, will be able to participate. The motion does not set a deadline for completion of the proceedings, as would be the case under time allocation or closure. Instead it simply extends the sitting of the motion then before the House. That is a significant difference. The precedents available to me, including my own previous rulings, are therefore insufficient in my view for me to rule the motion out of order on this occasion.

The motion the government House leader has moved is not unlike the motion moved on October 3rd. The only difference is that it concerns a bill that is before a committee. There is no deadline dictated to the committee as a time allocation motion would propose. Members are free to sit as long as they wish to consider Bill C-44. There is no deadline for reporting the bill back, except to direct the committee to report the bill back when it finishes its consideration of Bill C-44. The motion does not presuppose that the committee is going to adopt the bill. It simply says that if the committee adopts the bill, that it ought to report it back. That is what would normally happen.

With respect to committees being masters of their own destiny, that principle does not preclude the House from giving committees some direction. Committees are subordinate to the House. In fact, the House is the sole source of direction for committees through the Standing Orders and other motions. This is covered on pages 805 to 809 of Marleau and Montpetit. In part it says:

Standing committees are permanent committees established by Standing Order. They are mandated by the House to oversee a government department or departments, to review particular areas of federal policy or to exercise procedural and administrative responsibilities related to Parliament...other matters are routinely referred to them by the House for examination: bills, Estimates, Order-in-Council appointments--

It also says that the House can give an order of reference including “--conditions that the committee must comply with in carrying out the study--”.

I submit that Standing Order 56.1 is the proper means to achieve the objectives outlined in the motion. I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to section (b) of the Standing Order which says that Standing Order 56.1 is to be used:

--for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishing of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of its meeting or adjournment

As with the motion that dealt with the second reading stage of Bill C-24, the motion dealing with the committee stage of Bill C-44 can be seen as the House managing its business and arranging its proceedings.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting the parliamentary secretary. I do not mean to interrupt his speech. He will have an opportunity in just a moment to continue, but this has to do with another matter that occurred in the House earlier today at the beginning of the session.

I rise on a point of order concerning the government's use of Standing Order 56.1 to dispose of the committee stage of Bill C-44. This occurred earlier today.

I would like to refer specifically to a ruling by the Speaker on September 18, 2001, in which the Speaker said the following:

The expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 since 1997 causes the Chair serious concern. The government is provided with a range of options under Standing Orders 57 and 78 for the purpose of limiting debate. Standing Order 56.1 should be used for motions of a routine nature, such as arranging the business of the House. It was not intended to be used for the disposition of a bill at various stages, certainly not for bills that fall outside the range of those already contemplated in the standing order when “urgent or extraordinary occasions” arise. Standing Order 71 provides in such cases that a bill may be dealt with at more than one stage in a single day.

Mr. Speaker, that appeared in Hansard on September 18, 2001.

Therefore, in light of this ruling that is already provided, and referenced, I might say, in Marleau and Montpetit, acknowledging that the committee stage of a bill is a stage of consideration, the government can use Standing Order 78 to limit debate at this stage or at any other stage.

As indicated by the Speaker in the quotation that I referred to, Standing Order 56.1 “was not intended to be used for the disposition of a bill at various stages”.

I would therefore, Mr. Speaker, respectfully request that you look at the motion adopted by the use of Standing Order 56.1 this morning and rule explicitly that the motion is out of order in relation to Standing Order 56.1.

I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the aboriginal affairs committee is meeting very shortly and that is why I have raised the matter at this time. Your ruling in a timely manner would be most welcome on this issue so that the standing committee can know where it stands.

Canada-Portugal Day Act

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I hope you would find unanimous consent for the following motion: That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, when the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development convenes a meeting, it shall not be adjourned or suspended until it completes the committee stage of Bill C-44, except pursuant to a motion by a parliamentary secretary and, provided the bill is adopted by the committee, agrees to report the bill to the House within two sitting days following the completion of the committee stage.

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

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for coming forward to discuss the main estimates with this committee today. I have to admit I think the committee is a little disappointed. When we first arranged to have you here for two hours, I believe all members were hoping to have Bill C-44 passed. Hopefully your presence will inspire some renewed invigoration of this file.

Minister, I want to say that in my constituency people are very impressed with the leadership you have shown on this file; leadership in going to places like Pikanjikum and seeing these issues first-hand and being willing to tackle these things first-hand when other members of Parliament, quite frankly, aren't willing to go there to do some of this dirty work.

Minister, water safety is an issue that is all too often taken for granted by average Canadians. In my area, however, having access to safe drinking water is unfortunately something that many of our first nations people on reserve have long been denied. The department's main estimates include a sizeable increase in funding for water safety initiatives.

Could you please outline for our committee, Minister, the direction you are taking to ensure safe water for first nations people living on reserve?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my colleague for his question. With your indulgence, I shall answer in English.

The Inuit-Makivik legislation, Bill C-51, is at the House. The issue is whether there's going to be a clause-by-clause review by this committee, and if so, when it is going to happen—or whether it is, frankly, necessary.

There is a second bill, which relates to the province of Quebec, that has been working its way through the Senate: Bill S-6, which relates to the bijuralization, if you will. It's an extremely important bill. It's inexplicable why it has not happened to this point, but all of the modern self-government legislation that has been put in place over the last number of years was not put in place for Quebec first nations at the same time. We wish to rectify that.

I anticipate that both of those bills will be before the House in the way that you anticipate, hopefully very quickly, so that we can deal with them and move forward. That's something that you and I and Monsieur Lemay and others will continue to work together on. I wish to see those two bills enacted as law as quickly as possible. I think we can achieve that.

With respect to Bill C-44, I must say this is a piece of legislation that gives to first nations citizens the protection of Canada's Human Rights Act. I don't think the parliamentary committee should study it endlessly. The operative clause of the bill is only nine words long. It says: “Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is repealed.”That would lift a barrier that prevents a first nation woman, for example, who's not satisfied with the quality of education her child is receiving from filing a complaint, a grievance, either against the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, whoever it happens to be, or against her own council, if she feels that's where the issue isn't being dealt with.

This is one of the elements of modern governance that clearly has to be available to first nations citizens as we move forward to self-government. I think it's wrong that first nations citizens in Canada do not have the right to file human rights grievances the way other Canadians do. I think it will advantage women and children significantly, and I ask for the committee's cooperation.

The committee has been studying this subject now for 16 weeks, and I think it's time the committee moved this bill back to the House of Commons. If at that time the opposition parties do not support the concept of Canada's first nation citizens having human rights protection, you'll be afforded an opportunity to stand up and cast a vote. But let's get this issue back to the House of Commons and move forward. This committee has much other important work to do.

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

Minister, I would like to begin by acknowledging your support with regard to the Quebec Pavillon des Premières Nations. Unfortunately, you have not been quite as impressive in other areas. I do not know whether you recall the commitment made in 1977 by the department and the then prime minister to consult first nations before introducing any changes. On page 1 of your report, you refer to Bill C-44 and, on page 7, you mention the repeal of section 67.

This is what I want to discuss first. Everybody agrees that first nations ought to be subject to the same laws that govern other Canadians. However, when we impose obligations upon first nations, we must also give them the means to meet these obligations. For some time now, people have been voicing their concerns about primary education. The study on post-secondary education revealed a problem: young people are not finishing primary school because the primary school system is inadequate. There is not enough money to build schools and there is a shortage of teachers.

Even today, first nations people have to fight for schools and struggle to find qualified teachers. How can we possibly ask first nations leaders to take on the same responsibilities as their non-first nations counterparts?

Let us now turn our attention to Bill C-51, which deals with the Nunavik land claims. You tabled this bill in the House quite some time ago. The committee unanimously supported fast-tracking the bill, we were in favour of fast-tracking the bill because it represented a commitment by your government to the Inuit. It was a laudable commitment. Everybody supported it.

Given that this bill falls under the purview of your department, could you please explain why it has not even got to second reading in the House?

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

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Minister, for being here, and also to everyone who's here to listen today.

I have a lot to cover in our second round with only five minutes. I'm just going to take your comment about the residential schools having gone so well as actually a compliment to the previous government, which I think pretty well settled it, and all you need to do is carry it through.

Because everyone else has asked questions on other areas, I'm going to focus more on economic development. As I look through some of the planned spending, I see a lot of decreases in the areas that have something to do with economic development: the clarity of title to lands and resources, economic development for aboriginal people, and economic development, northern land and resources, even community infrastructure. Those I see as all key parts of fostering good economic development in our communities, and I see a very big drop. I know you've transferred Aboriginal Business Canada from Industry Canada, which I don't necessarily agree with either, because the expertise was in Industry Canada, and I thought we were moving to a phase where economic development was economic development, not that just because it's aboriginal people it has to be under Indian Affairs.

So could you explain why there is such a drop in that? Aboriginal Business Canada is only $49.1 million on the next page; it doesn't account for all the different reductions in that.

Could you also talk little bit about your relationship with organizations that represent aboriginal people in Canada? We're hearing a lot through our Bill C-44 witnesses that they're not getting an opportunity to really work with you on priority issues. I see a drop in cooperative relationships too, that the funding has gone down in that, so I don't know if that explains part of it. I have a group called the Land Claim Agreement Coalition who have come together--all the different land claims organizations have come together, and it's a rare thing for them to be able to come together and work together--and they haven't been able to get cooperation on the government side to really implement land claims organizations.

I know I don't have that much time. I'll leave the rest with you.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to do so.

I'd like to say good morning to you and to the members of the committee. Thank you very much. I look forward to our dialogue here today.

I thank you for the opportunity to discuss the main estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with you and your colleagues this morning. I'm grateful for the attention this committee has given to my department's agenda over the past year—I guess to our collective agenda. I appreciate your consideration of these important issues, including post-secondary education and housing, as well as legislative initiatives such as Bill C-34 and Bill C-44, which are now before the committee.

I know we all share the same objective, which is to say improving the quality of life for aboriginal people and northerners.

You heard from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada's accounting officer, Deputy Minister Michael Wernick, a short time ago regarding the department's supplementary estimates. I would like to speak today in the context of this year's main estimates, the next step in the financial planning cycle, and we are determined to move forward to make a real and positive difference in the lives of aboriginal people and northerners.

The current 2007-08 main estimates include $6.3 billion for our department. This represents a net increase of $36 million from 2006-07.

One point I would like to emphasize, particularly for Monsieur Lemay, is that the main estimates are of course simply the first step in the fiscal cycle, the starting point. They do not include resources that will be allocated through supplementary estimates.

Mr. Chairman, funded by the main and supplementary estimates, we are determined to move forward in clearly defined ways through approaches and initiatives that will effect real change in aboriginal communities and furthermore will give aboriginal people the tools and organizational structures they need to take charge of their own future.

I have felt, from the time I became the minister, that we need to effect structural reforms, in particular to protect women and children and to ensure that women are in a position to move forward and advocate on behalf of their children.

First, we need to effect structural reform to protect women, children and families. Whether the reform is legislative, as is the case with the repealed section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, or a change in policies and programs, we must ensure that aboriginal women, children and families have the same rights and have access to the same quality of services as all other Canadians.

Our continued work to address the issue of matrimonial real property and our recent partnership with the Province of Alberta and Alberta first nations to implement a new approach to child and family services are recent examples of new and innovative thinking, new approaches to the existing challenges in first nation communities. I'm confident that, working in partnership with the provinces, territories, and aboriginal groups, we can build on successes such as these.

Second, we have to consolidate economic development tools to obtain the maximum efficiency from our programs and services, and so that we can enable first nations to take charge of their own economic development. That is why the Aboriginal Business Canada program and the National Aboriginal Economic Development Board were unified under my department in December 2006. This is an important initiative, and there will be more said about it in the future. It is one of the important structural changes that needed to be made to ensure that the department has the tools to deal with economic development, which I think we all would agree is a significant part of the way forward.

Furthermore, under the aboriginal workplace partnership initiatives, we have formalized partnerships with local governments, influential businesses, and trade unions to promote the employment of an aboriginal labour force. I'm especially proud of the agreements that have been signed in the past several months, agreements such as those with Siemens Canada Limited in Saskatoon, the City of Edmonton, the Calgary Health Region, the Nova Scotia Nurses' Union, and the Nova Scotia Trucking Human Resource Sector Council. All of these agreements will bolster the number of employment opportunities available to aboriginal people.

To give you another example, this government allocated $300 million in budget 2007 for the establishment of the first nations market housing fund. This fund will enable first nation families and individuals to purchase, build, and renovate on-reserve housing that meets their specific needs and tastes. I think everyone in the room is familiar with the fact that a key aspect of this is the leverage that is available from the $300 million, leverage that would be in the nature of four or five to one. So it's not simply $300 million; it accesses private mortgage capital in excess of $1.5 billion, which will be available over time for first nations housing.

The program is expected to help finance the development of approximately 25,000 new housing units over the next 10 years, but the First Nations Housing Market Fund will not only encourage housing development, it will also help first nations people living on reserve to obtain bank loans, build equity and generate wealth through home ownership.

Third, there is a desperate need to address the existing approach to the resolution of aboriginal land claims. I'm happy to point out that there have been some marked recent successes. The Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement, for instance, was signed in December of last year, resolving this country's last major Inuit land claim, Bill C-51.

Bill C-51, which ratifies this agreement, has recently been introduced in the House, and last year three treaties were also initialled in the province of British Columbia. These were the first to be initiated under the B.C. treaty process. However, much more needs to be done.

I know all of the members here today are eager to discuss these plans and to address the current untenable situation presented by the specific claims process. Although I'm not in a position to elaborate at this time, I'm pleased to note that we have committed to and intend to announce a new approach to the resolution of this long-standing national issue.

Fourth, we have to work to enable the participation of aboriginal people in major resource development opportunities. The close proximity of our first nations communities to resource development presents opportunities, allows people to participate in these projects in a meaningful manner, and to share in the social and economic benefits that are generated by these initiatives.

I know we've all seen examples of this sort of success in the past. I observed that in the context of Voisey's Bay, for example, close to 50% of the workforce at that facility are first nation citizens. If you go to the diamond mines in the Northwest Territories in the Tlicho area, you'll find that, as I recall, in excess of 30% of the people working at those facilities are first nation citizens.

So we are making progress.

This government recently passed regulations under the First Nations Commercial and Industrial Development Act that will enable the Fort McKay First Nation, in partnership with Shell Canada, to develop a multi-billion dollar oil sands mine in northern Alberta. This is the first initiative of its kind. The project will attract investors from around the world and create hundreds of meaningful, well-paying jobs for community residents.

And we have also dedicated $500 million to the Mackenzie Valley Socio-Economic Impact Fund. Committed in budget 2006, this fund will assist those communities whose development is affected by the proposed Mackenzie gas project, should the project proceed.

Fifth, my colleagues, we continue to work forward addressing the residential schools matter. I'm pleased to report to the committee that the Indian Residential School Settlement Agreement has received final court approval, and now former students and their families must choose whether to stay in the agreement or remove themselves from it. All parties to this historic agreement have agreed to a fair resolution of this sad legacy and chapter in the history of our country.

Our new government recognizes the importance of achieving a fair and lasting resolution of the Indian residential schools legacy and of moving forward in partnership with aboriginal communities across Canada. You will be aware that in my early months as minister, I brought the closure, along with Minister Oda, to the negotiations surrounding the Indian residential school settlement. That's also why we supported the motion for the House of Commons to apologize for the legacy of the Indian residential school agreement. The apology took place a month or so ago.

We are moving forward with the implementation of the agreement at this point, potentially as early as September of this year, once the opt-out period is finished. In particular, we look forward to the important work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, which is an element of this historic agreement and which will provide a complete historic record of the unfortunate legacy of which we speak.

Not only is this department responsible for first nation, Inuit, and northern issues, I'm also the federal interlocutor for Métis and non-status Indians. My official work with Métis and non-status Indians and urban aboriginal people is to assist them in realizing their full economic and social potential. In this capacity, we recently announced a refocused urban aboriginal strategy in Edmonton, concentrating on job training and entrepreneurship for the nearly 50% of aboriginal people who live in cities and towns across the country.

The approach to the urban aboriginal strategy is based upon a focus on the larger metropolitan centres--12 in number, as I recall. The strategy unites federal, provincial, and municipal governments as well as aboriginal communities and organizations and invests $68.5 million over five years to improve life and employment skills, to promote entrepreneurship, and to provide support to aboriginal women, children, and families.

Mr. Chairman, you and your colleagues are quite aware that the north is an important part of my mandate. Canada's New Government is committed to working with Canada's three northern territories to develop the north's natural resources, and create jobs and prosperity for northerners and indeed for all Canadians.

The north holds a significant percentage of Canada's energy resources. They present an immense opportunity for exploration and development--investment for generations to come. Resource-based projects in the north include diamond mines, oil and gas exploration, and other mining activity. They've contributed to increased economic growth in the north over the past number of years.

This economic growth, besides being the means of improving quality of life for northerners, also serves to bolster Canadian sovereignty in the north, raising the profile of Canada. As an Arctic nation, we must do what we can to ensure that the current boom in the north continues, to the benefit of northerners and other Canadians alike.

The International Polar Year, 2007-08, was also launched on March 1. This will be another enabler of growth and development in the north. We expect that the research by Canadian and international scientists, funded through the International Polar Year program, will lead to new knowledge, environmental, health, and economic benefits to Canadians in the north and across our nation.

The two key themes for International Polar Year science—climate change impacts and adaptation, and the health and well-being of northern communities—will be important to many nations, given the global effects of climate change.

In closing, I feel it is essential to note that while funding is a crucial element in the success of our programs and initiatives, it is not the only significant factor. I have said before that continuing to fund existing programs without considering their validity or efficiency is not good enough. We must continue to consider whether the means by which we currently deliver services is truly producing the best results for aboriginal peoples and northerners. The funding provided in the main estimates is essential to maintain and advance programs to improve the quality of life for aboriginal people and northerners.

I welcome any questions or comments you may have.

Colleagues, I welcome any questions or comments you may have. It is a pleasure to be here. I know that we have a reservoir of knowledge at this table concerning aboriginal and northern issues, and I look forward to an opportunity to discuss this.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am fully prepared to stay here until the job is done. Of course what we are talking about with Bill C-44 is actually the repeal of section 67, which allows people to file complaints against the Indian Act. First nations on reserve already have access to the Canadian Human Rights Act. In fact, the Assembly of First Nations has filed a complaint under the Canadian Human Rights Act about the serious underfunding of 22% for child services.

I still am looking for an answer about how much money actually ends up in first nations communities and in the hands of the people who live in those communities. We have seen this over and over, and again, from the government's own documents such as the government's cost driver report, which talks about the fact that “after nine years of a 2 percent cap the time has come to fund First Nations basic services costs so that population and price growth are covered in the new and subsequent years”. The report goes on to talk about the very serious needs around improved comparability. When will the--

[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 thank the member for her question because in fact this is one of the very reasons why I got involved in politics. For the first time in my life I was able to join a party that was interested in actually reforming the very system that prevents the money needed by first nations people, aboriginal people, in order to improve their lives, from reaching them.

It is our party that actually sees this system as the very barrier this member talks about. Thankfully, our government has been able to begin to chip away at a system that has suppressed first nations people for a very long time, going back over 100 years as we look back to the Indian Act, a document that was prepared from pre-Confederation documents. Of course everyone realizes it is an antiquated piece of legislation that only suppresses the very people it espouses to help. This reform is something that our government is very interested in pursuing.

Some have suggested that more money is necessary to fix these problems. I would argue that although more money may need to be invested at some point, it is actually the system itself that needs to be fixed. Before we can invest more dollars, we need to ensure that the money is actually going to make a difference in the lives of the people it is meant to help.

One of the things that we are doing as a government is bringing forward Bill C-44, an important piece of legislation. The bill actually begins to target this system and actually will extend human rights to first nations people.

Most people in Canada do not realize that the Canadian Human Rights Act does not apply on first nations reserves. This is a shameful fact about our history. Canada, one of the best countries in the world to live in, has not extended human rights to first nations people. We have an excellent record on human rights, yet we have not extended these benefits to first nations people.

Thankfully, right now our committee has the opportunity to bring forward this important and historic piece of legislation. I would sure like the member to endorse extending human rights protections to first nations people. I know the member wants to head home as soon as possible to her summer estate. That is why she has put off extending the Canadian Human Rights Act to first nations people on reserve until some time in the fall. I challenge her to change her mind and actually endorse extending human rights to first nations people.

Document for Committee Chairs

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Halton wants to continue to heckle, perhaps he can add to the debate after I am done instead of just shouting out his nonsense.

The reality is that this is a similar document that all parties produce to help train their individual members. I note that this internal document, as I say, is not a government document. It is something that was produced by the Conservative Party to assist our chairs.

Since the NDP members are so concerned about this, perhaps they could reveal to us their playbook or explain their tactics when they were delaying and continue to delay Bill C-45, the Fisheries Act; or Bill C-44, the amendments to the Human Rights Act; or their earlier extensive delay in filibustering Bill C-24, the softwood lumber act. In all of those things they employed tactics to delay passage of government legislation.

What about a chapter from their playbook dealing with moving concurrence motions to obstruct government legislation from following the due process and the procedure that we have become accustomed to in passing through the chamber? Instead, they resort, almost daily, to moving concurrence motions to delay that legislation.

I have remarked that the further training of our chairs, our committee members and, indeed, all of our caucus is to ensure that we are well aware of any procedural tools that we might have as a government, recognizing that we are a minority government and that we are outnumbered, not only in the chamber but at each and every standing committee. When we are confronted, as we have been by the opposition parties, which have become increasingly obstructionist, with a lot of legislation, we need to ensure we use every possible tool at our disposal to get our legislation passed through the committees, passed through the chamber and ultimately passed through a Liberal dominated Senate to become law in order that we can keep the promises that we made to the Canadian people in the last election campaign.

I have been noting that the people of Canada did not elect a coalition government of opposition parties. They elected a minority Conservative government and we have been trying to govern as such.

It is certainly my contention that this is an internal party document and that all parties have similar types of documents. It is beyond the pale that we would start out this final week with this bogus question of privilege.

Bill C-44

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, if I said that, I misspoke. Of course the provision in the statute is as the member said, one that right now denies to first nations on reserve the protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The purpose of Bill C-44 is to give them the rights that that act provides to every other Canadian. It was not under the charter. It is indeed the Canadian Human Rights Act that we are trying to restore their rights under Bill C-44.

When I was referring to the efforts by the opposition to delay that legislation over the summer, it was not with regard to the charter. It was with regard to denying first nations people the human rights code protection.

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

Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House the government House leader was talking about Bill C-44 and he indicated that the bill was going to actually provide access to human rights under the Canadian charter of human rights.

I hope the government House leader would correct the record by indicating that Bill C-44 is actually a repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

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, I assure the member opposite that this government and our Minister of Indian Affairs have been in discussions with National Chief Phil Fontaine since we took office.

However, I also need to point out that unlike the previous government, which simply wanted to throw dollars at problems, we believe there is a systemic issue here, a system that needs reform. It is something that we have begun and that we are going to continue to do, such as we are doing, for instance, with Bill C-44, which the Liberal Party is not supporting. This extends human rights to first nations people on reserve. We would like to see that happen.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

I would not do that.

Tomorrow is an allotted day.

Next week is constituent consultation week, when the House will be adjourned to allow members to return to their ridings and meet with constituents to share with them the activities of Parliament since the last constituency break.

For the interest of members, I will quickly review our plan for the context of our overall legislative agenda.

As he requested, this is currently strengthening the economy week, where a number of financial bills moved forward. The budget bill was sent to committee and, hopefully, it will be reported back tomorrow, or soon, so we can deal with it at third reading when the House returns after the break.

Bill C-40, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act, was read a third time and sent to the Senate. Bill C-53, an act to implement the convention on the settlement of investment disputes, Bill C-33, the sales tax bill and Bill C-47, the Olympics symbol bill were all sent to committee and we all would like to see those back in the House for report stage and third reading.

In an earlier week, Bill C-36, the bill that makes changes to the Canada pension plan and the Old Age Security Act, was made into law after receiving royal assent.

Strengthening accountability through democratic reform week was a success with the consideration of Bill C-43, Senate consultation. We had three new democratic reform bills introduced that week: Bill C-55, to expand voting opportunities; Bill C-56, an act to amend the Constitution Act, democratic representation; and Bill C-54, a bill that would bring accountability with respect to loans. We hope to continue debate on that particular bill later today.

Bill C-16, fixed dates for elections, was given royal assent and is now law, which I think is the cause of the commotion now in all the committees where Liberals are using procedural tactics. Now they feel they can do it with a free hand.

Two other democratic reform bills are in the Senate, Bill C-31, voter integrity, and Bill S-4, Senate tenure. I really would like to have the term limits bill from the Senate for an upcoming democratic reform week if the opposition House leader can persuade his colleagues in the Senate to finally deal with that bill after 352 days. We may get 352 seconds in a filibuster, but they have had 352 days so far. They have been stalling for a year.

During the consultation week, I will be interested in hearing what our constituents think of the plight of Bill S-4 and the irony of those unaccountable senators delaying it.

We dedicated a good deal of our time focusing on making our streets and communities safer by cracking down on crime. Now that we have had the help of the NDP, we restored the meaningful aspects that the Liberals gutted in committee to Bill C-10, the bill to introduce mandatory penalties for violent and gun crimes. We are continuing to debate that bill today at third reading.

Bill C-48, the bill dealing with the United Nations convention on corruption, was adopted at all stages.

Bill C-26, the bill to amend the Criminal Code with respect to interest rates, was given royal assent.

Bill C-22, the age of protection, was given final reading and sent to the Senate, although it did spend close to, if not in excess of, 200 days in committee where the Liberals were obstructing and delaying its passage.

We made progress on Bill C-27, the dangerous offenders legislation. We would like to see that back in the House.

Bill C-9, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (conditional sentence of imprisonment) and a host of other justice bills are working their way through the system.

Members can advise their constituents that when we return, we will be reviving two themes, back by popular demand. Beginning May 28, we will begin again with strengthening accountability through democratic reform with: Bill C-54, political loans; Bill C-55, additional opportunities for voting; and Bill C-56, democratic representation.

Up next is a second go-round on strengthening the economy week with Bill C-52, the budget implementation bill, which will be called as soon as it is reported back from committee.

In the near future, we will have the improvement of aboriginal people quality of life week with Bill C-44. This bill will grant first nations residing on Indian reserves access to the Canadian charter of human rights. They have been denied this right for 30 years. Unfortunately, Bill C-44 is being delayed by the opposition. This is another bill being delayed by the opposition in committee.

After Bill C-44, I intend to debate Bill C-51. The agreement establishes the use and ownership of land and resources and will foster economic development. This bill illustrates Canada's commitment to the North and to settling land claims.

I wish all members a productive constituent consultation week and look forward to more progress on the government's legislative agenda when the House returns on May 28.

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

I want to come back to a presentation the Canadian Bar Association made. In it they talked about the effect of Bill C-44 on the Indian Act and presented a case that has been cited by Justice Muldoon of the Federal Court of Canada, that without any kind of coherent approach, the repeal of section 67 without looking at broader impacts could actually result in the piecemeal destruction of the Indian Act.

I wonder whether you've thought about that at all and whether you have any comments on it.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, I will be splitting my time with Mr. Blaney.

I'm just going to continue with Mr. Russell's logic here for a moment. He posed the question of whether the government has broken the law. Of course I have an opinion on that.

I perhaps would like you, Ms. Cornet, to pursue, theoretically, what would happen if the government has broken the law. In this case, on Bill C-44, what would the process be for dealing with the fact that the government had broken the law? What would it look like? If Bill C-44 were passed, what would happen after that?

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

Thank you for being here. I really appreciated what I have heard and I would like to tell you about it. I will not go over everything that you have said. I believe that you are really knowledgeable about these communities. My question will be simple and direct. As my university teacher used to say, it is a question that is short but that deserves a long and developed answer.

Do you believe that as we speak, today, on May 17, that the native communities are prepared and ready to face the repeal of section 67 of the act? In other words, are the communities addressed by Bill C-44 ready to deal with this bill today? If the answer is yes, why? And if not, why not?

I want to give you as much time as possible to answer.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you very much for your interventions, both of you.

You touched on a couple of sections that I have been very worried about throughout these deliberations on Bill C-44. You talked about the duty to consult; Wendy, you also talked about negotiations on conflict management, and Larry, you talked about jointly drafting legislation. Those are very critical bases, I think, of what defines a relationship between aboriginal people and the federal government, because, as I have repeatedly said, we can no longer do things as we used to in the 1960s. I refer to that because that was the time when everybody just made decisions on our behalf without any of our input whatsoever.

I would like to think, as you do, that in 2007 that's behind us, but it's very difficult from where I sit to tolerate how Bill C-44 came about, because we're had numerous witnesses before us who really feel the same way of doing things has come back--that someone in an office in Ottawa decides what policies and legislation are good for us without our input.

I'll come back to specific questions. Negotiation on conflict management is one of the areas I'm really worried about; I'm worried that we're not going to be prepared in those aboriginal communities to deal with the way of resolving conflict. In my culture, for example, as I was mentioning to Wendy, we like to look at win-win situations. We're very uncomfortable with the current court system, which results in a winner and a loser. Because our communities are small, we can't have winner and loser situations all the time, because it divides communities. What we want to be able to see is a win-win situation and a compromise; maybe that's why we have our consensus style of governing.

What I'm worried about with this legislation is that if there isn't enough proper consultation and not enough capacity-building at the communities, we're going to be dividing communities with win-lose situations, whereas we have an opportunity to do win-win if we go about bringing this legislation the right way. Could both of you please comment on that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I open this Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development of Thursday, May 17, 2007.

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

Appearing today, from Cornet Consulting and Mediation Inc., we have Wendy Cornet. Welcome. And from the University of Winnipeg we have Larry Chartrand, director, aboriginal governance program. Welcome.

We'll be asking the witnesses to make submissions of ten minutes, or roughly that amount of time, and then we'll move into questions.

Madame Cornet, would you like to speak first?

Canadian Heritage--Main Estimates, 2007-08

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Chair, at a recent Status of Women committee meeting, Ellen Gabriel, president of the Quebec Native Women's Association said:

The value of aboriginal women in our society today has diminished to where, as Amnesty International has stated, we have become a commodity in society in general.

Aboriginal women have told members on this side that they have felt used by the Minister of Indian Affairs and that the implementation of Bill C-44 as is and as presented will create more problems for them.

Why has the minister not spoken up on behalf of the status of aboriginal women to her colleagues?

Aboriginal Affairs

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. We have already said that we must protect the interests of aboriginals, youth and women. However, here is the real question. Why does the Bloc Québécois refuse to support Bill C-44?

Official Languages

[Stephen Harper, Conservative, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, this government certainly has nothing to learn from the Liberal Party in the area of rights.

This is the government that dealt with the issue of the Chinese head tax, which the previous government refused to do. This is the government that is trying to get matrimonial property rights for aboriginal women. This is the government that is trying to toughen up laws to protect women and children in Canada.

We have an important bill before the House, Bill C-44, to give aboriginal people, under the Canadian human rights code, equal status for the first time. The Liberal Party should stop blocking it and support it.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, who is the golf player?

Aboriginal people and women feel used by the minister. Over and over again we have heard about the lack of consultation on Bill C-44, but the government has yet to apologize to the victims of residential schools.

It is a double standard. The government is willing to consult and wait five years to apologize, yet it will enact new legislation without a shred of consultation.

That father knows best approach simply does not work. Why did the government not consult with first nations before enacting this legislation?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals will have to make their decision. They will have to decide if they will go back to their tennis clubs and golf clubs for the summer or if they will get Bill C-44 back to the House, so that first nations citizens will no longer be second class citizens in Canada without the protection of a human rights code.

For 13 years the Liberals did nothing about this. It has been 30 years in this country, which is long enough. That is enough consultation. The government intends to act with or without them.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Assembly of First Nations has serious concerns with the limited scope of Bill C-44.

The Ontario chiefs feel the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is like throwing a grenade into collective rights. The Canadian Bar Association said the repeal has the potential to undermine the protection of collective rights.

We have to get it right. Why does the minister feel he knows best when it comes to aboriginal peoples, when they themselves do not agree with the government's position?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

As you said, Dawn, the result is not to give zero people an opportunity for consultation. There should be consultation, and however many choose to show up, they've had the opportunity. It's never 100% of anything.

You raised a very interesting point we haven't talked about yet. It's about the potential different laws in different areas. For instance, the way the government is dealing with matrimonial rights is to suggest that there'll be a national law, but when self-governing first nations make their own laws, then they can have a law in their area to fill that capacity, which would result in one law here and one law there.

Some people propose that this be the model used for human rights under Bill C-44, so that there be the national system available to people. But when a first nation decides to create its own law, as Ms. Young has suggested—defining your own laws on human rights—then each first nation would have human rights protection, but it would be defined by themselves.

My question is, and I think you raised this question, what happens if you have a number of first nations in the same area that all have different laws? Is that a problem, or is it not a problem? Or is it a minor irritant but not as important as getting it right?

[Esther Sanderson]

I would like to comment on that first.

At one time in our communities, we had our own membership. We were allowed to have members join our communities, and they were put on the band list. Somewhere along the line, something happened. I guess it started with the Indian Act, regarding who could be an Indian and who couldn't be. That's when the injustices began in our communities.

Given the opportunity, we could do that again with the human rights in our communities, because it was done fairly. It was done as a process as to who could be a member and why they should or shouldn't be a member. In my mind, it would be the same process. The issues will probably come out the same in terms of membership, and that's what we were talking about in Bill C-31.

I'm also someone they call a Bill C-31, and I hate the way we define ourselves in our communities, where we're numbers and initials instead of people.

That's what Bill C-31 has done to us. It was a termination clause for all of the Indian people. Those consequences were bad. I would not like to see something like that happen again with Bill C-44.

We're adamant that we want a consultation process, so that our voices can be heard in Parliament and adequately addressed.

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

I want to come back to Bill C-31 for a minute.

One of the points that have been made is that under the current Bill C-44, in five years' time we would be able to take a look at it. Bill C-31, I think, was passed in 1985. In 1986 there was a report out by a couple of people called Clatworthy and Smith. These researchers did a bunch of projections, based on section 6.2 of Bill C-31, and demonstrated when key communities across the country would actually have no status Indians left in their community as a result of section 6.2.

I've raised a couple of times the issue of the impact of Bill C-31 and what we can do about it. What I've understood is that no action will be taken until some court cases have unfolded. Anecdotally, there are already nations in Canada where the last status person has been born.

When we're asked to trust that a five-year process on Bill C-44 would enable us to examine unintended consequences, I just see that with Bill C-31, here we are, however many years later—22 years later—not able to currently address the impacts it is having on communities.

And it's not only the impact of people's loss of status; all of you talked about resources. One of the things that happened with Bill C-31 was that there weren't adequate resources in the communities to allow women to return to the community and have access to adequate housing and adequate education.

I wonder whether you could comment on that.

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

Ladies, thank you for having made the effort to come here. You really have to love what you are doing to do so. You may say that I am paid very well to love it, but I do it out of love as well.

I remember having heard a prime minister say that you would be consulted in the future and that significant changes to the act would be discussed with you. I think that this is a significant change. Just as we have done with other witnesses, I would like to draw you attention -- I do not want to force or pressure you -- to the fact that we now have a minority government.

I would like this bill to be passed and to be sensitive to the situation of first nations people. I wonder if you have looked at the changes that could be made to Bill C-44, an application protocol with an interpretation clause, in order that it could go into effect gradually. Other witnesses have mentioned a notwithstanding clause. If you suggest the time necessary for the bill to come into effect, we will see if it is feasible.

I will give you the floor.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to each of you for appearing here today. You've certainly outlined for me some very important issues that we as a committee need to consider. While this is not considered full consultation, I would be disappointed if the government didn't at least take into consideration the people who've appeared before this committee.

You've also pointed out some of the barriers that aboriginal women face. I think the one that you mentioned, Ms. Harvard, about the double barrier of race and gender is particularly pertinent, and also the negative impact of previous legislative changes. You mentioned Bill C-31, with the second-class citizen issue. Certainly that is a very real issue that we should all be concerned about.

But I think we need to realize that in spite of all of the attempts to create a perfect bill, that probably will never happen. I think we need to remember that this bill does include a clause that mandates a review within five years, and it doesn't have to wait five years if there are unintended negative consequences that appear. I'm sure we're all eager to address those.

Both of you and other previous witnesses have also mentioned the need for more consultation on Bill C-44, and while I'm not in a position to say whether that should go on for another six months or six weeks, I do think we need to remember that this is not the first attempt to repeat section 67.

In 1992, Bill C-108 died when Parliament was prorogued; and in 1999, another attempt, by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in its report, recommending that section 67 be removed. In 2002, there was Bill C-7, another attempt; and in 2005, Bill S-45. In 2005 again, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, in its report, A Matter of Rights, strongly recommended the repeal. And then again, just most recently, in March 2006, the United Nations commission criticized Canada for our failure to repeal section 67.

In light of all those previous attempts, my question is this: have you or any of your groups taken any steps over the years to inform your people, first nations women especially, about the potential impact of not Bill C-44—admittedly, that wasn't there yet—but the potential impact of the repeal of section 67? Has there been any dialogue? I would have thought there may be some dialogue, and I'm sure there has been.

I'd like you to outline that.

[Esther Sanderson]

Thank you.

I also believe that consultation ought to be from the community level, and that if we don't have that consultation process at the community level, to repeat what was said earlier, our people aren't going to use that. Bill C-44 is supposed to protect us, but right now we live in discrimination. In almost everything we do, because of the Indian Act and, right now, section 67 the way it stands, human rights do not protect us, and they haven't for a long time. I think that women are feeling that to wait for another three years, if it takes that long for us to get it right this time, then they are willing to do that, but they are not willing to jump into something that is not ours, that we do not understand. And that's a message that was given to us by the women to bring here.

Thank you.

[Esther Sanderson, Researcher, Aboriginal Language Institute, University College of the North]

Good morning. My name is Esther Sanderson. I'm from the Opaskwayak Cree Nation as well, and we're sisters. The issues that have faced both of us have been tragic in a lot of cases, but I want to say a little bit about the language with the Canadian human rights.

We come from Cree territory, and most of the people in the northern part of Manitoba still speak Cree, an aboriginal language. In terms of having people understand what is presented before them, the laws and the legalities that come into our communities are often not understood. So the process in itself with the Canadian Human Rights Act and section 67, or Bill C-44, are not understood simply because of the language difference. In terms of resources we would need, we would like translation services in order for our people to understand what is before them, so that they will also be able to make informed decisions.

There are a lot of words in the English language that the Cree language does not have—for instance, the word “guilty”. We have no word in our Cree language for guilty. So how do we explain those kinds of concepts and those kinds of words to our people? So it's a matter of translation that's really important to us,and to get the concepts right. Those are the kinds of services that we will require.

[Doris Young, Advisor to the President, University College of the North]

Good day, everybody.

[Witness speaks in Cree] I'm saying greetings to all of you in my language, which is Cree.

My name is Doris Young. I'm here to talk about this very important section of Bill C-67. I am a first nations woman and a member of the Women's Advisory Council of Manitoba; of the Keewatinook Ininew Okimowin, or MKO; and the Opaskwayak Cree Nation Women's Council, which is my community. I understand the MKO was here last week speaking to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development about this issue. I work at the University College of the North, in The Pas, Manitoba, as adviser to the president, and I live on the Opaskwayak Cree Nation.

First of all, I want to say that the government's plan to repeal immediately this section 67 without a commitment to ensure that there is adequate consultation and engagement of first nations is something that we cannot support, because if it's repealed without proper consultation it impacts on the lives of first nations communities, and in particular, native women. It will impact us in a negative way more than it would benefit us.

We believe, as northern first nations women, in our right to be protected against discrimination, and we also support the idea of empowerment, which is what this bill is designed to do. But empowerment really means to us the ability to make decisions on relevant information, which we don't have. We haven't received any information, there was no consultation with first nations women in Manitoba, and no information has been provided to us about this bill. We are therefore not able to make an informed decision about it, and that's why we can't support it.

I want to say a little bit about this colonization process and the residential school experience, which I myself have been affected by, and we've been personally harmed by both of these--first of all, colonization, and then residential schools. These laws that were passed were not really ours, but nevertheless we were forced to accept them, and it's caused us a lot of misery. Possibly this section 67 will have the same consequences if no consultation is made and no input on our behalf is given to the government about the effects.

We do believe that discrimination should not be occurring to native women, and neither violence nor abuse, because it harms our families and it harms our communities. We are dedicated to our families and we know collectively what is good for them and for our communities. We have the strength, courage, and of course the resilience to continue fighting for our place in society and to plan for the enjoyment of a good future for our children and our communities. This is why this issue is so very important for us.

One of the issues that need addressing is that it's really imperative that measures are in place so that our collective and human rights are protected, and they include our customs, our practices, and our languages. There must be assurance that our ability to create our own human rights laws and decision-making bodies is enhanced, not weakened. There must be provisions in place to ensure that first nations women are meaningfully engaged in the development and implementation of first-nations-driven human rights mechanisms, and there must be adequate resources available to us to be involved in this process.

Twenty-two years ago, in 1985, when Bill C-31 was passed, we did not have the knowledge of or insight into its impact on our future generations. We were so happy that at last the prospect of discrimination would end. Of course it didn't happen.

Now 22 years later, in 2007, the Canadian government is imposing a bill, Bill C-44, that is designed to empower first nations people when seeking redress against discrimination. Those of us living and working on first nations territories are not permitted to seek redress under section 67 of the Human Rights Act. We have no protection against discrimination under the Indian Act.

Bill C-44 is theoretically designed to end that situation. Once again, when we heard that, we were hopeful, but we're really more cautious about this today because of the unintended consequences that resulted from Bill C-31.

The intent to end discrimination is a sound idea, but there's no process in place right now to assess the results of repealing section 67. Native women are the ones who will most likely feel the results. We're the backbone of our communities; we're the daughters, the mothers, and the grandmothers. Whatever decisions are made impacting our community, it's always the women who bear the greatest amount of work in maintaining familial kinship and communal systems.

As noted earlier, we have experience stemming from Bill C-31 and are now beginning to feel its impact. Today we are fearful of its consequences because of our inability to continue to pass on our legal rights to future generations. You heard Dawn mentioning some of the direct impacts on her family. This inability to pass on our rights has a domino effect on the legal and political future of all first nations and its impact on our governments, our lands, our housing, our education, and our other rights. We don't want to enter into another situation that will jeopardize us.

There's another issue that's related to discrimination and first nations women living on first nations territories, and that's accessing protection against discrimination through the Canadian human rights legislation. We can say at this time that this present legislation does not serve us well. It's not a good option for a number of reasons.

It doesn't provide us with adequate due process.

The problem is in the way the tribunal currently operates. Decisions made by the tribunal take too long. It's too cumbersome, too expensive, and the tribunal process will be removed from first nations areas.

The tribunal decisions that are made are not made by first nations and generally are not related to relationship building, which is really an important value for first nations. This results in more alienation, resentment, and very often does irreparable damage to families and the kinship system.

The process is also not understood by first nations women on the reserve, and therefore they'll likely not use the Canadian human rights legislation.

That's another fundamental injustice that needs examination, the fact that there is no safe place for us to get redress from any government. For example, Bill C-31 and the Canadian human rights legislation: first nations women sought redress, and the result did not end discrimination, as stated earlier. On first nations territories, discriminatory practices are prevalent against women in areas such as housing, education, and the right to remain in the family home when a relationship breaks down or when the death of a spouse occurs. In this particular area, lack of adequate community resources often perpetuates these unfair situations.

In spite of all these obstacles, first nations women continue to strive to be involved in the system so we will be able to maintain healthy communities and a balance and justice for all of us.

We need education, resources, and time. We need to educate ourselves about this issue so that we can make informed decisions. We need resources in order to educate ourselves and to be able to meet. We need time to consult with first nations women on the reserves so that their human rights are protected and the discrimination is properly addressed.

Given the opportunity, we could be involved in developing first nations human rights legislation that would help resolve discrimination in our communities. We believe that this process would give us the opportunity to reflect our time-honoured values and beliefs in fairness and justice. Also, this process would not compromise first nations jurisdiction.

Finally, first nations women must be part of this important process. We must be part of the solution to end discrimination.

[Witness speaks in her native language]

I'm saying thank you for the opportunity to come and speak to you on my relations.

[Dawn Harvard]

We do our best.

I wanted to briefly start off by letting you know that the Ontario Native Women's Association began back in 1971. This date was actually very historic. If we look back at that era, that was the particular timeframe when aboriginal women across the country were working to end the discrimination against aboriginal women under the Indian Act when they married a non-aboriginal man and were cast out of their communities. That's how a lot of our associations came to be, as those women came together.

Here we are, many years later, still fighting discrimination specifically based on gender, and this is why we are here today.

The Ontario Native Women's Association exists to give voice to the aboriginal women in Ontario. We're located in Thunder Bay and have at least 80 different local chapters throughout the province of Ontario. Each chapter has its own local membership and autonomy, so we have a very wide distribution of perspectives from aboriginal women across Ontario. Over the course of the year, we estimate that we provide services and programs to 10,000 aboriginal families—children, women.

As I'm sure everybody here is well aware, the Human Rights Act created back in 1977 was put in place at a time when the question of those women who were cast out of their communities was still up in the air. My own mother, in fact, was Jeanette Corbiere-Lavell, who was the first woman to challenge the Government of Canada on the discrimination against her, specifically based on gender, because she lost her status when she married my father, a non-aboriginal man.

She eventually lost at the Supreme Court, and the Human Rights Act came into place, and then eventually we all know that Sandra Lovelace took it to the United Nations, and things were changed with Bill C-31.

Unfortunately, what a lot of people don't realize is that through Bill C-31, these women were taken back to their communities, but they were not restored to their original status. They were returned as reinstatees, which is a second-class position. They have fewer rights and less ability to pass status—the rights of their heritage—on to their children and their grandchildren.

In my own family, I have one daughter who's a full status Indian and another who's completely non-aboriginal, although these are both my own birth children—simply because of the discrimination, because of the way these women were put back into place in second-class positions, simply because of their gender.

I give you all of this background because this is a very important example of why we need to look at removing section 67 and why people see it often as a women's issue. Even though it affects both genders equally, discrimination based on gender is primarily a problem for women. Aboriginal women specifically face discrimination based on both race and gender, so they have double barriers when trying to provide for their families, trying to give their communities and their children the quality of life they deserve.

The poor translator--I realize I've completely gone off what I told her I was going to say.

Before we can move forward, we must understand our past in order to understand our present situation as aboriginal citizens.

My mother always said it was quite a trick to have gone into the church an Indian girl and come out a white woman. She said, “That place had real power back in those days.”

Again, this discrimination continues. In families like mine, we are still faced with these divisions under our own roof. How do we look at one child and say, “You are a member of our community”, and look at her sister and say, “You're not”? This is the kind of division that it's creating.

Unfortunately, oftentimes when questions of gender discrimination come up, there's a lot of fear-mongering in our communities; that if we recognize human rights.... I've heard people say, “We will have some man from Iran come, and they will be taking over the reserves if they have matrimonial property rights. We will have men coming in and taking over our communities.”

I don't think this is the right perspective. Aboriginal women, aboriginal people are human. We deserve human rights.

But our position with Bill C-44 is that we need to be very careful about the process, about looking at the long-term consequences of what is going to happen.

Like Bill C-31, which everyone thought was a wonderful solution, many women were returned to their communities, but in the long run, it's endangering our nationhood because it doesn't guarantee the ability to transfer status to our children past the second generation. So now we are coming into situations where a lot of our communities are declining in membership because of this. We need to be careful.

We support this in principle. But we want to make sure there's an appropriate consultative process to ensure that those visions we have not yet been able to think of, those consequences and those potential problems, are well thought through so we protect our communities, our land base, and our rights while ensuring that aboriginal people are no less human than any other citizen of this country.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I'd like to open this meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development of Tuesday, May 15, 2007.

Committee members, you have the orders of the day before you. Today we're going to continue our review of Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Today the witnesses who will be appearing are, from the Ontario Native Women's Association, Dawn Harvard, president, board of directors; and from the University College of the North, Doris Young, adviser to the president, and Esther Sanderson, researcher, Aboriginal Language Institute.

Welcome to the witnesses.

The chair would invite each of the witnesses to make a 10-minute presentation, and then we'll move into question time.

To begin, we can start with Madam Harvard, please. Are you ready?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, the Senate is not the only place where the opposition is denying justice to Canadians.

The operative clause of Bill C-44 is only nine words long but the House of Commons standing committee has been studying these nine words for 14 weeks and the opposition MPs have now decided to continue their searching analysis into October.

Therefore, first nations Canadians, who have been deprived of human rights in this country for 30 years, will remain so for another summer while the opposition members retire to their golf clubs and tennis clubs.

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

Mr. Speaker, our government is proudly moving forward with human rights protection for first nations citizens through Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, while the government is looking to rectify this long-standing inequity, the opposition parties continue to dither and delay.

How much longer do first nations citizens need to live without the protections that are taken for granted by all other Canadians?

Could the Minister of Indian Affairs please highlight the importance of the bill now before the committee?

[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 find it interesting that the member from the Liberal Party is interested in matrimonial property. Of course we as a government want to pursue that matter very vigorously. That is why we brought forward Bill C-44.

Some people in Canada might not realize this, but in fact the Canadian Human Rights Act does not apply to first nations people on reserve. It is a shameful situation that has been left with us by the Liberal government.

The Liberals, with all the other opposition parties, have just chosen to put off extending human rights to first nations people until after the summer. They want to go back to their cottages and their country clubs first and maybe think about it a little further.

We are ready to act. We are ready to bring human rights to first nations people.

Afghanistan

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, the facts related by the member from British Columbia are not accurate in any way, shape or form. The NDP's concept of a delay and filibuster is a meeting where there is a vote taken and decisions are made. I do not understand that at all. It is certainly, as I said, different from the way the opposition conducts itself in delaying legislation.

In fact, when we talk about that, I could ask the member from the NDP why it is that it supports the notion of not dealing with Bill C-44 that is going to give human rights to first nations people and give them the protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Why does her party support the concept of that not being dealt with at committee and delaying that over the summer?

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

I am a bit nervous. Following Ms. Gabriel's answer, my colleague asked me if I had any further questions.

At the outset, when I made a statement on Bill C-44, before even hearing what the Quebec Native Women, the First Nations Assembly of Quebec and of Labrador, or the Native Women of Canada had to say, I noted that this bill was a ''white'' piece of legislation. It is not because I recognize aboriginals to be of a different colour, but this seems a somewhat discriminatory way of differentiating aboriginals from the rest of the Canadian population. Let us just say that this bill is a non-aboriginal approach that does not take into account the culture and living situation of the first nations. This struck me from the very start.

Today, what is striking is Ms. Jacobs' statement on the implementation plan. In the plan she is suggesting, I do not know if there's going to be some sort of protocol at each step during discussions with the government. The plan would not come into effect unless there was agreement on the implementation mechanism. I don't know if we can work this way. If we can, Ms. Jacobs, I would like to hear you elaborate on the plan that you are suggesting.

Ms. Gabriel, before allowing Ms. Jacobs to answer, I wish to ask you the following question. Would you agree with such a plan, with the timeline to implement Bill C-44 that Ms. Jacobs is suggesting? Would this be in keeping with your own vision?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

So you're suggesting, then, that a repeal should happen. We're in a process now. I know that you know a large amount about how the parliamentary system works. We're in a minority government right now. It seems that there are only small opportunities any time an attempt at bringing forward a repeal of section 67 happens. It happens for very small moments. People need to get around this opportunity and make it happen—that's my opinion.

In light of the fact that we're in a minority government and that opportunity is so finite, would you suggest that it's more worthwhile to put this off because you don't believe in the vehicle of Bill C-44, which is amendable? You would rather put that off in light of what I said about the finite moment or hope for the future?

Just remember, we just went through 13 years of a previous administration, the Liberals, who did nothing on this front, on the system itself. There's no doubt about that. It's a matter of fact; it's not opinion.

[Ellen Gabriel]

First of all, I want to correct you. I said I would promote or support the repeal of section 67, but not Bill C-44, because of the lack of consultation, because of the lack of research, and basically because your minister is pushing the wonderful skills of the Canadian Human Rights Commission but at the same time ignoring the report and recommendations of that commission. So I just want to clarify that.

I'm supporting the repeal of section 67, because if we have a Criminal Code that applies to our communities, then why not a human rights code?

The difference between Chief Picard and me is that they're talking about sovereignty. They're talking about what I mentioned before--membership codes, matrimonial real property, some of the issues that I know the chiefs in Quebec are very adamant at trying to keep hold of as part of their authority.

If we didn't have all the problems in our community, I would not—I can't remember the right word—agree to have some of my principles negotiated, because as a longhouse woman and as a speaker for my community during the Oka crisis, in which the Conservative government dealt with us, I probably would not agree. But if I look at what's happening to the children, what's happening to the women, and coming from a community where my cousin's house was burned and nothing could be done, coming from a community where the International Federation of Human Rights criticizes the Conservative government for the numerous abuses that happened, of men who were arrested and burned with cigarettes, and yet nothing could be done because the Canadian Human Rights Act does not apply to reserves, then yes, I will compromise some of my principles as a longhouse woman.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just have to go back to a comment made by Mr. Russell. If the Liberal Party wants to mock our government for highlighting the issues facing first nations women, it's welcome to. You're welcome to raise that at any opportunity. If you want to mock us for that, it's fine.

Now, having gotten that off my chest, I would like to perhaps go back to some of the comments you made, Ms. Gabriel.

Compared with your counterpart from Quebec, Ghislain Picard, who is very much against Bill C-44, who is very much against this repeal and in fact called for us to just basically rip it up and go on with some other business of this government, you obviously have a different perspective. You're saying we do need to move forward with the repeal.

You're calling for some amendments, which is part of any parliamentary process. We have a committee here today, and obviously the opposition members are considering options that they want to bring forward, and the government here is looking forward to making this bill happen. But you have actually recommended that we proceed.

Why do you think there's a difference between your perspective and the male counterparts that we see in your province?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you both for coming back before the committee again. I appreciate your making time in your very busy schedules after that last hearing.

We've heard consistently about consultation from almost every witness who came before the committee, and it seems to be the central point. Mr. Lemay's question was around whether you consult after you pass legislation or before you pass legislation. Of course I would argue you need to consult before you pass legislation.

Matrimonial real property has come up as an example of a consultative process, and I've heard you speak about it. I am not going to read all of this, because I read it into the record before, but Wendy Grant-John's report says that her process was not consultation; in fact, her recommendation 18 outlines a number of factors that need to be considered in terms of consultation.

What we have before us, in my view, is a box that people are attempting to force people into, saying that this is appropriate consultation--if you support human rights you're going to support Bill C-44; don't worry, trust us; we'll consult after the fact.

You've talked about the steps that you've outlined, but right now, what would you recommend that the committee do next?

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Good afternoon to each of you, and welcome back for the second time.

I find some of this pretty remarkable. The government has raised this issue around consultation, and they continue to ask questions of the aboriginal witnesses we have in front of us: What's your view of consultations? How much is enough? Do we have to talk to every aboriginal person out there? My comment might be that at least you should talk to somebody within the aboriginal community, not necessarily everybody.

In terms of timeframes, I find one thing very hypocritical on the part of the government. In order to get an honest and sincere apology around Indian residential schools, we have to wait four to five years for the Truth and Reconciliation Commission to do its work. But in order to implement Bill C-44, we're saying let's do it in six months, without any consultation. So I think there's a double standard, to say the least, when it comes to the government's response.

The government has also held out aboriginal women as the poster child for moving very quickly to pass and to implement Bill C-44. But what I've observed and heard is that aboriginal women have similar, almost identical concerns to the other witnesses we have.

How do the women you represent feel about the approach being taken by government? It almost seems to be a little bit of a divisive strategy, holding out one segment of the population, because human rights run the gamut, not just on gender, but on different circumstances.

So I would just like to know how you feel about that.

[Beverley Jacobs]

Good afternoon. Thanks for the opportunity to come back.

I think where I left off was talking about the responses to the consultation issues. In the committee's report on Canadian human rights, they recommended an immediate repeal with a transitional period of 18 to 30 months, and Bill C-44 provides for a six-month transitional period.

As you know, we do support the repeal, but there has to be at least 36 months. That is what we have put together as a transitional period. I think it's an unreasonable expectation for communities to be prepared for a drastic change in legislation, and so far, the way the legal process works, it's far too complex to reconcile anything within six months. We have to be aware and sure that there are adequate resources available in the communities to ensure that this issue is addressed properly.

In the work that we've done, we wanted to make sure there was meaningful consultation. It was apparent during the matrimonial real property process that this was something that really needed to occur. There were serious and validated concerns that there wasn't enough time to ensure that there was a meaningful consultation process, since we only had three months to do that.

So as a minimum, in the early stages of the discussions, NWAC did ask for at least a year of consultation. The aboriginal women we talked to voiced this concern and felt a great deal of skepticism in the process underscoring the fundamental nature of consultation where important legislative change directly affects aboriginal peoples.

In the report of the special representative on the protection of first nations women's rights, a key recommendation was free, prior, and informed consent. This is absolutely crucial when individual and collective rights of aboriginal women are being impacted. The report elaborated that aboriginal women find legislation difficult to understand, that they would have greater capacity to offer constructive feedback if they were informed about the laws that affect their collective and individual rights.

The focus group recommended that an education and awareness strategy be implemented, where aboriginal women's organizations provided tools and resources to educate aboriginal women about their legal rights.

Then in June 1998, INAC acknowledged that there was no explicit departmental policy or directive to guide consultation with first nations. Although the broad, flexible approach used by the department has been advantageous in meeting the diverse needs, there has been a lack of consistency regarding the principles and the sharing of best practices.

The Auditor General's report in 2006 contends that meaningful consultation will reflect positively on aboriginal and governmental relations. Good governance and a trusting relationship between aboriginal communities and governments are essential in improving the quality of life for aboriginal people.

If the Canadian human rights mechanisms are to have any weight in aboriginal communities, full and meaningful consultation must occur. Since aboriginal women and children are most affected by human rights violations under the Indian Act, it is imperative that they are also included in this process.

As I said at our last meeting, we did develop a whole five-year implementation plan. The implementation plan would involve INAC, the Department of Justice, and the Status of Women. We also had formal discussions with the former Law Commission of Canada and the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

We have also had discussions with the president of the Indigenous Bar Association with respect to specific indigenous legal traditions that need to be respected in our processes.

From the proposal that we developed, we heard nothing back from any of the federal departments. We do believe it is a sound plan and that first nations communities have to be actively engaged in implementing the repeal.

This implementation plan addresses many of the concerns expressed about Bill C-44 and the immediate repeal. There needs to be some building upon the previous research with a goal of ensuring the recognition of indigenous legal traditions and exploring the best way to reconcile the domestic legal principles in the charter as well as in the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Canada has been proactive in advancing integration of indigenous legal traditions in some first nations communities with the implementation of various aboriginal restorative justice initiatives. We think that together with first nations, government parties can build upon that approach to also address human rights protections.

We believe there has to be an acknowledgment of the emerging knowledge base of elders in our community relating to indigenous legal traditions as well as looking at the responsibilities within the communities themselves and the leadership in the communities to respond to those issues.

We think there needs to be a bottom-up approach taken by engaging first nations through capacity-building. This will provide communities with the practical means to control and access justice and resources.

That's about it. There was a plan, with year one, year two, year three, year four, year five within our plan. We were hoping that with the development of this, we would work directly with first nations communities, with whom we developed very positive relationships through our MRP consultations. Also, there are best practices out there already that are addressing this issue seriously.

We believe human rights protections require much more than changing the black letter of the law. The implementation process and the allocation of resources are essential to success. There have to be meaningful consultations with all of the NAOs, first nations communities, and individuals throughout the process.

We need to ensure that there is a 36-month transitional period. Anything less would not account for the long-term impacts and root causes of human rights violations.

We undertake on the government to immediately undertake an open, transparent process for assessing the impact on individuals and first nations communities and to commit to an implementation plan that is collaboratively developed by government and first nations communities, including full and meaningful participation of aboriginal women. Through this plan, it will enable a meaningful engagement process to prepare for the impacts of the repeal of section 67.

Thank you.

[Chief David General]

Thank you, Mr. Lévesque, for the question. You present us with a whole Pandora's box of possibilities.

I'm very fortunate to have Richard Powless here and a number of my council, who have engaged in this whole discussion of Bill C-44. They're up here on the Hill.

I think that if we were to move forward with this piece of legislation--again I would hold up the jurisdiction as being the major achievement--in the time that you have as the government, I think maybe that would provide some peace of mind. But in the larger scene, I think the wisdom would be that we should take a step back, look at all that's been achieved right now, and realize that maybe we are again--I'm probably saying nothing that hasn't been said before--moving too fast with this. We're trying to address it too soon. There needs to be more discussion. There needs to be more information. As for talking about implementation and not knowing what the impacts, negative or positive, are going to be, as a leader, I feel that providing endorsement for continuing with the process would be a foolhardy approach.

Although one alternative may be to put jurisdiction and a longer timeframe in an amendment to the wording of the legislation right now, I think all 633 first nations need more time on this.

I can tell you, and I won't take too much time, that Six Nations is the largest first nations group, and I'm very proud of the capacity that we have, the minds that we have to put to this item, but even that is not enough. I have tremendous respect for Chief Balfour and his community and other communities across the country who do not have the time and have not had the time to put minds to this issue.

By saying we should move forward, I would be doing them a disservice. We all need more time.

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

Welcome, welcome.

The interests of the first nations are of great importance to me; these are my brothers. It is clear that your culture and your way of seeing things are different from ours. My colleague asked you if you would prefer striking out section 67 in favour of discussions and negotiations with the government to adopt measures that would streamline the application of Bill C-44.

Some point to the fact that article 25 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is often referred to as a protective provision. It is said that the fact that the Charter guarantees certain rights and freedoms does not adversely affect ancestral rights and freedoms flowing from treaties or other similar documents. Moreover, section 35 of the Constitutional Act, 1982, acknowledges and confirms existing rights.

Grand Chief General, you have been well advised by Mr. Powless. For the good of your nations, do you think that recommending delaying the application of the act while negotiations take place with the department or the government with a view to mitigating certain difficulties would be better than running the risk of having a majority government? Such a government could at some point enact the legislation as it stands currently, and this would give your nations nothing, aside from more difficulties.

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

You made a comment about the Indian Act. When the Bar Association came before us, in their submission they actually talked about the fact that Bill C-44 could be used as a piecemeal approach to take apart the Indian Act without any appropriate look at the comprehensive picture. I wonder if you could comment on that, because you raised the Indian Act.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank you for coming to present your views to the committee today.

On a point of clarification, there is no reason why Bill C-44 cannot be put on hold until appropriate consultations have taken place.

But I think you've both addressed a far larger issue. We've heard consistently from witnesses who have come before the committee that they support the repeal of section 67. But it is the process. I know certainly that some of my colleagues and I have spoken about the need to repeal section 67.

Chief General and Chief Balfour, you've both touched on the larger problem. It doesn't matter whether it's Bill C-44, matrimonial real property, housing, or what bill comes before the committee; the larger issue is the lack of recognition of a nation-to-nation status. If we were talking to any other treaty signatory as a Canadian government, we would not present them with a fait accompli; we would not present them with a bill and ask them what they thought. If we wanted to change a treaty in which we'd already engaged, or change some rights that we had agreed to through a treaty process, we would engage in dialogue and consultation before we drafted any kind of legislation or treaty changes.

I think that comes to the heart of the matter of this. Once again we have a government that presents you with a proposal and asks what you think, instead of coming to you first and saying, “We think we need to do something about the repeal of section 67. How do you want to do this?”

I wonder if you could comment on that.

[Chief Marcel Balfour]

Thank you.

I'm not a parliamentarian, but there are particular tactics you could probably employ. That would be pushing this bill through as quickly as possible and then voting against it. If you are in a minority position, then arguably you would be able to have the support of your three parties to be able to vote it down, based on very succinct and well-established precedents in Parliament in the recognition of aboriginal treaty rights.

But if you're asking me, I don't know. I've never contemplated that before. I can't necessarily say that on the one hand I should like to see some amendments so that I agree with this process. I specifically spoke in front of you guys before with FNGA because I wanted it on the record that Norway House was not involved in that process, that Norway House was not agreeing to that process. I think that's really important.

That's why I'm here today, because Norway House is not agreeing with this process. It's a parliamentary process. As with Chief Balfour ten years ago, you supported Bill C-44 and you suggested some amendments. So what's so wrong about doing whatever may be up someone's sleeve ten years from now, right? It sets a very dangerous precedent for me, as chief of Norway House Cree Nation, to be able to say I support a bill that I think doesn't meet the criteria and respect my people.

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

Thank you for being here. I was not sleeping; I can assure you that I was listening to what you were saying quite attentively. Grand Chief, I wish to welcome you, and especially the aboriginal women from your six nations, who are here with you today. I had the opportunity and honour of meeting these ladies this week. Welcome to the committee.

Chief Balfour, I'm also very pleased to meet you and to understand your position. I've taken notes. I practised as a lawyer, you see. I have only one question, and I'd like an answer. You may take all the time you need.

We are in a minority government. Across the way, are the Conservatives. On this side, members come from the Liberal, Bloc and NDP parties. We are considering Bill C-44. We can propose significant amendments. My colleague, Mr. Merasty, has described the amendments quite eloquently. I will not go over them again, but I believe that we are heading down that track.

Would you be willing to run the risk of having us suspend the committee's work so that we can hold adequate consultations? This may take between six months to one year, and there's a possibility of an election. This is an entirely far-fetched hypothesis, but it is possible that the Conservatives will form a majority government, that they will once again table the bill and adopt it without any consultation. Or rather, would you prefer that we make the amendments that you have proposed, Grand Chief General?

I've read your submission. I would like to know your position. What do you really want? Now is the time to say so. I can assure you that I do not consider that the work of this committee constitutes the type of consultation referred to in the Supreme Court's rulings regarding Bill C-44. I know, and we all know what a true consultation should be. I would like to hear your comments on this matter.

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to thank you for your presentations here today. I think they were done extremely well, and you were very analytical in the way you presented them.

I've heard many different views from the aboriginal community on Bill C-44 and on human rights. I respect Chief Balfour for his comments that sometimes we have to split the repeal itself apart from the act, because they are two different things. You said you'd support the repeal, but not necessarily the act, and I think that's a very valid and worthwhile statement. From what I've heard over the last number of months with this issue, there is tremendous support for human rights issues and so on.

Now, in 1985 the Conservative government--at the time, of course--rushed into an amendment to the Indian Act, the tinkering you talk about, Chief Balfour, and ended up with Bill C-31. It was rushed. It was done in the name of protecting women. I think at the time the Conservative government believed it was the right thing to do. I hope there weren't any alternative motives; I don't think there were. However, Bill C-31 ended up being much more discriminatory and is actually more unfair to women and children in many respects, and many studies have said it will lead to there being no status Indian people within a few decades. So it was a very problematic piece of legislation that was rushed into in the name of ideology.

Today, in 2007, we see the same rushing into Bill C-44. It's rushed. Again, it's in the name of protecting women and children. I truly believe that my colleagues across believe this is the right thing to do. In many respects I agree, because we need to do some work in this area.

Women's groups, other aboriginal organizations, witnesses have appeared before this committee and have expressed their concerns. I want to summarize some of them.

Very logically, as you've presented this morning, we've heard people talk about the need for an interpretive clause, a non-derogation clause or a notwithstanding clause; a longer transition period than what is currently allowed; a more detailed impact analysis done from a legal perspective, because this will have consequences on other legislation as we move forward, including the Indian Act itself; and analysis of the balance on the collective rights of our people, treaty rights and aboriginal title, and so on.

Now, these arguments and these positions sound fair to me. I have not heard anybody say we're against human rights, and I think it's important to state that if you're against Bill C-44--I'm repeating again what was said here--you're not against human rights. That is an unfair painting of people who speak to concerns about Bill C-44.

I've also heard some concerns that the Conservatives have said that this process is consultation. I don't know if it is, because consultation usually occurs before a bill is drafted and worded and so on.

In essence, all these concerns fall under two umbrellas, as I look at it. The first umbrella assumes that we scrap the bill and that the government immediately engage in consultation to address this gap in the provision of human rights, balanced against all other issues--the collective rights, the impact on the Indian Act, all these other things--so that we can begin to address this fairly and reasonably.

The other bunch of concerns fall under the assumption that if the bill is not scrapped, then we need a longer transition period, we need more study, we need the non-derogation or interpretive clause, and so on.

I'm hearing from people out there that there's support, but that Bill C-44 is not the vehicle to get us there. Is that a fair statement? What do you think of what I've laid out here?

I don't know who wants to start first.

[Chief David General, Six Nations of the Grand River]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen of this esteemed committee, sekoh, sge:no. Sekoh is Mohawk for hello. Sge:no is Cayuga for hello.

I first want to acknowledge the Algonquin Nation, on whose territory we are meeting today for a very valuable discussion about nations, and this discussion of human rights falls right into the whole discussion of nationhood.

We have provided a short background on Six Nations in our formal brief, which we have tabled with the clerk. I want to start this presentation by stating clearly that this presentation and our participation in this committee process is not to be taken or referred to as consultation. There has been no consultation on this current bill, which I will speak about later. I'm referring to the fact that there have been no formal discussions with Six Nations of the Grand River on this particular topic.

The passage of the proposed Bill C-44 will once again be an imposition of an external law on our community, which is a violation of our treaty relationship with the Crown in Canada. Canada was peacefully settled because of the treaties with first nations and the treaty relationship that followed. These are solemn agreements viewed by many first nations as sacred.

It should be noted that none of the treaties before current day examples ever mentioned the rights of self-government. This is not something that we ever negotiated. It continues to this day. Let me be clear on that point. We still consider ourselves governing bodies of those we are responsible for.

Six Nations has one of the oldest treaties with the Crown in North America, called the Kahswentha, the Two-Row Wampum treaty. This treaty recognizes the equal but separate status of our respective governments and forms the basis of our current relationship. It means our governments and nations are equals. The Two-Row Wampum treaty means that in the same way as the two rows do not intersect, our respective governments also agree not to interfere with each other. Human rights is a jurisdiction of Six Nations. Six Nations has the inherent right to self-government, and only Six Nations is best placed to balance the rights of individuals with the collective rights of our citizens.

We are proposing that any legislation would recognize first nations jurisdiction in this area and would only be in place until first nations enact their own human rights legislation codes. It is important to state that any new federal legislation that has the potential to affect our aboriginal and/or treaty rights may trigger the duty to consult, accommodate, and obtain our consent. This duty is recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. However, it is also a pre-existing duty based on our treaty relationships and alliances with the Crown as part of our Two-Row Wampum treaty. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that the honour of the Crown mandated the duty to consult with first nations, and the principle is grounded in the honour of the Crown, which is also at stake in its dealing with the aboriginal peoples.

The federal government's duty to consult has clearly not been met with Bill C-44. You have heard from sponsors of the bill that section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act has been discussed for 30 years. However, much has changed in that time including the relationships, history, and Canadian law. During that time a constitution has been enacted in Canada that protects the aboriginal and treaty rights of aboriginal peoples of Canada. The specific wording in this bill is different from previous attempts.

It may be true that previous governments consulted native organizations in the past in other attempts to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. However, the duty today is to consult the rights holders. This means that the government must consult with first nations communities represented by their governments, not with the aboriginal organizations. It means consultation must be held with over 133 first nation governments in Canada that will be affected by this legislation. Only Six Nations speaks for Six Nations. Consultation with anyone else claiming to represent us is invalid.

We submit that the consultation must be done before the legislation proceeds any further. A six-month delay in implementing the legislation will simply not do; the horse is already out of the barn. A six-month delay is meaningless if the ultimate result is the abrogation or violation of our constitutionally protected rights.

Any consultation must provide us with a full and informed analysis of potential impacts of this legislation. No one can say with any certainty what the impact of this legislation will be on our communities. Therefore, impact studies must be completed so that we have the best information available.

These studies must be completed before the legislation proceeds. This means that the timeframe for consultation must be increased to at least a year. We cannot see how the federal government could consult with 633 communities in a short timeframe. It also means resources must be provided to first nations so they can effectively participate. To be clear, consulting with first nations organizations will not meet the duty to consult.

Government sponsors of this bill have stated that any more delays in this legislation will lead to more human rights violations in first nations communities. Yet I would strongly argue that there is no pressing or immediate need for this legislation. The Canadian Human Rights Commission itself has cited only 20 examples per year of complaints amongst first nations. This is not a significant problem given the millions of first nations citizens across Canada.

The implementation and transition period provided in Bill C-44 must be extended. If it took the government 30 years to take action on this issue, surely they can take a few more to do it right.

It is important to note that when section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was passed, three years were given before implementation. First nations deserve the same treatment and timeframe, 36 months, for implementation and transition and to ensure a grave mistake is not made.

This extra time should be taken at the beginning of the process, and following consultation, the legislation must be amended to reflect the results of the consultation.

The Canadian Human Rights Act primarily deals with individual rights. Like other federal legislation, it was developed from the different systems of law, traditions, and history and reflects a world view not shared by first nations, with the emphasis on individual rights over collective rights. Our histories, customs, traditions, and rights are based on collective rights, and they are reflected in our unique cultures, practices, traditions, and languages.

To be clear, we are fully supportive of individual human rights, but they must be balanced with the collective rights of our communities, cultures, and societies. We want to ensure that this legislation will not affect or interfere with how our traditional governments function. This would not only be an injustice but contrary to the international documents that recognize and protect our rights to our culture, traditions, and practices.

No other governments or people have the right to impose their cultures and cultural imperatives on our nations and societies—again, ladies and gentlemen, that two-row concept.

Article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that persons belonging to ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities “shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language”. Indigenous people are numerically a minority, so the rights of minorities apply to us. However, it is important to emphasize that we have the legal status of people...and the right to self-determination under international law. It is the obligation of the federal government, under international law, to respect and protect article 27 rights.

Six Nations is also concerned that non-supportive groups and organizations hostile to first nations rights could use the Canadian Human Rights Act to challenge existing first nations specific programs and services, such as education, housing, and tax exemption, etc., based on discrimination against non-Indians. If successful, this could unravel the entire basis of the social programming among first nations communities and create more poverty among first nations communities. I'm sure this is not the intent of this bill. This would impose a levelling agenda of the white paper of 1996.

This speaks to the need for both the interpretative clause and a non-derogation clause in the legislation that will balance individual rights and collective rights and protect the treaty and aboriginal rights of first nations. All first nations must be able to continue to provide first-nations-specific programs and services to their citizens without being charged with discrimination by outside interests.

The proposed legislation would impose unfunded, unforeseen, and potentially massive costs on all first nation governments. First nation governments will be required to participate in expensive tribunals. The current funding base is totally inadequate, and we've been subjected to a 2% funding cap, in place since the early 1990s. It is impossible to know the short- and the long-term impacts. However, we do know Six Nations does not have the existing resources to respond to potentially major costs resulting from this legislation.

For example, it is likely that the disabled or handicapped citizens will be the first to come forward and lodge complaints for the lack of accessibility to our facilities, yet we have never been adequately funded and we do not have the resources to make our facilities accessible to the handicapped. This is a very real example of where resources for first nations will be required immediately. Training in the entire process will be necessary. When you factor in 633 first nations communities, you can see it will take a much longer time than the six months' transition timeframe proposed.

The federal government has stated that international pressure led it to this action now, and we find it indeed ironic that the government, which is attempting to portray itself as the champion of human rights, is currently blocking the approval of the United Nations draft declaration on the rights of indigenous people.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, the former Canadian Supreme Court judge, stated she does not understand why Canada has such a problem with the declaration. As a former Supreme Court judge, she sees no threat to Canada in the declaration, and she has said so to the Government of Canada. Perhaps this committee could persuade Canada, at a later date, to stop their hypocrisy and withdraw their opposition to the United Nations draft declaration, which is simply attempting to protect the international human rights of indigenous people.

Six Nations also is concerned with indigenous human rights and reminds Canada and this committee that human rights include the rights to safe water and adequate, decent housing; the rights to be employed, to clean air, and to good health; the right to culturally appropriate education, and the right to raise our children in their own first nations culture and language.

That concludes my comments to the committee today. I look forward to any questions you may have. From our territory, I say niawen ko:wa, which roughly translates into a big thank you.

Niawen ko:wa.

[Chief Marcel Balfour]

Okay. I won't go faster, but I'll cut out a lot.

My people have expressed fear with regard to Bill C-44. As I said, the small working group I had and I discussed this--for on-reserve only, never mind my off-reserve members--and some members of the band expressed fear that they might be excluded from housing on-reserve. Others expressed concern that the band might have to start providing services such as health care for people off the reserve. Other band members stated that they did not understand or know what the Human Rights Act is or what available remedies there are. Others were worried that the implementation of Bill C-44 would diminish our treaty and aboriginal rights, and others felt that it was leading to further assimilation.

I should like to perhaps just quickly identify three areas that I've thought about but I haven't really.... I sat down to present this, but I haven't thought about everything.

One of the ideas with respect to this particular bill--or an approach to a bill, if you wish to proceed on it at another time when there's actually consultation with those who are on-reserve who will be affected as well as those off-reserve and bands-- is maybe a first nations notwithstanding clause.

Now, I know you've listened to a number of presentations, and they're well considered. Certainly from AFN there was some good analysis.

The provision of a notwithstanding clause in the CHRA itself would allow first nations to override the equality protections of the CHRA, but of course such a clause would rather obviously require careful wording and might be objectionable in the eyes of many.

While the notwithstanding clause is controversial, history has shown us that its existence has not provided an insurmountable barrier to the protection of human rights in Canada. Federal and provincial governments have this, so why don't first nation governments have this?

The second consideration, another option that might be considered, would be a saving or justification clause serving a function similar to section 1 of the charter, that would allow restrictions on CHRA rights by first nations to the extent that such restrictions are demonstrably justified. There are a number of things of course that need to be considered. The wording would definitely have to be well thought out, and again, consultation would definitely be a key on this.

And third, as presented by AFN--and we are cautiously thinking about this--is an independent first nation mechanism, which of course leads to what we can actually do ourselves.

I look forward to questions, and I'm sorry for taking so much time and speeding along at too fast a pace at the beginning.

Thank you.

[Chief Marcel Balfour]

While Bill C-44, perhaps admirably, increases protection of equality of rights for aboriginal people under the Canadian Human Rights Act, it does not address the question of balance between individual equality rights and protection of other individual human rights. This a central consideration that I think you've been hearing a lot about from other witnesses.

I guess when I take a look at this, it's informed also from an international perspective. Looking at the international context, one might cite from an equality perspective articles 2 and 3 of the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These provisions, which are often cited as being violated by section 67, protect individual equality rights by requiring states to ensure to all individuals within their territory and subject to their jurisdiction the rights recognized in the covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, sex, colour, or religion, and requiring states to provide remedies for violations. However, at the same time, the covenant also provides that these individual equality rights may be limited to protect the existence of the states, i.e. the collectivity, for example, in cases of public emergency as set out in article 4.

Further, and quite significantly for first nations, article 1 of the covenant sets out important collective rights, namely, that all peoples have the right of self-determination, and that by virtue of that right, they may freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social, and cultural development.

The Canadian Constitution, within the Canadian context, also recognizes the importance of individual rights, including individual equality rights and collective rights. You've heard analysis on section 15. From a broader perspective it also, of course, protects collective rights. The charter, though, does not limit the protection of human rights protected therein to individual equality rights. In direct reference to collective rights, the charter recognizes and protects, in addition to the collective rights of first nations, collective rights of linguistic communities with regard to the official languages of Canada.

For example, the charter recognizes that members of English or French linguistic minorities have the right to have, in certain circumstances, their children educated in their own official language. In this connection, the collective rights afforded to the English and French language communities in New Brunswick are particularly striking.

Sections 16 and 16.1 of the charter specifically recognize that the English linguistic community and the French linguistic community in New Brunswick have equality of status and equal rights and privileges, including the right to distinct educational institutions and such distinct cultural institutions as are necessary for the preservation and promotion of those communities.

While I recognize that there are limitations to any analogy that may be drawn with the situation of Canada's first nations, I believe that the wording in the charter with regard to New Brunswick's linguistic communities provides an interesting example of the important role of collective rights.

Similarly, one must also consider that the charter, as well as the Indian Act, mandate that first nations be empowered to take action to preserve their existence, identity and culture of their communities.

When I take a look at this, I think there might be a tendency to characterize opponents of Bill C-44, if there are any, in its current form as being anti-human rights. But that's not where I think this argument is coming from, or where I'm coming from at all. The diversity of rights protected in both the charter and international instruments demonstrates that the concept of human rights extends far beyond the equality of rights promoted by Bill C-44. Given the broad spectrum of human rights recognized in both Canadian and international law, as well as the recognition that equality of rights also can apply on a collective basis, I think that characterizing Bill C-44 as pro-human rights versus anti-human rights is both counterproductive and misleading.

Secondly--and I believe this point to go to the heart of many of my reservations about Bill C-44 in its current form--the broad concept of human rights also recognizes rights of the collectivity, and that collective human rights and individual rights must be reconciled.

While I do not want to address the various pros and cons of the Indian Act--and I find it kind of funny because the last time I was here I was speaking on the FNGA and we were talking about, “Don't tinker with the Indian Act” --it's kind of ironic that we are actually promoting an application of human rights law on race-based legislation. In effect, what we're doing is tinkering with the Indian Act.

So if I say yes to this, it means I say to the Indian Act, and I can't. It's just an untenable position I find myself in as chief.

There are at least areas recognized in the Indian Act as well as the charter that are exercised by bands with a view for protecting culture, language, and welfare, and there are specific powers within the act as well. And of course you know this already. There are always problems with the Indian Act in terms of bylaw-making power, and land designation, and the role of the minister. There is something there, weak as it is.

[Chief Marcel Balfour, Norway House Cree Nation]

Thank you.

I regret that I don't have a presentation for you. I pulled this together at the last minute, and hopefully I will be able to highlight some of my speaking notes here and provide you a copy later.

Tansi, distinguished members of the committee. My name is Marcel Balfour. I am the chief of Norway House Cree Nation, or what would be referred to under the Indian Act or Treaty 5 as the Norway House Band of Indians. We are located on the Norway House Indian Reserve, or on the Norway House Cree Nation reserve land, which is located in mid-north Manitoba, about 850 kilometres north of Winnipeg. We have a population of over 6,000 people now, with about 4,500 living on-reserve and about 1,600 living off-reserve.

Over time, we have been referred to by many as one of the more progressive first nations in Manitoba.

By way of background, I was elected chief in March 2006, and from 2002 to 2006 I was elected Norway House Cree Nation councillor. From that experience, I have a personal understanding of human rights on reserve, or the lack thereof, because during my term in office, I had to go to court to be able to carry out some of my elected duties.

In February 2006, the Federal Court found that I was subject to influence peddling and blackmail by the then chief and some of my fellow members on the council. The Federal Court also noted that the rule of law was not being followed in Norway House. Luckily, with time things changed, and some members of my council and I have remain committed to human rights, to ensuring accountability for the spending of band funds, and to protecting aboriginal and treaty rights.

It is within this context that I have both concern and measured enthusiasm regarding the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, as set out in Bill C-44. In my presentation, I should like to first deal briefly with human rights and aboriginal and treaty rights; second, identify the need to balance individual and collective rights; third, share with you some concerns identified by my people in Norway House on reserve, when we met to discuss Bill C-44; and finally, identify some possible avenues to address the shortfalls of the bill.

I should like to encourage the efforts of Canada’s current government to further human rights for Indians and bands of Indians, as defined under the Indian Act. It is well known that section 67, enacted in 1977, was originally intended as a temporary measure. I believe it is long past due to address the inequalities imposed by section 67.

Unfortunately, however, over time with respect to this issue, things have not changed much for Norway House. For the last 30 years, there has been no consultation with the Norway House Cree Nation, neither with the Norway House Band of Indians nor with individual Norway House Band members. This includes not working together with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the federal government, the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, the Assembly of First Nations, NWAC, or any other aboriginal organization that has been talking to you or working on this particular issue.

I find that I'm being pressed here to present on something that has been looked at over the years and is something that really needs to go forward. I believe the Canadian Human Rights Commission presented to you and asked, why is the repeal so urgent? They were saying that it's long overdue. I would say, why is it so urgent now? I haven't had a chance to take a look at this stuff. This legislative agenda is extremely fast for me as a chief, but also for my band. Ironically, we have not been informed or consulted.

I asked the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Indian and Northern Affairs to please come and do a presentation at Norway House, at least to inform my people as to what's going on. Both said they didn't have enough resources to be able to do that. Luckily, I had the benefit of a technician who came from the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs to try to explain what's going on here, which was really hard to do.

When I had that session—and it was only last week—we had 30 people discuss it. I kind of forced my staff to attend, because I knew people probably wouldn't be too interested. Of the 30 members of my band on reserve, 17 of them are women and 13 are men. It became clear to me that I should present to you that while a repeal of section 67 is supported, Bill C-44 is not.

Both the CHRA and the implications of Bill C-44 are not necessarily well understood by my people, who have not been consulted. I would wholeheartedly agree with the revocation of section 67, but I cannot support the bill.

My rationale for this position is based on two interrelated factors: my belief in the fundamental importance of human rights, aboriginal rights, and treaty rights, and the crucial role of consultation in the democratic process.

Canada’s first nations, both individual Indians and Indian bands, who are living under the Indian Act have their own long-standing customs of governance, many of which pre-date those of Canada itself, and which have traditionally provided an harmonious balancing of both the collective human rights of the community and the human rights of the individual.

I go further in my presentation, but I think I could probably address the issues more appropriately in questions and answers, because I'm sure you've heard them before from other presenters.

The way I look at this, the CHRA, in its current form, embodies an essentially western or Euro-American notion of one aspect of individual human rights, notably, equality rights, and western or Euro-American remedies and dispute resolution mechanisms to ensure protection of those rights. The CHRA offers little with regard to protection of other human rights, whether collective or individual, of the community, such as constitutionally protected treaty rights and inherent aboriginal rights.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I open the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development of Thursday, May 10, 2007.

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

We'll be going for three hours. We have two panels, so we'll deal with the first panel of witnesses now.

From the Norway House Cree Nation, we have Chief Marcel Balfour. From the Six Nations of the Grand River, we have Chief David General, and Richard C. Powless, consultant.

Welcome, witnesses. Thank you very much.

We'll be asking for a presentation of 10 minutes from each of the representatives. Then we'll be asking questions.

I apologize for the delay.

Mr. Balfour, do you want to begin?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

The committee that is waiting for the use of this room is the committee on aboriginal affairs. It is considering legislation, Bill C-44.

Consequently, it seems to me that I have to give priority to that committee. So what we will do is suspend this meeting and look for another room in which to consider carrying on our debate.

I ask all members to hang around until such time as we see whether the clerk can find us another committee room.

I apologize to the members of the other committee that we interrupted their meeting.

Thank you for bringing that to my attention.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, clearly the member is very ashamed. For 13 years, her party had the opportunity to remedy so many of the issues about which she is talking. At the last moment of their dying regime, the Liberals brought forward their press release on Kelowna. Of course it was not something on which they could deliver. Of course it was something that they never intended to deliver. They made so many promises before that and they always broke them.

We are moving forward. We are making systemic changes, changes that will bring important new rights to aboriginal people. Specifically, I talk about Bill C-44. It would be nice if the member would perhaps bring her party to support human rights on reserve. Instead, she is exiting the House, afraid.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am so glad that the parliamentary secretary mentioned the $65 million commitment that the past Liberal government made to aboriginal youth suicide. Indeed, on the issue of suicide, if we look at international studies, the single most key factor in terms of health and well-being for any people is self-determination.

Self-determination is the key. As the government moves forward, it has refused to work in a conciliatory fashion. This was reflected in the Kelowna accord, which it has absolutely dismissed, and also reflected in the past government's commitment to first nations in the first nations-federal Crown political accord. Recognition and implementation of first nations governance is the key.

In fact, when we speak about matrimonial real property, there is no consultation. First nations women have voiced emphatically that they are against this. Bill C-44 does not include consultation. We know there is a duty to consult.

Regarding the $6 million family violence strategy that he talks about, I would like to say that I have one shelter for first nation women in my riding which has not received one phone call, not one response regarding this money. It receives about 27% of the funding that the provincial program would receive, so--

[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 find it remarkable, coming from the hon. member opposite, to hear her speak about the current government's ways and means for dealing with first nations people when really, truly, she knows that we inherited the shameful situation from the party that she represents.

I have to speak proudly of our record on aboriginal affairs. We are very much committed to moving forward where her party did not.

As recently as April 27, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development announced a new partnership approach involving the province of Alberta and Alberta first nations, with the implementation of the Alberta response model.

This approach will explore healthier alternatives such as enhanced prevention services to addressing child and family services in first nation communities in Alberta, children holding such tremendous potential for the future of first nations communities. It is essential that we continue to work together to ensure that children enjoy a safe, secure home environment.

On the national stage, we are working with first nations organizations, first nations child and family services agencies, and provincial and territorial leaders to design the first nations child and family services program.

Furthermore, last fall we provided an additional $6 million to the family violence protection 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 well-being, Canada's new government has committed $65 million to the aboriginal youth suicide prevention strategy.

In the area of first nation education, we have made major progress. In December of last year, this House passed historic legislation, at the centre of which is 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 will also offer a model for improvements to first nation education in other provinces.

We know that education is the foundation for social and economic progress. It is in this area that first nations communities and new investments can truly make a real difference. We recently announced the investment of more than $50 million in school infrastructure projects in first nation communities across Canada.

There are some initiatives and systemic reforms that directly benefit first nations children, but this government recognizes that children are also affected in one way or another by the pressures that are facing their families and their communities.

It is for this reason Canada's new government recognizes that the need to act on wider issues can have a real impact on day to day life, so 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, or MRP.

Bill C-44, introduced last December, proposes to repeal section 67. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development intends to bring forward legislation to resolve the difficult question of matrimonial real property.

Where the Liberals delayed and dithered, making empty promise after empty promise, there can be no question that this government is acting vigorously and in partnership with first nations, Inuit and Métis to build a better today and a brighter tomorrow for aboriginal children in Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

That's great.

We have finished the round of questioning. I want to thank the witnesses very much for being here today, for informing the committee on your views and for giving us some insights into other areas having to do with Bill C-44. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

So that's two years after a Supreme Court decision came down. I use it as a point, when people say sometimes the transition period is too short or...well, some people say it's too long if we go to 36 months. You know, it takes time for communities to adjust, once you repeal a law or bring in a law. I simply use that as a point, that the government itself doesn't even have its own vision of consultation down, but then it demands of aboriginal people to define what their vision of adequate consultation is.

I think there needs to be some coming together of that.

I would like to ask Mr. Schulze a question. The government has said, “Well, we don't need this sort of non-derogation clause, or we may not even need this interpretive clause, because people can always appeal to section 35 of the Constitution.” They're referring to the existing aboriginal treaty rights and that type of thing, subsections 35(1) and 35(2), but the government has fought every single one of those in court. Every time an aboriginal group or individual has brought an action based on section 35 rights, the government has fought that. It has usually taken 10 years, on average, at the cost of millions of dollars.

How do you see section 35 as part of this whole debate around Bill C-44?

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

I will wait until Ms. Archibald comes back before asking my next question. I will give her time to get her coffee. I feel that I ought to wait, because I have an excellent question for her, and for you, Chief Beaucage. Take the time you need, Ms. Archibald. It's an important question.

I have two very specific questions for the two chiefs that are here with us today. Our committee also feels that a minimum transition period is required. In my opinion, the time frame needs to be extended to 36 months. We should have both an interpretive clause and a non-derogation clause.

That being said, would you be prepared to ask us to suspend our study of Bill C-44 until your communities have been directly consulted?

Secondly, could you explain in your own words what you understand by satisfactory consultation with your communities?

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

As a representative of the Quebec Bar, would you be prepared to recommend that we suspend our study on Bill C-44 and come back to it later after having evaluated how it would impact first nations, or would you prefer that we continue our study, but introduce your amendments?

[Grand Council Chief John Beaucage]

Thank you very much.

The thoughts on that are quite complex and probably go back many years, as to what band councils have to do to set policies and procedures in their communities for housing, post-secondary education, and any of the services that are provided to their members. All of these policies have been developed over the years to look after traditional customs and processes, and not to take into account the specific aspects of human rights legislation. They look at a local community dispute resolution process.

If there were opportunities for band members to dispute decisions made by the band council, say for housing, where there are not enough resources to look after all of the housing that most communities require.... You may have a situation where a band council chooses one family over another, for whatever reason. The family that doesn't get a house says their human rights are being violated. It might occur dozens of times in many communities. Maybe there is a good reason for the decision, but the basic thing is that we don't have the resources and a decision has to be made.

The same could be said for post-secondary education. There isn't enough money for post-secondary education, so band councils have to decide who gets it and who doesn't. The people who don't get it say their human rights to education are being violated. This can be multiplied in community after community.

I mentioned having our own human rights legislation. If we have our own local dispute resolution process, rather than going to a human rights commission or a court of law outside of the communities, these disputes can be looked after within the community context and at the local level where there's understanding by elders, by community people. These disputes can be worked on in a community milieu where everybody understands what's going on.

As we look at communities that have too few resources and too much demand on community services, there could be concepts of human rights violations in many different aspects. I think our community members, our community administration people, need to understand what a human rights violation is and what it isn't in the context of Bill C-44. We also need to have the resources to make sure we can look after it.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you.

Grand Chief Beaucage, I wonder if you can also give us your thoughts on the impact of Bill C-44 in your communities.

My other question is to the Quebec Bar Association. When members of the Indigenous Bar Association were here they raised a number of concerns. One overriding concern was that this piece of legislation was the beginning of the dismantling of the Indian Act by chipping away at it. I welcome your comments on that.

On the occupational requirements provision of the Human Rights Act, sections 15 and 16, the special programs provision, one member said:

I think there's some doubt that those provisions would be adequate to address the kinds of balancing that would be required to recognize the specific historical and constitutional place that first nations occupy within the Canadian legal framework.

I wonder if you can comment on that as well.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Thank you very much.

I have questions for everybody, but I'll start with you, Deputy Chief Archibald.

When you outlined the seven teachings, you talked about respect. You talked about being given the opportunity and the forum to explore how it will affect your lives.

We heard when the department was here that no impact analysis had been done on it. I wonder if you could elaborate on how you anticipate Bill C-44 might affect your lives, or the lives of your communities.

[David Schulze]

Thank you, Ms. Dufour.

I will give my presentation in French, but I will be pleased to answer your answers in either English or French, depending on the language of the question. You should all have received the letter on Bill C-44 signed by the President of the Quebec Bar.

Before I start, I simply want to make it clear that I will be speaking on behalf of the Bar and not any clients I represent in my law practice.

[Deputy Grand Chief RoseAnne Archibald, Nishnawbe Aski Nation]

Thank you, committee members, for the opportunity to make this presentation today. I'd like to say some of my introductory remarks in my own language.

[Witness speaks in Cree]

What I said in Cree was greetings to all of you. My name is RoseAnne Archibald. I'm from a community called Taykwa Tagamou, formerly known as New Post. I'm here to say a few words because our Grand Chief, Stan Beardy, was unable to make it to the committee today.

I feel it is important to speak some words in my own language, ininimoyan, as my presentation has more to do with linking the human rights issue with the natural laws and teachings of our people.

First let me reiterate that the 49-member first nations that belong to Nishnawbe Aski Nation honour the human rights of every citizen and have continually fought for social justice, individual rights, and the collective rights of our first nations citizens.

This standing committee has undoubtedly heard many presentations on Bill C-44 that have highlighted the need for proper consultation, or how we must balance individual and collective rights, or the need to protect women's rights, or the impact of this proposed legislation on first nations jurisdiction and self-government.

At Nishnawbe Aski Nation, we concur with other first nations and aboriginal organizations on these matters. Further, Grand Chief Stan Beardy has expressed support in principle for the repeal of section 67, as long as it becomes a means to gain access to universal rights that will in turn vastly improve the socio-economic conditions of our first nations.

So why aren't all first nations embracing the proposed legislation? The introduction of Bill C-44 insinuates that an external law is required to force first nations to honour the human rights of its own citizens. No such force is required because, first, we have a deep desire to improve the circumstances of our communities, and second, we have our own teachings to guide us in relation to human rights.

I want to talk briefly about the seven grandfather teachings, or the seven sacred teachings, as they relate specifically to Bill C-44. The seven sacred teachings form the principles upon what could be described as our own human rights code. The seven sacred teachings are: wisdom, truth, humility, bravery, honesty, love, and respect. Healthy and harmonious individuals, families, and communities are a natural result when individuals and groups follow the standards of behaviour as outlined in the seven sacred teachings.

Due to the limited time given for my presentation, I will highlight three main teachings as they relate to Bill C-44: wisdom, honesty, and respect.

Wisdom is about more than only acquiring knowledge. It is the proper use of knowledge to gain deeper insight and understanding of the world around us. Through our own wisdom, we can pass these teachings on to the next generations so that they can survive and thrive. One measure of wisdom is to reach your highest human potential by living a good life. When there is a proper consultation with first nations, we will have shared knowledge to make wise decisions on Bill C-44. To have real insight into human rights issues for first nations people, we must ask ourselves, “What are the real barriers to achieving justice and human rights for first nations people in Canada?” The answers will reveal more complex solutions than simply repealing one section of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Wisdom and insight can only be achieved through the thorough examination of Bill C-44. Moreover, rushing first nations through a six-month consultation/implementation process is not only unwise, it is unfair.

Honesty is more than simply speaking truth. It is embracing each person based on their true nature rather than projecting our own expectations onto them. It is a test of vulnerability that is achieved through our forthright acceptance of self and others. To honestly embrace who you truly are leads to a life of integrity.

For our people, we must honestly tell you that we will never be like everybody else in Canada. Our core values as nations, as Mushkegowuk, Ininew, or Anishinabe, are built around themes of collaboration and the balance between collective and individual rights. Despite your efforts to colonize and assimilate our people, we remain a society that, at our very best moments, understands our spiritual connection to everything; therefore, we will always place the well being of others equally to individuals. We must respectfully move forward with coexisting beliefs, which may mean modifying the current trajectory of your government in relation to Bill C-44.

The third sacred teaching I want to touch on is respect. Respect comes from within and it is always earned. When we conduct ourselves with dignity, we earn respect and goodwill in all of our relationships. Actively listening to others leads to respect. Respect and the golden rule are linked: treat others as you want them to treat you. In order to gain the respect of first nations peoples, we must be given the opportunity and forum to explore how Bill C-44 may affect our lives and our future generations.

Goodwill can be achieved between first nations and your government by actively listening to each other's concerns. As previously mentioned, social justice and human rights for our people are equally high priorities for our leadership. Let's be productive by cooperating to find comprehensive solutions to human rights issues. Through respect we can create an environment of trust where we can find common ground on our shared goal of a just society for first nations.

In conclusion, I respectfully request and recommend that we use the seven sacred teachings as the basis for future discussions on Bill C-44 and for all matters related to human rights.

Gitchi-Meegwetch. Thank you.

[Grand Council Chief John Beaucage, Anishinabek Nation - Union of Ontario Indians]

Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here.

I'd like to start out first by saying that the Union of Ontario Indians, the Anishinabek Nation, supports the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. There is a process that we must follow. Overall, we don't support the timeframe or some of the aspects of Bill C-44, in that it doesn't protect some of the aboriginal and treaty rights in a way that we would like to see done, in terms of the collective and individual interests of first nations. It fails to provide first nations with the capacity and training dollars to make sure that the implementation of Bill C-44 is carried out in a way that looks after some of our traditional and customary aspects of community life. We would also look at having a non-abrogation and a non-derogation clause included in Bill C-44. That would actually provide greater certainty for aboriginal and treaty rights, but then we would want an interpretive clause as well on the individual and collective rights of first nations.

Overall, we would look into perhaps going further than what Bill C-44 is purporting in terms of a first nations human rights act, which goes even beyond what we have in Bill C-44, and something that we can call our own. It's something that we can go further with in terms of looking after customary and traditional aspects of our communities right across the country. We would look at taking Bill C-44 and maybe stretching it out beyond the six months, looking at maybe a 30-month phase-in. Part of the phase-in would be the development—and a consultation process to create our own first nations human rights act, which would be enforced or worked for by our own process within our own community context on a region-by-region basis.

I think that's something the committee probably has not heard yet, but I haven't seen all of the information you've had. I think it's something new, but it's also something that is somewhat exciting: having first nations jurisdiction and first nations buy-in to the entire process of making sure that human rights take a very high place within the context of law in Canada, aboriginal law, and first nations traditions and laws.

We would look at having this process ongoing after a three-year period. That's one of the other things I wanted to talk about as well: the six-month timeframe that's currently within Bill C-44 does not give us enough time to institute and train our people for the human rights legislation, nor are there any resources there to make sure we have the appropriate capacity to look after this change that is encompassed within Bill C-44. So we do need to have those resources available to us. We do need a little bit of extra time.

I think eventually we will need to move on towards a first nations human rights act and a first nations human rights commission. There will be a written presentation that will have a summary of a number of recommendations on Bill C-44, and also recommendations on a first nations human rights act in summary. That will be provided to the committee as soon as the document is translated.

I don't think I've taken my full five minutes, but I'd like to thank you all for listening.

Gitchi-Meegwetch.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Welcome to this meeting of Tuesday, May 8, 2007, of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Committee members, you have the mandate in front of you. We're continuing our study of C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Today as witnesses we have, from the Anishinabek Nation--Union of Ontario Indians, John Beaucage, grand council chief; from Barreau du Québec, we have David Schulze, a lawyer with Hutchins, Caron & Associés, and Nicole Dufour, a lawyer in the research and legislation service; and from the Nishnawbe Aski Nation, we have Deputy Grand Chief RoseAnne Archibald.

Welcome, witnesses.

We will begin with the presentation by Mr. Beaucage.

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, just last week the Minister of Indian Affairs made an important announcement in Alberta. It actually was about the Alberta model for child and family services, which looks into bringing about measures that go right to the heart of the problem in terms of prevention. It is a method that has been proven time and time again.

I would like to ask the member if perhaps she could get behind our efforts to actually bring human rights to first nations people on reserve through our Bill C-44.

[Chief Lawrence Paul]

I'm quite worried about the whole effect of this Bill C-44. I think it's going to have drastic effects on the community life of our first nations and our local governments.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[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?

[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.

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

Mr. Watson, please don't spend the entire morning repeating what the Minister said; I know what he said.

At the present time, the First Nations are saying that they will not be able to start implementing Bill C-44 in its current form overnight. According to them, that would lead to absolute chaos. When I asked them what we should do, they suggested adding an interpretive clause. You read it. Do you agree? Is the Department prepared to act on that? Is it prepared to talk about developing and incorporating an interpretive clause and a non-derogation clause?

My question is very specific—at least, I hope it is.

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

You're right; I think it would be better to go back to the question raised by my colleague earlier.

Mr. Watson, Mr. Ricard and Ms. Aubin, I would like to give you my own impressions. I am pleased to see you here at this stage in our consideration of Bill C-44. I have been comparing your comments to those made by witnesses who appeared previously, including the Indigenous Bar Association in Canada, and I see that we are dealing here with two completely different viewpoints.

On the one hand, departmental officials say they will have no trouble handling this. According to them, after 30 years working in this area, they have seen other such challenges. On the other hand, the Indigenous Bar Association quotes the words of Justice Muldoon of the Federal Court. I do not wish to make a mess of His Lordship's statement, but in the case in question, the title and title of which I've forgotten, the judge handed down a ruling in which he said that interpreting decisions made by the Human Rights Commission under the Canadian Human Rights Act was tantamount to assimilating Aboriginal people and shutting down the reserves. My description is rather harsh. However, that is what he meant and that is what we were told by people representing the Indigenous Bar Association.

I have to say that everything I've been hearing this morning seems very ambiguous. I would like you to provide some clarification. We need to know who is right and who is wrong. The people representing the Assembly of First Nations want there to be an interpretive clause, but representatives of the Human Rights Commission tell us that it would be possible to put a provision in the Bill that would define an interpretive clause, so as to have some warning of what is to come. The First Nations want a derogation clause.

What is your position this morning on the demands made by the Indigenous Bar Association and the Assembly of First Nations? Are they of no concern to you?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I'd like to open this Standing Committee of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development meeting of Thursday, April 26, 2007.

Committee members, you have the orders of the day before you. We're going to continue with the review of Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

With us today as witnesses from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development are Daniel Watson, senior assistant deputy minister, policy and strategy direction; and Daniel Ricard, director general, litigation management and resolution branch.

From the Department of Justice, we have Christine Aubin, counsel, operations and programs section, legal services unit.

Later, from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, we'll have Patrick Brazeau, national chief.

It was the desire of the subcommittee to bring these witnesses together at one time, so we won't have a break and we will use the time as best we can. I say this because I didn't want anybody to be concerned about the association between departmental officials and Mr. Brazeau—just so you're aware of that.

We do not have an opening statement from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, nor from the Department of Justice, so we're going right into questioning.

Mr. Brazeau is going to be a little late; he said about 11:15 to 11:20. So if you want me to proceed this way, I'll let Mr. Brazeau make his statement when he arrives. Would that be acceptable to the committee, and then we can continue right through?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Good.

Thank you very much to the witnesses. You were very informative and very knowledgeable on the subject. We really do appreciate the insights to Bill C-44.

We'll suspend now for approximately two or three minutes.

[Christopher Devlin]

Once Bill C-44 is passed, section 67 is repealed, and no one is going to look at Bill C-44 ever again. Isn't that right?

Bill C-44 should be amended, in our primary submission, so that the interpretive provision is then put into the Human Rights Act.

[Christopher Devlin]

I'm sorry, I don't mean to mislead the committee. We are saying that Bill C-44 should be amended so that it in turn puts the interpretive provision into the Human Rights Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

The chair has a question. Would there be a possibility to put a justification clause in the Canadian Human Rights Act that would be sufficient to defeat any host of claims that would come from non-first nations people? Basically, instead of amending section 67 as we are with Bill C-44, could there be something in the Human Rights Act rather than an interpretation clause in Bill C-44?

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

Thanks, and I actually want to follow up on this. Again, I'm going to come back to this 2000 report. It's actually really interesting to me that we end up with this Bill C-44 without an interpretive clause provision, when it had been strongly recommended in a number of places, including this review back in 2000. They talk about the interpretive provision, and in it, in laying the groundwork for the reasons for an interpretive provision, they say:

We think that an interpretative provision should be added to the Act that requires the taking into account of Aboriginal community needs and aspirations in interpreting and applying rights and defences....

It goes on further to say:

This would supplement the bona fide justification argument, ensuring that it is properly adapted to the needs of Aboriginal government, without binding the Tribunal to any one interpretation. This is consistent with the Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People that requires that States take measures to assist Indigenous people to protect their cultures, languages and traditions.

Then they go on to make a very clear recommendation around the need for an interpretive clause. I think the challenge that many of us have is that most of us come from a Eurocentric background, where individual rights are paramount, and we keep bumping up against many indigenous people who have a very strong belief that collective rights are paramount, or at least need to be considered. I wonder if you've seen cases or examples, perhaps in other countries even, where that collective versus individual right has been balanced and taken into consideration. This seems to come to the core of what we're talking about.

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

We agree that the Indian Act is a yoke under which we have to live today. Attempts have been made in the past to modernize it, especially relating to governance, but there was a lot of resistance.

Trying to repeal the Indian Act would be a very ambitious project, considering the inherent difficulties. Do you think that the step-by-step approach underlying Bill C-44 is a good idea, since it would allow us to improve Aboriginal rights without attacking the Indian Act, which would call for a much more comprehensive approach? As a first step, should we try to eliminate the irritants of the Indian Act in order to move forward, slowly but surely?

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

Mr. Devlin, on page 2 of your report you express some concern about the cost of possible legal challenges resulting from Bill C-44.

I have been told that there are some communities that already come under the Canadian Human Rights Act and that this has not necessarily led to enormous legal costs for them. Do you have any information about that, based on the experience of those communities? I am told that the costs relating to the implementation of the Bill would not necessarily be high.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

You're over.

You covered a question I had. My question, though, is a little bit more on the amendment to C-44, which is amending section 67, which was the implications for the non-aboriginals on reserve land. Does that give them more opportunity to challenge the first nations governance as far as their rights to taxation with representation and those kinds of issues? Even so, the Indian Act is in place, but is the fact that they've been extended human rights going to have some implications on those rights for those people who are non-aboriginal on aboriginal reserves?

[Christopher Devlin]

Yes. Our primary submission on that point is that the interpretive provision should be inserted in Bill C-44. Of course, if that's not what happens, then we support a longer delay in the effect of the repeal so that an interpretive provision can then be developed through a consultation process and enacted separately.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for your presentation. I have a couple of things, probably more observations than anything.

In your submission, am I understanding that you would like an interpretive clause put in Bill C-44? The Human Rights Commission had recommended that we pass the legislation and then work with first nations groups to insert the clause after.

[Christopher Devlin]

First of all, as a minimum thing that ought to be done, we would support that, and we do support that the Canadian Human Rights Commission should work with first nations as part of a consultation process to assist in the development of the interpretive provisions and even in the non-derogation provision.

I think the larger issue is the timing of when that would happen. In our submissions, we suggested that should happen as Bill C-44 is passed, not after the passage of the act in a subsequent amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act. In our view, that work should happen, and we support that work happening with the commission. That work should happen now over the next period of time, and then Bill C-44 should be amended so that the interpretive provision can be added to the Canadian Human Rights Act so that we can address these issues all at once and not have to do it in two or three steps.

[Christopher Devlin]

That's correct, and this conclusion is found in the first paragraph on the last page of our submission.

Our submission is that Bill C-44 should be amended to include the non-derogation and interpretive provisions that we think should be the result of the next 18 to 30 months' worth of consultations and deliberations.

[Tamra Thomson, Director, Legislation and Law Reform, Canadian Bar Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, honourable members.

The Canadian Bar Association is very pleased to have the opportunity to appear before your committee today to address the very important issues reflected in Bill C-44.

The Canadian Bar Association is a national association. We represent over 37,000 lawyers across Canada. Our primary objectives include working toward improvement in the law and the administration of justice. It is in this optic that we developed the submission before you today.

I will ask Mr. Devlin to address the issues in the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We'll open this meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on Tuesday, April 24, 2007.

Committee members, you have the orders of the day before you. We are still working on Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Today we have witnesses from the Canadian Bar Association. We have Christopher Devlin, chair of the national aboriginal law section, and Tamra Thomson, director of legislation and law reform.

Welcome to the witnesses.

We'll have a presentation of around 10 minutes and then we'll be moving into questions.

Committee members, I would like to take a bit of time at the end of the meeting to talk about the two motions that have come forward from Madam Crowder and Madam Neville. I think we're going to deal with those on Thursday, but we'll talk about that.

Welcome. I'll allow you to begin now, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Okay. That's exactly what Mr. Albrecht has said. The chair just wants some clarification, and the chair fully agrees with the decision of the committee. So that's what we shall do; we just needed some direction on it.

Just to let you know, the budget for Bill C-44 was adopted, and we have the approval for the budget amounts to conduct this study or review this bill.

The other thing that was brought up for attention is that we advertised that the committee was dealing with Bill C-44 and was looking for people to have input via sending in briefs and comments. There's some question whether the way we advertised was sufficient to notify all interested parties. Somebody brought forward the possibility of expanding it and getting better coverage through Canada NewsWire. There's a cost to that of $1,000. What we did is simply put it into the press gallery. If they want to deal with it, they will. If they do not, they will just put it on the pile. And it's there on our website.

Does the committee wish to spend that $1,000 to put it on the Canadian wire service, just to make sure?

Mr. Lemay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Members, we need to deal with some committee business here. I'd like to go through it fairly quickly.

We had a notice of motion from Madam Crowder, but she is not here today. We'll postpone it.

The second item I have is that the clerk has received a brief, and the question has come up as to whether these briefs are confidential. I want a determination from the committee. If the briefs are sent in to the committee, are we going to treat them as confidential?

We advertised and asked for briefs to be sent in on Bill C-44 from anybody who wants to contribute information that they are not going to be here to give as witnesses. We received some briefs with some statements, I think, in the briefs that there was a concern that they wanted to keep that information confidential. And so the question came up whether or not we can do that as a committee.

As we are a public committee, is all the information we receive public? The second thing is, can we determine that we will receive these briefs maybe in camera so that they are not public?

I am looking for some direction.

Mr. Lemay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.

This has been very interesting and informative for the committee. We're looking forward to moving forward and doing what's best for aboriginal people with regard to Bill C-44. So thank you for your attendance.

I'm going to suspend for three minutes.

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

I don't think I'll be the only one to say that it should be stated in Bill C-44 that an interpretative clause has to be drafted. The question I'm asking you is very specific. How are you going to draft an interpretative clause in collaboration with the First Nations, when they've already developed one? That's what they want, and it's Appendix B of the brief that they have presented to us. Have discussions already started on that topic? It can take a long time to develop an interpretative clause.

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

Thank you very much for being here this morning.

I want to go further into collective rights versus individual rights, and also go back to the solution you have in your report about having a statutory statement that would then determine your mandate.

I'm a little uncomfortable with that, rather than having an interpretive clause right in the legislation, for a couple of reasons. One is that I think it's again putting off putting in the interpretative clause. Having the interpretative clause right in the legislation gives a comfort level, I think—for AFN, definitely, and for the people this legislation is going to affect.

The other part I'm not that comfortable with is that if you don't put an interpretive clause in the legislation itself, the balance is shifted in determining where you look at collective rights versus individual rights.

I know I'm not probably getting that point across properly. I'm just trying to figure out what words I could use.

If you don't put the interpretive clause in BillC-44, I'm worried that the balance is not going to be there. I'm worried that it's a shift to words interpreting collective rights versus individual rights more on the individual side; that it would not be in the middle is what I'm trying to say.

In all the discussions I've heard around the table, everyone is leaning, I think, towards individual rights trumping collective rights, only because they don't understand the impact and how important collective rights are to aboriginal people. That's the point I'm trying to make; that I don't think the balance is there, only because people don't understand what it really means in the life of an aboriginal person when collective rights are being talked about rather than individual rights.

Perhaps you can expand on that: my arguments that it should be right in the bill, versus the third option that you have before us.

[Jennifer Lynch, Chief Commisioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission]

Yes. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,

thank you for welcoming me here today.

Thank you for introducing my colleagues, Mr. Mayes.

As Canada's national human rights institution, it's important that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has a strong line of communication with Parliament, and that is why I am so pleased so early in my mandate—this is my third week as chief commissioner—to have an opportunity to appear before you to discuss as fundamental a human rights issue as the repeal of section 67.

I will focus today on five key areas, and these are as follows.

First is the commission's support for the repeal of section 67. The repeal of this section is long overdue. Its existence has real and negative impacts on people every day, and it must be repealed now. We are very encouraged by the introduction of Bill C-44 and we support its enactment as soon as possible.

Second, the commission submits that an interpretive provision should be created that will help to ensure the Canadian Human Rights Act is interpreted in a manner that appropriately considers and strikes a balance between individual rights and aboriginal community rights and interests.

Third, we submit the transitional period should be longer than the six months proposed in the legislation.

Fourth, we submit that both the commission and first nations need to be properly resourced to ensure successful implementation of repeal.

Fifth, I'd like to clarify the commission's broader mandate as a guardian of human rights.

Now I will expand on these five areas.

Point 1 concerns the urgency of repeal. Why is repeal so urgent? The Canadian Human Rights Act was enacted 30 years ago. The purpose of the act speaks powerfully to every Canadian. It reads:

2. The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, [...] to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.

The rights enshrined in the CHRA - the right to be free from discrimination and where discrimination occurs to have it redressed - are fundamental to our citizenship. In everyday life that means when a Canadian believes that a federally regulated employer did not hire him because of his race he can seek redress. It means when a person who uses a wheelchair is prevented from entering a building because there is no ramp she has a way of getting that barrier removed. It means when a woman is sexually harassed on the job she can have the matter considered by a competent body. It means that when a Canadian believes that federal legislation discriminates against him or people like him, he has a means of contesting the validity of that legislation.

Yet the Canadian Human Rights Act does not mean these things for any First Nations citizens. As a result of section 67, the Act and its noble purpose do not apply to them.

Repeal is urgent because 30 years is too long to wait for human rights. Yet First Nations people have been waiting that long to have their rights recognized. Because of 22 words tacked on to the very end of the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1977 they often have no means of having their human rights concerns addressed.

Section 67 has real and serious implications in their everyday lives. And the repeal of section 67 has the potential of positively affecting over 460,000 people in 600 communities. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has consistently called for the repeal of section 67. We are encouraged that, while there are differences on how to best accomplish repeal, the government, the members of your Committee, the AFN, NWAC and other stakeholders all support the Commission's opinion that section 67 must be repealed.

The second point I'd like to emphasize is the need for an interpretative provision. I'll go into some detail on it.

The need for an interpretive provision is one important area in which differences of view have been voiced. Bill C-44 is silent on this matter. With respect, we submit that it should not be silent.

First nations communities and people have a unique history and special status in the Canadian constitutional and legal system. Their existing aboriginal and treaty rights are affirmed in the Constitution, have been progressively confirmed by the courts, and are recognized by governments at all levels. An interpretative provision is, in our submission, imperative to give application to the inherent right to self-government and is fundamental to developing an appropriate system for first nations human rights redress. An interpretative provision would help to ensure that individual claims are considered in light of legitimate collective rights and interests.

While many agree on the need for an interpretative provision, there are differences on how this should be achieved. Some have suggested that an interpretative provision be added to Bill C-44. In our special report on section 67, called A Matter of Rights, the commission recommends that an interpretative provision be developed post-repeal, in dialogue with first nations, to allow for needed dialogue, analysis, and consideration to take place without unduly delaying repeal.

Today the commission would like to recommend a third solution that incorporates, in our mind, the best of both approaches. We propose that Bill C-44 be amended to provide for two clauses.

One would be a statutory statement of principle that would enshrine the principle that the Canadian Human Rights Act should be applied to first nations in a manner that appropriately balances individual rights and collective rights and interests.

Second would be a mandate to the commission to develop, through a process of dialogue with first nations and other stakeholders, the appropriate instrument for applying the statutory interpretative principle in the handling of human rights disputes. This could be accomplished by way of regulation, or perhaps by resort to the commission's statutory powers under subsection 27(2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Under subsection 27(2), the commission has the authority to enact guidelines on how the act should be applied with regard to a particular class or group of complaints.

What might be included in a statutory statement of principle? The statutory statement of principle should have as its objective a clear articulation of the desired balance, while not indirectly reinstituting the very effects that the repeal is intended to relieve. This is completely consistent with the recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Act review panel, which was led by former Supreme Court justice Gérard La Forest, and was included in their 2000 report, Promoting Equality: A New Vision.

Our third point for discussion is the length of the transition period. The length of the transition period is another issue on which differences of opinion have been expressed. The commission submits that six months is not sufficient time to allow first nations and the commission to properly prepare for repeal. The challenges of implementation are large, yet they are manageable. A significant amount of engagement and dialogue between first nations and the commission is desirable to manage the implementation.

This is not a simple matter of repealing it and seeing complaints flowing to the commission in the normal course. In modern conflict management approaches, strong complaint processes are important, yet they should be a remedy of last resort. Our legislation is consistent with this and encourages parties to a complaint to try to resolve their dispute within their own milieu before coming to the commission.

The need for local level systems to resolve conflict and provide redress of complaints is critical to the success of repeal. No matter how much the commission alters its procedures and processes to be responsive to the unique status and circumstances of first nations—and the commission intends to do just that—it will always be preferable to resolve human rights issues in the communities and workplaces where they occur, respecting their cultures. To allow this to happen, the commission and first nations must embark on an appreciative process of listening and learning, designing and building, and finally implementing and realizing a new first-nation-integrated human rights and conflict management system based on core principles that can be adapted to the needs of different communities, cultures, and traditions.

It is important to articulate that our vision is for much more than an internal complaints system. Formal dispute resolution, although important, should be a relatively small part of an overall system that would also embrace prevention and education. There is such enormous potential here to develop a whole system that starts with a dispute resolution structure providing multiple options for the resolution of disputes and is supported by other processes and practices that will shift the emphasis towards the front end—prevention of discrimination and education. The core principles to be developed should have as their goal the fostering of a culture that treats conflict resolution as a building block to creating inclusive and productive communities and workplaces.

By establishing integrated human rights and conflict management systems, first nation citizens will better understand their rights and how to realize them, first nation governments will better appreciate the rights they are mandated to promote and respect, and all parties will be able to work together to prevent discrimination and resolve human rights complaints.

First nations already have systems of dispute resolution, including traditional practices such as healing circles and community sanctioning. We honour and respect these practices. We have much to learn from first nations, and we will.

All of this will take time to realize; indeed, it will be an ongoing process. This is why the commission believes that a longer transition period is critical if we are to get this process off to a good start. We submit that this, in addition to the need for time to develop an interpretative provision, will require at a minimum 18 months, and would benefit from a period as long as 30 months.

Point 4 concerns resources. I would like to articulate clearly the imperative need of ensuring that both First Nations and the Commission have the resources needed to ensure that implementation is successful. No matter how well an interpretative provision is drafted or how long the transitional period is, implementation will not be successful without adequate resources to build needed capacity. Without that capacity, implementation may falter and this would bring the Canadian Human Rights Act into disrepute. No one wants this result.

First Nations have limited financial and human resources and have pressing problems they must address every day. At present many First Nations do not have the means to participate in the type of appreciative dialogue and collaborative problem-solving I have just discussed. Nor do they have the resources to develop internal redress and dispute resolution mechanisms. That is why the Commission welcomes Minister Prentice's statement to the committee that he would welcome the committee's views on the operational impact of repeal on First Nations communities.

The government has already indicated that resources will be provided to the Commission to carry out our expanded responsibilities when repeal proceeds. For this we are grateful. Should Parliament decide to expand the Commission's responsibilities beyond those in the current bill, we would of course want to discuss the resource implications of such changes with the government in order to ensure that we are adequately further resourced to carry out our responsibilities as mandated by Parliament.

Number five is the commission's mandate. Finally, I would like to clarify that the commission's statutory mandate goes well beyond the investigation and resolution of human rights complaints. The act makes the commission the guardian of human rights by giving the commission broad powers to ensure that human rights are effectively implemented in the federal jurisdiction.

As a statutory agency, independent of the government or other parties, the commission has and will continue to assert a leadership role in human rights by constantly encouraging all organizations under our purview to strive for excellence in the promotion and protection of the human rights of all Canadians in accordance with our act. It was in the exercise of this mandate that the commission issued A Matter of Rights in 2005 in order to bring to the attention of Canadians what the commission believes is a gaping hole in the fabric of our human rights protections.

In particular, section 27 provides that the commission may consider recommendations, suggestions, and requests concerning human rights and freedoms from any source and, when deemed to be appropriate, include in a report reference to and comment on any such recommendation.

We are mandated to carry out studies concerning human rights and freedoms as may be referred to us by the Minister of Justice and to include in a report the results of such study together with such recommendations as we consider appropriate.

We may review regulations, rules, orders, bylaws, and other instruments made pursuant to an act of Parliament, and we may comment on any provision inconsistent with the principle described in our purpose section, section 2.

And we shall try, by persuasion, publicity, or any other means that we consider appropriate, to discourage and reduce discriminatory practices.

In the process of implementing the repeal of section 67, the commission will use these powers as appropriate to call attention to progress in implementing repeal as well as impediments that need to be addressed. For example, the commission may decide, after a time period, to issue a special report on the implementation process.

The government and first nations could also request that the commission use one of our statutory mandates just iterated to work with them to delineate operational implications of the repeal, bringing our extensive experience in translating human rights principles into action.

To prepare, we are actively and proactively strengthening our relationships with first nations. We established a national aboriginal program in September 2006, of which Ms. Helgason is the director, based in Winnipeg. The program is mandated to lead and coordinate our ongoing work on this issue. The aboriginal program is being supported by commission officers who have expertise in areas such as policy development, legal analysis, communications, complaints handling, alternate dispute resolution, and conflict management systems.

In summary, we are recommending the immediate repeal of section 67; the incorporation of both a broad statutory statement of principle on the need to appropriately balance individual rights with community collective rights and interests, and a mandate for the commission to develop an appropriate instrument on this matter; a transition period of 18 to 30 months; and appropriate resources to support the implementation.

The time for action is now. We all agree on that. With imagination and cooperation, the commission is confident that repeal can happen soon. And with repeal, we will collectively open a new door and collectively build a first nations human rights system that honours and respects aboriginal and treaty rights and treats all first nation governments and peoples with the full measure of dignity and respect to which they are entitled.

We at the commission welcome this unique opportunity to work with first nations, their governments, peoples, and organizations, and with the Government of Canada and Parliament to build this better future together.

We are all here to respond to your questions. Commissioner Langtry, who holds this portfolio, and I will lead the responses.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I open the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development of Thursday, April 19, 2007.

Committee members, you have the orders of the day before you, and today's meeting is video recorded. We're dealing with Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Our witnesses today represent the Canadian Human Rights Commission. We have Jennifer Lynch, chief commissioner; David Langtry, commissioner; Sherri Helgason, director, national aboriginal program, Prairies and Nunavut region; Harvey Goldberg, team leader, strategic initiatives, knowledge centre; and Hélène Goulet, secretary general.

Welcome, witnesses, and thank you very much for being here today.

We'll have an opening address, and then we'll begin questioning. Madam Lynch, are you going to be speaking?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, on this the 25th anniversary of the creation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, I am very happy to note this government's significant progress on human rights issues, particularly the rights of aboriginal people.

For instance, we have introduced Bill C-44, An Act to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Bill C-44 proposes a fair, realistic approach to ending nearly 30 years of discrimination that, in many cases, prevented aboriginal people living and working on reserves from filing complaints under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I also want to talk about the progress we are making on the difficult question of matrimonial real property on reserve. This issue is a serious injustice that often creates suffering for first nations women and children.

Under the guidance of Ms. Wendy Grant-John, a consultative process to identify a legislation solution was undertaken last fall. This process has been completed and Ms. Grant-John's report will be available shortly.

I am very proud of these initiatives and we intend to continue working to ensure that the human rights of all Canadians are respected.

Human Rights

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

Mr. Speaker, human rights are the foundation of Canadian values. Some Canadians believe that Canada defined human rights, but quite the contrary, human rights define Canada.

People from all over the world came to Canada to escape political oppression, religious discrimination and the lack of opportunity in their homelands. These settlers of our country defined our rights and values, how our society should be structured with law and order and the freedom for all citizens to pursue their individual enterprise.

Sadly, the people who met these settlers, the first peoples of this land, were not extended the same freedoms of this new Canada. The Indian Act discriminated against the first peoples of this land. The new Canada tried to change the culture and language of these first peoples.

Our government, led by our Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, has tabled Bill C-44 which would amend section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and once and for all avail the same rights to Canada's aboriginal people that non-aboriginal people have enjoyed since Confederation.

I ask all members to support the bill to remedy this injustice to aboriginal people.

[Beverley Jacobs]

With respect to the Native Women's Association, I'm not sure how many are aware of the organization itself. It is an aggregate of 13 provincial–territorial member associations, and the goals are to empower aboriginal women by engaging in national advocacy measures aimed at legislative and policy reforms that promote equal opportunity for aboriginal women, including meaningful access to human rights protections.

We are committed to ensuring that the unique needs of aboriginal women are reflected in any and all legislative and policy directives that have the potential to have a significant impact on the lives of aboriginal women and children. We adhere to a culturally relevant gender-based analysis. Basically what that means is that it's about balance. It's about ensuring the balance between men and women in our communities and promoting common goals towards self-determination for aboriginal people, and for women as the role models in our communities and as natural leaders.

We use this framework to assess differential impacts of proposed and/or existing legislation on aboriginal women and children. We believe this process enables us to review the policies through an understanding of historical, cultural, and political and socio-economic marginalization of aboriginal women within Canada. It thus makes it possible for governments to be more effective in responding with informed, equitable options. We will be using this process during our proposed implementation plan, and with any legislative change.

For the last 30 years, with respect to section 67 in the Canadian Human Rights Act the equality interests of aboriginal women have maintained a prominent place in policy discussions about the Indian Act and in discussions about self-government. This has primarily been the result of efforts by individual women and organizations to keep these issues in the public eye and on the federal policy agenda.

One high-priority area for NWAC has been the promotion and the protection of the human rights of aboriginal women in Canada. It is our belief that while often viewed as a champion of human rights in international fora, Canada has failed to ensure that basic fundamental standards of human rights are applied to aboriginal peoples in Canada, particularly aboriginal women and children. This is true in relation to many aspects of social, economic, cultural, political and civil rights.

Several United Nations bodies have been critical of Canada's human rights record and of its treatment of aboriginal people. Specifically in relation to aboriginal women, Canada has been criticized by domestic and international bodies for failing to protect the equality rights of aboriginal women in matrimonial real property issues, to redress such human rights mechanisms as the Canadian Human Rights Act, and for the rates of violence and the low socio-economic status facing aboriginal women.

We have learned as well about the impacts of the 1985 amendments to the Indian Act, called Bill C-31. We know that when amendments are made without consultations and without acknowledging the potential impacts, there are detrimental effects within first nations communities, such as divisions within the community, lack of resources and capacity, and effects upon education. Those are just some examples.

As to concerns with respect to Bill C-44, in the House of Commons we've heard members of Parliament voice a number of concerns. First, there is a concern that this does not address the root causes of human rights violence. From a balanced perspective the mere revocation of the Indian Act exemption will not address the effects of colonization. The repeal of section 67 is only one element in the advancement of human rights protection for aboriginal people.

Next, supporters of Bill C-44 purport that an immediate repeal is required, since aboriginal people have waited long enough, and consultation should not be used as an excuse not to act.

We agree that the repeal of section 67 is long overdue. However, we feel there has to be meaningful consultation as a strong first step of an evolving and collaborative process. We do not view human rights protection as compartmental. It is a process in which each step is necessary to achieve success in the overall goal. Consultation is not an excuse for inaction; it is an essential element in an active process.

In many cases, first nations communities do not have the capacity or resources to expose themselves to liability. As noted earlier, without proper resources and capacity as a result of Bill C-31, we have learned what this has done in our own communities. We don't want this issue added on as a burden in the communities nor resources taken from other programs and services to address issues we know will result from the repeal of section 67.

In turn, we believe that capacity-building and education are key factors for aboriginal communities to implement their own mechanisms of protecting human rights. This would greatly minimize the risk of conflict and promote prevention of human rights violations, unlike the current system of reactive measures.

Members of Parliament have also expressed apprehension about the six-month transition period. So why is the current government expediting human rights protection haphazardly after 30 years without meaningful action? And what validates these concerns, especially considering the lack of support that this government has for the United Nations declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples?

By implementing a community-based process that addresses the key factors of meaningful consultations—adequate implementation, resources, and capacity-building—Canada would be in a better position to support international standards, since they would then be in the process of complying with those standards. This kind of comprehensive process will require at least 36 months to implement.

Another important issue with respect to Bill C-44 is whether it addresses the individual and collective rights. This debate is at the very core of aboriginal and governmental relations in Canada and has yet to be resolved. Due to the complexity and cultural differences embedded in this question, NWAC advances that any conclusions on the matter must come from community consultations.

In the discussions we had with aboriginal women in our matrimonial real property consultation process, many discussed this issue; and to reconcile this issue, most talked about their responsibilities to their communities and to their future generations. Many said that we are individuals from nations. That's where we come from, and we cannot separate ourselves from that.

The core of this issue is addressing conflict through various forms of indigenous legal traditions, which we believe will assist in resolving the debate of individual and collective rights.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Thank you very much to the witnesses. I think it was really informative—at least it was for me, and I'm sure it was for the rest of the committee members—about the issues that arise from Bill C-44.

The committee has a list of witnesses that we're going to continue with. We have also advertised for submissions from aboriginal communities and individuals, which will be received by the committee. We are going to go through this process, and if at the end of our witness list the committee feels it hasn't adequately heard enough witnesses and had that input, we will extend the list of witnesses.

Thank you very much. We really do appreciate the time you have taken to be with us today.

We'll adjourn for four minutes.

[Proceedings continue in camera]

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

I'll respond to part of it, and Chief Price wishes to add her comments as well.

First of all, the distinction here is between on-reserve and off-reserve first nation citizens. Our position is that first nation governments ought to be able to extend the provision of good government to all of our people regardless of residency. In many situations, for example, you have tribal councils and first nation governments that provide education services off-reserve. There are tribal councils that have property off-reserve. They deliver child welfare support programs to communities off-reserve, and this is done in cooperation with provincial governments, sometimes by reference and other times by certain arrangements.

In terms of the application of Bill C-44, however, we're talking about the Indian Act. The Indian Act applies only on-reserve, so there's a distinction there that's the result of the Indian Act.

In terms of capacity, the demands on government--the federal government, for example--would be similar to the demands that would be placed on first nation governments to provide to first nation citizens. For example, in housing, in the case of access for the disabled, there's a real cost to this, and we're faced with a crisis situation right now. So someone could come to us or someone could file against the first nations government, and a ruling could be made that causes the first nations government to respond to this. If you don't have capacity, if you don't have the wherewithal, the decision could be meaningless. The person could be further jeopardized, because the resources and capacity would not be there in our communities.

I don't know how else to explain this matter.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

In fact, Mr. Bruinooge—if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman, a quick addition to this point—in our community the preference is to provide protection to the children. So to whoever has custody of the children, preferential treatment will be provided and has in fact traditionally been provided. If it's the woman, it's the woman. If it's the husband or the man, it's the man who would be afforded preferential treatment.

In fact, this is the way this has been handled in our communities for a long time. In isolated situations, maybe people haven't been treated fairly, and we admit that we have to do all we can to provide the appropriate protection for the rights and interests of all of our citizens, including women, children, and elders. That's why—the point I made earlier—we support the repeal of section 67 and support Bill C-44, with appropriate provisions for the protection of our interests as distinct governments in the country.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

First of all, the result would be an unfair imposition of something that's as significant and as important as Bill C-44. We would be treated unfairly, because we wouldn't have the same time consideration as was provided to the federal government and the provincial and territorial governments with the implementation of the charter. They were given three years, and we're being told that this must be implemented immediately.

Second, there would be an unfair burden placed on first nation governments, because we don't have the resources, we don't have the institutions, we don't have the wherewithal at the moment to be able to deal effectively and fairly with the provisions of Bill C-44, if complaints were to be registered against first nation governments. There has to be sufficient time to enable first nation governments, chiefs and councils, to be ready, to be able to respond fairly and appropriately to these provisions, even though we recognize that most of the complaints, much of the initial attention, maybe over a prolonged period, would be directed toward the federal government—most of the abuses of human rights have been by government—because first nations have been rather limited, if I can put it that way, in their ability to abuse their citizens.

Take, for example, water. The suggestion has been made that it's somehow less than transparent, irresponsible, and non-accountable chiefs and councils who have caused the crisis situation with safe drinking water not being accessible to our communities. Well, we didn't pollute our waters. We didn't cause our river systems, our lakes, and our streams to be polluted, but we're being held accountable for that.

On the inadequate housing situation—let me put it fairly and properly, the housing crisis in our communities—the expectation and the demand, in fact, would be that we make appropriate provisions for the disabled. We're not in a position to be able to deliver the goods on that.

Concerning Bill C-31, at present there are at least 60 cases before the courts because of Bill C-31 and its unfair provisions that deny many of our people the right to citizenship in their nations. There are 60 cases. I think the government knows it will probably lose all 60 cases, as these are charter violations clear and simple.

[Chief Lynda Price]

It's my understanding that the minister has stated that there has been 30 years of consultation on this issue. That's my understanding. But there has been no discussion on the repeal of section 67 specifically.

It's my understanding also that on December 13, 2006, the Government of Canada introduced Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, which provides for the immediate repeal of section 67. Ideally, the federal government ought to have engaged in discussions with first nations prior to that. When I listen to this question, I think about this and I think about the processes that I'm accustomed to, and certainly these aren't proper consultation processes.

At a minimum, the honour of the Crown and the requirement for reconciliation of first nations and crown sovereignty imposes an obligation on the federal government to analyze the potential impacts of the repeal of section 67 on the aboriginal and treaty rights of first nations people and potentially significant impacts on first nations communities before proceeding.

I say this as a leader. You just can't carry on business without proper consultation, because it has serious impacts on our communities.

However, when the minister appeared before this committee last week, it was evident that such an analysis was not undertaken. Rather, the federal government chose to defer review of the application of the CHRA five years after its application. Understandably, this raises questions among first nations regarding the depth of the Crown's honour.

It would be irresponsible for the federal government to proceed with the repeal of section 67. Simply put, it's unfortunate in our country for aboriginal people to have to take government to court in order to prove our rights. It is discouraging for me as a leader.

You have to recall that Delgamuukw in 1997 caused a lot of uproar. It caused provincial governments to put in place consultation policies. In 1998, the provincial government where I live put in a consultation policy. Shortly thereafter, the Haida decision in 2004 reinforced the importance of that issue.

Currently in B.C., the First Nations Leadership Council and the province are in a joint review of that consultation framework, because the policy they drafted and put in place is not appropriate. It doesn't work for the government. It doesn't work for first nations. So we're under a process to change that.

What do I see here at the federal level to accommodate those court cases? I guess that's the question I'd have to ask.

[Chief Lynda Price, Chief, Ulkatcho First Nation, Assembly of First Nations]

Dawhoja. My name is Lynda Price. I'm the chief of the Ulkatcho First Nation. Our community is located in the central interior of British Columbia. I also sit on the B.C. First Nations Leadership Council, working with the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

I would like to acknowledge the first peoples who were on this territory. I would like to say thank you for allowing us to meet here today as part of our custom.

First and foremost, I would like to say that we support the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is about time.

Thirty years ago when the Canadian Human Rights Act came into effect, we were told by the then Minister of Justice, Ron Basford, that the exemption was only temporary. Well, 30 years seems to me to be beyond temporary. What was clear at the time and is still clear is that section 67 shields many discriminatory provisions of the Indian Act and other government behaviour that hurts and disadvantages us.

I would like you to know that when we are talking about 30 years, I think about the timeframe and my mom, who was only allowed to vote when I was one year old. So for most of her life she was not allowed to vote. That gives you some backdrop as to the timeframe. It was only after I turned one that my mother was allowed to vote. That gives you an idea of what kind of discrimination was going on.

Repealing section 67 and replacing it with appropriate legislation to protect our individual rights and collective rights will be a giant step forward. Getting it right will be the challenge.

There are a number of changes that need to be made to the bill to get it right.

First of all, Bill C-44 must take into account the relationship between the Canadian Human Rights Act and first nations self-government. This is because human rights guarantees will affect the way we govern ourselves. Aboriginal rights are unique. The courts have recognized this and the Canadian Human Rights Act must recognize this.

Second, within first nations communities, human rights must be in harmony with aboriginal and treaty rights while facilitating the preservation and promotion of distinctive first nations culture. As you know, the issue in B.C. has not been settled yet.

To meet these fundamental challenges, a number of critical components must be put in place. First, we must figure out how long it will take to make the transition from status quo to the Canadian Human Rights Act. And make no mistake, there will be a big adjustment. Also, there have been precedents set.

Just as Canada gave itself three years to make the necessary adjustments to comply with section 15 of the charter, so will Canada need sufficient time to undertake a review of their policies, procedures, and laws to identify discriminatory provisions and take the necessary remedial measures before complaints are filed. Similarly, the first nations also will need sufficient time to make the necessary adjustments to comply with the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Right now this bill that is being contemplated provides for only a six-month transition period. This is not long enough for the meaningful consultation and adjustment that will be required. A minimum of 36 months will be necessary to ensure that implementation measures are in place and the necessary infrastructure resources obtained, so that those who wish to make use of the act will have a real chance to succeed in obtaining the protection it holds out.

In an effort to ensure proper implementation, we seek an amendment to the bill that would provide for a joint Canada and first nations operational review to commence immediately and no later than 18 months. This is to identify the nature and scope of work that must be done and the amount of additional fiscal resources that will be required by first nations government.

Second, an interpretation clause must be included in the legislation to ensure that those bodies interpreting and applying the act in future cases will be guided by an awareness of our unique collective, inherent rights, interests, and values. Without an interpretation clause, our rights will be at risk. It would be ironic indeed if the result of Bill C-44 were to diminish or undermine our rights rather than enhance and protect them.

We've provided you with a draft interpretation provision at schedule B of our written submission. You should have that.

Third, a non-derogation clause must be included in the bill. This is essential if our established and asserted aboriginal treaty rights are to be protected when section 67 is repealed.

It is no answer to say that the non-derogation provision in section 25 of the charter is good enough, because it doesn't apply to the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is not good enough to argue that section 15 of the charter will come up in any human rights complaint and thus trigger the use of the section 25 non-derogation clause as the defence.

The fact of the matter is that there may be cases where section 15 is not argued; therefore, to ensure that aboriginal and treaty rights are protected, the Canadian Human Rights Act must have its own non-derogation clause. We are providing you with a draft clause as a proposed amendment to the bill at schedule A of our written submission.

Fourth, clause 3 of Bill C-44 refers to “aboriginal authority”, in the transitional section. We want to see this term removed and amended to state, for greater certainty: “any first nation government, including a band council, tribal council or governing authority operating or administering programs and services pursuant to the Indian Act”. That's for greater certainty, just to know who this is intended for.

Once these four amendments are made, the next step will be to secure the necessary federal operational commitments, so that the Canadian Human Rights Act can be properly implemented once section 67 is repealed.

First, the repeal of section 67 must be conditional upon Canada's committing the necessary financial resources within 18 months, establishing funding mechanisms to build the capacity required to implement the act at the first nations level.

The repeal of section 67 will create a host of new obligations for first nations governments, including increased administrative capacity to deliver programs and services on an equitable basis, substantive legal resources and capacity to provide legal, policy, and procedural review and reform to comply with section 67, and legal resources to review, defend, and prosecute claims.

Resources must be made available for the development of community-based dispute resolution mechanisms to ensure culturally appropriate resolution processes that will be consistent with our traditional laws and values.

Training resources will be required to ensure that adjudicators and other commissioned personnel have the expertise to balance collective and individual rights in individual complainants' cases.

Secondly, the federal government must also commit, as a condition to repealing section 67, to the establishment of an independent first nations human rights commission, to be operational by the time the 36-month transition period expires. This commission will consider complaints against first nations institutions, governments, and agencies.

Finally, the AFN would like to see the federal government commit to a communications plan to ensure that first nations citizens and government have sufficient information and resources to make use of the potential the commission will offer.

I would like to thank you, Chair Colin Mayes and honourable members. I appreciate the time you've taken today to listen to our submission, and I say cha nal'ya, which is “thank you” in our language.

[Chief Phil Fontaine, National Chief, Assembly of First Nations]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairperson.

Greetings to all of the honourable members. We thank you for the opportunity to appear before this committee.

I would also like to acknowledge Chief Lynda Price from Ulkatcho First Nation, British Columbia, who is with me; and Candice Metallic, who is legal counsel for the Assembly of First Nations here in Ottawa. We also have the honour of having Chief Maryanne DayWalker Pelletier here from Okanese First Nation in Saskatchewan; Chief Rose Laboucan from Driftpile First Nation in Alberta; Chief Sarah Gopher from the Saulteaux First Nation in Saskatchewan, not here; and Chief Ann Mary Simon from Bouctouche First Nation in New Brunswick.

They're all here to demonstrate their support for our submission before you this morning. They also will be scheduling time with the committee clerk to hopefully present their unique perspective to this committee sometime in the near future.

Today I'm especially looking forward to explaining AFN's position on Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. I was anxious to be here because I'm concerned that our position has been misrepresented in the press. So we see this as an opportunity to set the record straight.

First of all, there is no group in Canada that is more conscious and aware of the importance of human rights than our people. The reason is that we've had to fight for our rights every step of the way since colonization, and more often than not we have been shortchanged. More specifically, we have had to fight for our collective right to exist in our homelands, resisting numerous attempts by the Canadian government to destroy our culture--or cultures, more appropriately. The best example of that, of course, is the residential school experience. But you can add a whole bunch of other experiences: the Indian agent, the 1960s scoop of our children. The list is lengthy.

Governments have tried to deny us our treaty rights, aboriginal and land rights, and made a very concerted attempt to assimilate us. We've had to fight not only for our collective rights but for our individual rights, the rights to the custody of our children, rights to have access to fair employment opportunities and accommodation without discrimination, the right to vote, the right to be treated fairly in the courts. For example, we were denied the right to retain legal counsel to fight for our land claims until 1952. We have fought for our rights internationally for the past 25 years, only to have all of these efforts be summarily dismissed when the government decided that it would oppose the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

The same government that voted against our rights internationally is now denying us our basic human rights to water, because water is a basic human right. We don't have access to quality, safe drinking water; decent housing; health; education; or natural resources within our own traditional territories.

Successive federal policies--and I'm saying successive, but most particularly this most recent budget--ensure that an unacceptable state of poverty within our first nations communities will be perpetuated for the foreseeable future, while government spends billions upon billions on the so-called fiscal imbalance. The true fiscal imbalance in this country is the imbalance between what the first nations receive from the federal government to meet our basic needs compared to what everyone else receives.

Let me explain here, once again. I've done so before, as you know.

Since 1996 the funding for core programs and services has been capped at 2%, but our expenses--the cost of living, the population growth rate--have gone up significantly, by 11.2%, while per capita expenditures for basic services in our communities have declined by 6.4%. We all know that the provincial and territorial governments have received a 6% increase, and that'll be consistent over the years. When it comes to health, the increases are secure, and the governments will review the situation seven years hence. That is not so in our situation.

In real dollar terms, this inequity has cost our communities about $14 billion since the cap was introduced over 10 years ago. The result is that existing federal policies prevent first nation governments from acting in the best interests of their communities, limiting their flexibility to plan and manage effectively and to make decisions for the future well-being of our children.

You see, I'm prepared to discuss this matter of the budget and the $9.2 billion--now $10 billion--and the argument that has been made that we're receiving an awful lot of money. No one makes that argument with all the billions of dollars that have been transferred to provincial governments; when it comes to us, the suggestion is there should be value for dollar. Well, that same proposition is not put to provincial or territorial governments. The transfer is made without question. But when it comes to us, it's an awful lot of money, and there should be value for dollar. That's completely unacceptable.

People should rise up and say that's unfair. Everyone should be treated fairly and justly. We shouldn't be treated the way we're being treated. We are seen as vulnerable and unimportant and as not making a difference when it comes to the electoral process--but darn it, we matter a great deal; we're integral to Canada.

This is our homeland. We were here first. We shouldn't be denied fair treatment. We shouldn't be excluded from being treated justly.

To say the status quo is a disgrace is an understatement. We look forward to being able to use the provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act to correct these egregious discriminatory wrongs. For example, there is the $10 billion; people ignore the fact that there are 10,000 civil servants working to deliver programs to aboriginal people--10,000. Can you imagine the costs of that? Well, no one includes that in the equation when they're discussing how much money is being delivered for aboriginal people.

In fact, it's not $10 billion that reaches our communities; it's $5.4 billion of the $10 billion that goes to our communities. That is fact. We've analyzed all of the expenditures of the federal government over the last number of years, so there should be no attempt to try to convince Canadians that we receive too much money. The argument should be for more money. Canadians should be convinced that the situation we find ourselves in is completely and absolutely unacceptable in a country as rich as Canada.

We're not asking for handouts, not for a moment. We want to be real contributors to Canada's prosperity. That's what we want to be; that's what we want to do. We don't want to deny someone else their basic human rights--of course not. And any suggestion that we want to deny our people their basic human rights is completely false. It is a complete and absolute misrepresentation of our position and the true situation in our communities.

We recently launched a complaint at the Canadian Human Rights Commission to draw attention to the fact that 27,000 first nations children are in care because the government will not provide the necessary resources for preventive measures to support families and keep them together.

Minister Prentice is right when he says there are 9,000 first nations children in care, but that's with first nations child welfare agencies. There are another 18,000 first nations children in the care of provincial agencies. That's where we come up with the figure of 27,000, and these are only for those territories and provincial governments that keep records. Others don't keep such records.

From the residential school experiment to the white paper, from the takeover of our land to the dishonour of treaty rights, from discrimination on the provision of basic services to discrimination in accessing housing, we have learned that our very existence as people depends on our commitment to the preservation and promotion of our rights. Consequently, human rights, both individual and collective human rights, are the very cornerstone of our beliefs and values.

So you can see when the media and others suggest the Assembly of First Nations is opposed to the repeal of section 67 because we are opposed to women's rights--my gosh, those people are so off the mark. It is so completely untrue. It is a complete misrepresentation, a deliberate misrepresentation of our position.

It is against this backdrop that we speak to you here today. I'm now going to turn to Chief Lynda Price.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I would like to open this meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on Thursday, March 29, 2007.

Committee members, you have the orders of the day before you. Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, February 21, 2007, today we'll be looking at Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The witnesses before us today are from the Assembly of First Nations. We have National Chief Phil Fontaine and Chief Lynda Price.

Welcome to the witnesses.

The chair is going to run over on our time to make sure we have adequate time. We were only going to go to 12:30 p.m. with the witnesses and then we were going to move on to committee business. Is it the pleasure of the committee that I allow 15 minutes if we need it, because of our late starting? I see we agree to do so.

We will have the presentation from Chief Phil Fontaine. Thank you very much for your attendance.

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, section 67 was intended to be a temporary measure when it was introduced 30 years ago. Thirty years is far too long to live without human rights. I am proud that the Minister of Indian Affairs is moving swiftly to rectify the situation through Bill C-44, which would ensure that first nations citizens have equal access to human rights protections.

However, apparently the Liberals feel that 30 years without this protection has not been long enough.

I hope that when the time comes the members opposite support the rights of first nations people and vote in favour of Bill C-44.

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

Yes, they could. A person could, under the Canadian Human Rights Act, sue the band council because he or she does not have running water. I read the Act and I know it almost by heart. There are also matrimonial rights.

Let me give you an example. Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, a woman has the right to deliver her baby under the best conditions possible. An aboriginal woman living on a reserve 300 kilometres away from an urban centre could sue her band council based on the fact she is not given access to a hospital.

Do you understand the issue? I am neither for nor against such an action, but it raises questions. What will happen after the passage of bill C-44? Do you understand, Mr. Minister? It is an important question.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Let me begin, Mr. Chair, and I hope you will indulge me.

I think it's important to correct the record that's been presented in the House of Commons. I say this to you, Mr. Minister, and I say it to you with respect: I have never indicated a lack of support for Bill C-44 or for the reform of matrimonial real property. I believe if you check the records, both in this committee and in the House of Commons, I have never indicated a lack of support on my own part or on the part of my party.

We have concerns about the issues of process. We will probably speak to them today, and we will speak to them in the ensuing weeks as we review this bill. But in terms of the intent of this bill and the intent of matrimonial real property reform, I am supportive of it and my party is supportive of it. We believe these are important issues to be addressed. I hope the record is clear on that after today.

Minister, you spoke about several issues, and you anticipated the concerns about the bill. You spoke about the issue of consultation.

I was part of Bill C-7. I sat around the clock for many days, as did my colleague here, in 24-hour and 48-hour sessions. I know the bill and I understand the importance to many groups of the repeal of section 67. But I can say that part of the lack of success of Bill C-7 was the abbreviation of the consultation process.

While you spoke to the fact that we have had 30 years of discussion—and I underline the word “discussion”—I believe there's a difference between discussion and consultation. We have not had consultation prior to the introduction of this bill. We've not had consultation with first nations, native women's associations, and a entire litany of groups as it relates to this bill.

There are a number of concerns. My own belief is that we're going to be doing the consultation after the introduction rather than prior to the introduction, which will in fact delay the progress of this bill. I'd like your comments on why there was not a real consultation on this bill, specific to this bill, in the introduction of the bill.

I'd also like your comments on the abbreviated timeframe of six months, when we know the Human Rights Commission recommended a minimum of an 18-month to 30-month implementation.

I have more questions, but I'll start with that.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

I'll speak first, Mr. Chair, with your permission. Then I'm pleased to answer any questions.

I know that Mr. Lemay is anxious to have a dialogue on this, and I always enjoy that.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to discuss Bill C-44. I'm pleased that the committee members are undertaking a review of this important projet de loi. It is human rights protection legislation that will repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Bill C-44 proposes to end an exemption that was included in the original legislation when it was enacted some time ago, actually in 1977.

As a result of this exemption, individuals, mostly residents of first nation communities, have had limited recourse under the Canadian Human Rights Act should they feel their rights have been violated. This fundamental injustice represents a black mark on Canada's democracy. I would draw to your attention a number of reports to the United Nations that have singled this out and recommended change.

Section 67 clearly permits discrimination against a particular group of citizens, and Bill C-44 proposes to ensure that the laws of the country will apply equally to all Canadian citizens.

This is not the first time that Parliament has tried to repeal section 67. Bill C-108 was introduced nearly 15 years ago, only to die on the Order Paper. More recently, attempts to repeal section 67 through Bills C-7 and S-45 suffered a similar fate. Parliamentarians now have an opportunity to see the job through.

Support for the repeal of section 67 comes from a wide variety of groups, including this very committee. In its report on matrimonial real property on reserves, Walking Arm in Armto Resolve the Issue of On-Reserve Matrimonial Real Property, members of this committee called for the repeal of section 67.

Your committee's position on this matter was based largely on the testimony of representatives from several key groups, including the Native Women's Association of Canada. In fact, I would point out that Beverley Jacobs said this before your committee at that time, as follows:

—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.

As minister, I take that statement to heart. Nothing will change unless action is taken, and that is precisely what we have done with this legislation.

Over the years, calls for the repeal of section 67 have come from a wide variety of sources, including the Assembly of First Nations, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, the Canadian Human Rights Commission itself, and other independent commentators who have filed reports with the UN.

The fundamental injustice engendered by section 67 has also attracted international attention, unfortunately earning Canada censure from the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, it all boils down to a simple issue of human rights. Canada must not perpetuate the discrimination inherent in section 67.

I appreciate that some groups have raised concerns about Bill C-44, despite its noble goal. Most critics focus on three points: a perceived lack of consultation, the absence of an interpretive clause and concerns about the potential impact.

Today, I will address each of these criticisms in turn.

On the perceived lack of consultation, I would contend that in fact there's been a significant amount of discussion and consultation on the repeal of section 67, all of which has informed the bill that is before you today. There have been, really, 30 years of discussions since 1977 about the repeal of section 67.

Perhaps the most comprehensive consultation was launched in 1999 as part of a formal review of the Canada Human Rights Act. As you know, the Canada Human Rights Commission itself has spoken on this issue.

Among the many regional and national aboriginal organizations to participate in the review were the Native Women's Association of Canada, Alberta's Aboriginal Human Rights Commission, and New Brunswick's Aboriginal Peoples Council.

The final report issued by the review panel in 2000 recommended the repeal of section 67, and two years ago consultation with aboriginal groups informed a special report on section 67, completed and filed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission itself. Again, repeal was the recommended option.

In 2003 section 67 was also discussed as part of the committee's hearings into Bill C-7, the controversial First Nations Governance Act. During these hearings, several aboriginal groups lobbied for the repeal of section 67, a position restated during hearings that were held in 2005 on matrimonial real property on reserve. The Assembly of First Nations has also expressed its views on the public record.

While not every stakeholder and aboriginal person has had the opportunity to participate in consultations, there can be no doubt that a determined effort has been made to gather relevant opinions. And that the consensus was and continues to be clear: section 67 must go. Thirty years is long enough.

A second criticism of Bill C-44 concerns the absence of an interpretive clause. In this regard, an interpretive provision is required in the Canadian Human Rights Act to balance the interests of individuals seeking protection from discrimination with aboriginal community interest. That is the argument put forward.

I share the view that the Canadian Human Rights Act should be applied in a manner that is sensitive to particular circumstances of aboriginal communities, but the truth is that three factors preclude the need for an interpretive clause in the legislation. The first is that laws already exist that provide for a balancing of individual and collective rights. I refer to the constitutional protection already in place for the recognition of collective aboriginal and treaty rights in section 35 of the Constitution Act, which remains as the paramount authority in our legal system.

Given these protections, members of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the body that will adjudicate complaints under the statute, are required by the act to be sensitive to human issues as they pertain to aboriginal and treaty rights. They can also be expected to interpret the existing defences in the act, bearing in mind these concerns. With these protections in place to help guide the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the commission, there's no need to add an interpretive clause to Bill C-44. In effect, the Constitution Act provides that overall interpretive umbrella itself.

The second factor has to do with the critical role of the Canadian Human Rights Commission itself. The commission is charged with the administration of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which means that it not only processes complaints but also engages in educational activities concerning the act. Since it was created nearly 30 years ago, the commission has acquired unsurpassed expertise in interpreting and in resolving cases involving discrimination—that is what they do, and they're good at it. The commission's efforts to prevent discrimination have also been remarkable.

Rather than relying on a specific statutory interpretive clause to safeguard theirs interests, aboriginal groups can discuss the future operation of the Act with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In fact, many aboriginal governments have had experience with complaints under the Act, situations where section 67 has not applied.

The commission has vowed to work directly with aboriginal groups on implementation. In fact, the commission's aboriginal program is already established and a series of regional workshops are planned. The workshops will provide guidance and support to aboriginal groups that need help to exercise and carry out the new responsibilities under the act. Additionally, the Canadian Human Rights Act already grants the commission the power to establish guidelines or regulations on how the act should be applied to a particular class or group of complaints. These guidelines are statutory instruments with the same legal weight as regulations, but they are flexible enough to be adapted as required. I have full confidence that, given its mandate, its track record, and in dialogue with first nations, the Canadian Human Rights Commission is best placed to offer advice on how the act should be applied, and to do so over time. With passage of Bill C-44, this work will begin formally.

Thirdly, we know from experience with the interpretive clause, which was originally proposed in the First Nations Governance Act, Bill C-7, that it is extremely difficult to capture in a single clause fail-proof language that would address all the competing considerations for handling a Canadian Human Rights Act complaint in a first nations context. To attempt to distill the interpretive power of the Human Rights Commission into a single clause, I submit, is quite problematic. Additionally, an interpretive clause, if passed into law, would have to be interpreted by the commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, in any event, in specific cases, and would obtain clarity really only after the litigation of many complaints and conflicts, undoubtedly, with the charter.

In summary, with the protection offered by Canada's legal framework, the support provided by the commission, and the scope that already exists within the Canadian Human Rights Act and the powers of the commission, I'm personally convinced that the full application of the Canadian Human Rights Act can be implemented in a manner that is sensitive to aboriginal communities. I have confidence that the Human Rights Commission is best able to provide that oversight and that interpretive responsibility.

Other aspects of the legislation are helpful to consider. The mandatory review included in Bill C-44, for example, offers additional protection for those who are concerned about its impact. The legislation proposes that a parliamentary committee undertake a comprehensive review of the effects of the repeal of section 67, within five years. I think this is a useful fail-safe.

On this point, I would like to draw to the committee's attention that it is within Parliament's authority to undertake such a review earlier. I would respectfully caution against so doing, but this remains the prerogative of Parliament.

I acknowledge that the repeal of section 67 will have a significant impact on many groups, including First Nations and federal departments. To ensure that First Nations have time to prepare for these impacts, Bill C-44 proposes a delayed application to First Nations' governments six months after royal assent is granted.

With the support of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which has already begun to engage and to raise awareness of human rights legislation with representatives of national and regional aboriginal organizations, I believe this period provides the appropriate balance between, on the one hand, proceeding with repeal in a timely fashion while on the other hand allowing first nations to take measures to prepare for full implementation.

The question of resources has been raised, but until the bill is passed, these costs remain hypothetical. Yes, it will be important to assess what resources might be needed, and I invite your advice on that topic.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee—and we have a knowledgeable group of parliamentarians at this table today—the time has come to ensure that all Canadians are treated equally before the law of this country. Bill C-44 proposes a fair, realistic approach to ending 30 years of sanctioned discrimination in this country. This committee, in a non-partisan way, can seize the opportunity before it and ensure access to full human rights protection as provided to all. Now is the time for us to act to end the injustice that was created as a so-called temporary measure against first nations citizens 30 years ago. This is an historic opportunity for this Parliament, for all the parties in this House of Commons at this time, to accomplish something very significant. I urge you, as committee members, to review Bill C-44 and to support it.

Thank you. I will do my best to answer the questions from Mr. Lemay and others.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I am not mixing anything.

The hon. member stands opposed to matrimonial property rights for first nations women. She stands opposed to Bill C-44 to provide first nations women with human rights protection for the first time in Canadian history. She does not support the $300 million on reserve private housing initiative. She does not support what is in the budget for specific claims.

It is just more Liberal rhetoric and empty promises. She does not stand in favour of aboriginal people in this country at all.

Kelowna Accord Implementation Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak at third reading of Bill C-292, the Kelowna accord implementation act.

The so-called Kelowna accord is the product of a meeting held more than a year ago of the former prime minister, the provincial and territorial premiers and several national aboriginal leaders.

The actual document that is represented as the accord, what the right hon. member for LaSalle—Émard purports to be a binding commitment of the Government of Canada, is in fact a news release presented by the government of the day at the close of the meeting. The release lists several proposed investments that total more than $5 billion over a period of five years.

Although the former government says that it meant this to be a statement of the amount of money it wished to spend, there was no consensus among participants regarding how the money was to be disbursed. There was no detailed plan on how the government would allocate this new funding and how it would ensure that these resources would be spent wisely and produce measurable results.

Indeed, the provincial and territorial premiers and national aboriginal leaders who attended the Kelowna meeting clearly indicated in subsequent statements that considerably more work was needed to develop specific policies, programs and implementation plans.

The challenges that face aboriginal peoples in our country are simply too daunting to be overcome through unfocused, unaccountable spending. A more considered approach is required if we hope to improve socio-economic conditions and to ensure that aboriginal peoples have a standard of living comparable to that of other Canadians.

Canada's new government has developed and begun to implement precisely this type of approach. It is based on practical solutions, targeted expenditures, clear roles and responsibilities, measurable results and accountability, all fundamental elements of prudent, effective administration.

In the short time this government has been in office, our pragmatic, results based approach has generated tangible results for aboriginal peoples. In fact, the number of achievements is too vast for me to recount in the time that is available to me this evening.

Instead, to illustrate the success of our approach, let me use the last time that the House debated Bill C-292, on October 18, 2006, as a reference point. Let me share with the House just a few examples since that date of how this government has taken concrete steps to begin to improve the quality of life of aboriginal peoples in Canada.

On October 20, Bearspaw First Nation in Alberta opened a state of the art water treatment plant. This achievement stems directly from the plan of action to ensure safe water supplies for first nation communities announced by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development last March.

As the House is no doubt aware, soon after this government came into office we learned that more than 200 first nations communities had drinking water systems that were classified as high risk or worse. To address this crisis, Canada's new government devoted some $450 million to address issues affecting quality of life, including safe drinking water.

In addition to this vital budgetary measure, the minister and the Assembly of First Nations appointed a three member expert panel to provide legislative options for safe drinking water in first nations communities.

On December 7, the minister tabled in the House the expert panel's findings and recommendations, along with a report that outlined progress made on all aspects of the government's plan of action. This includes the removal of several drinking water advisories, improvements to a number of water treatment plants, and increased assistance and training for plant operators. The minister is now considering the panel's recommendations and I expect we will be hearing more on the government's initiative.

Along with helping first nations communities to overcome such crises, this government is working to ensure a brighter long term future for these communities. Indeed, when it comes to land claim settlements, we are living through an extraordinary period of Canadian history, particularly in British Columbia.

In recent months, negotiating teams have achieved a series of unprecedented agreements.

On October 29, federal, provincial and first nations negotiators initialled the Lheidli T'enneh final agreement, the first settlement reached through the British Columbia treaty process.

On December 8, the minister was in Delta, B.C. to attend the initialling of the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement, the first final agreement for a B.C. first nation whose traditional lands are situated in an urban area.

On December 9, the minister witnessed the initialling of the Maa-nulth First Nations final agreement, the first final agreement in British Columbia that involves more than one first nation community.

I am happy to report that the successful resolution of land claims is not restricted to British Columbia. On December 1, the government signed a land claims agreement with the Inuit of Nunavik resolving a claim over offshore areas in northern Quebec and Labrador that had dragged on for more than 13 years.

Canada's new government has also partnered with first nation groups in Quebec to improve school performance among students from first nations communities in the province.

A landmark memorandum of understanding signed on October 26 will lead to incentives for first nation schools to create stimulating learning environments, enhance teaching quality and improve accountability to parents and students.

Education is also the focus of a historic bill that received royal assent on December 12 of last year. The First Nations Jurisdiction over Education in British Columbia Act will enable first nations communities in B.C. to assume increasingly greater control over on reserve education. It is an important step in ensuring first nation students receive a high quality education that respects their languages, cultures and traditions.

On December 13, our new government introduced in the House another significant piece of legislation: Bill C-44. By repealing section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the bill would ensure that all members of first nations communities will have the legal authority to defend their human rights, a power that all Canadians should be entitled to enjoy.

Despite these and other significant achievements, I readily concede that much work remains to be done to ensure that aboriginal peoples have living standards comparable to those of other Canadians. Both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development recognize this fact but action to help aboriginal peoples achieve this objective does not come from legislation based on a news release presented at the close of a meeting.

Genuine progress is difficult. It requires clear thinking, diligent effort, patience and collaboration. Canada's new government will continue to work in concert with our aboriginal, provincial and territorial partners to achieve this progress. Together, we will create practical solutions. We will allocate appropriate funds. We will establish clear roles and responsibilities. We will set goals and we will achieve them.

Accordingly, I will be voting against Bill C-292 and I urge my colleagues to do the same.

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, unfortunately the member could not be more wrong. In fact, her government had the opportunity to act on behalf of first nations for 13 years.

When we look at Bill C-44, it will actually bring human rights to first nations people on reserve who are unable to take advantage of the human rights laws in Canada today. That is something the government of the hon. member had the opportunity to do. It chose not to do so. It is something we will do.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in three separate cases the Supreme Court of Canada was clear that the federal government had a duty to consult with first nations. Despite these rulings, the government has refused to conduct meaningful consultations. It imposes arbitrary deadlines that prevent real discussions from taking place: Bill C-2; Bill C-44; Bill C-45; nationhood; and now only seven days for consensus building on matrimonial real property.

Why does the government insist on taking such a father knows best attitude?

Canada Transportation Act

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-11. I hope that this bill will be passed.

Earlier, I asked my Liberal colleague some questions. Things are not easy in this Parliament, particularly because of the very different approaches to development or to problems the public may be having. Too often, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Party have great plans, but neither of them solves people's real problems. Bill C-11 will try to offer a little salve for the wounds of people who are suffering all sorts of upsets because of railway company operations.

The railway industry is expanding rapidly and has undergone major technological changes. Although it provides a useful and increasingly profitable service, it imposes constraints on the neighbouring communities. This has gone on for years, as I said earlier.

The problems associated with the noise, vibration and odours generated by railway operations as a whole have existed for a long time and are becoming more serious with the development of new technologies.

The people listening to us—Quebeckers and Canadians—will understand that for reasons having to do with economies of scale, the way things are done in the railway industry has changed. For one thing, in the mid-1990s, coupling of locomotives and cars was done by human beings. Starting in the mid-1990s or early years of this century, human beings were replaced by remote coupling, which is done electronically or electrically.

Once this way of doing things was changed, once they wanted to achieve economies of scale by reducing the number of employees in switching yards, the problems associated with noise, vibration and odours became worse. This is done following Transport Canada's standards. As yet, there is no technology that would allow this to be done while making the least noise possible. Since the mid-1990s, many groups of people who live alongside switching yards have got together and formed associations to try to control the noise and odour pollution generated by the railway industry.

Wanting to limit problems for neighbouring communities does not mean being opposed to rail transportation. On the contrary, we want the rail industry to expand. Railway companies, like Canadian Pacific and Canadian National, make profits. While they had some problems during the 1980s and 1990s, I think that since that time they have paid their shareholders a very handsome return. In fact, it rises every quarter.

Phenomenal profits are being made. Profits like these had never before been made in the railway industry.

Pressure is being taken off the roads, and that can help combat greenhouse gases. We are aware of this. Rail transportation can limit greenhouse gases, because it reduces the number of trucks on the roads. It also imposes constraints, however.

Since 2000, that is, since the 37th Parliament, this House has been trying to solve the noise problem. The Liberals introduced Bill C-26. It was virtually an omnibus bill which addressed a number of problems in the railway, airline and other industries, and which made VIA Rail an independent corporation, a corporation with share capital. This could have helped it to expand. From the outset, the Conservatives were against expansion by VIA Rail, which could have engineered its own expansion and could have created VIAFast. Members will recall that debate. The Liberals were divided: there was the Chrétien clan and the clan led by the member for LaSalle—Émard. The result was division on Bills C-26 and C-44. Bill C-26, which was introduced in the 37th Parliament, never saw the light of day because of that division. In the 38th Parliament, Bill C-44 also failed to get passed.

Once again, the people who live near marshalling yards and suffer from the noise pollution and other by-products of the railway industry have not seen any improvement. This problem was buried in omnibus bills. One of the methods used by the Conservative Party in this 39th Parliament was to divide the previous Bill C-44, which was debated in the 38th Parliament, into three.

The Conservatives say now that they broke it up in order to speed things along, but they are concealing the real reason, which is that they wanted to remove everything that had to do with VIA Rail from Bill C-44.

The Conservatives have never wanted the railways to really develop. They did not want the railway companies to compete with airlines for passengers. That was their choice. They wanted to protect WestJet rather than help rail develop sufficiently, the kind of development that the Bloc Québécois has always supported.

It is very important for the transportation sector to become more competitive. Rail is healthy competition for the airlines. There is talk of a fast train, although not a high speed train, between Quebec and Montreal and Montreal and Windsor. The Bloc Québécois has always supported this vision. The Conservatives, though, divided up Bill C-44 because they did not want VIA Rail to become an independent corporation ensuring its own development or the famous VIAFast project to see the light of day, that is to say, a fast Quebec City-Montreal, Montreal-Windsor train. That is the real reason.

All the same, we would have supported an omnibus bill that included all of Bill C-44. We supported Bills C-44 and C-26 at the time, and now we support Bill C-11, which will deal once and for all with the noise pollution problem.

It is never simple. I use this example because, at the same time, the people listening to us will understand how Parliament works. It is never simple. Insofar as the noise issue is concerned, the Conservatives took it upon themselves to bring a bill forward that touches on this problem. However, there is not just noise pollution but also vibration pollution and fumes. There are all kinds of sources of environmental pollution.

During our discussions with the government about Bill C-44, we touched on these issues but were not successful because of the entire VIA Rail question, even though we were working on fixing the pollution problems. If we are going to fix them, let us really do it. But with government things are never as straightforward as that. We have to understand. The Conservatives have never had any vision of the future; it is always short-term. So they decided today to include noise pollution in Bill C-11. Like us, all my colleagues and all the citizens out there say that if they are going to fix the railway pollution problem, why not take advantage of this opportunity to include fumes in the bill and the issue of locomotives turning night and day and producing fumes and environmental problems.

Sometimes you walk along the rails and you see pollution. Because the rails have been changed, stacks of wood are piled up along the tracks, and so on. The Bloc Québécois wanted to solve all the environmental problems related to railways, but the government decided that the noise was the problem. The Bloc Québécois tried in committee to put forward its own proposals. We wanted to solve the problems of noise, vibrations and fumes. We had clearly understood that, by including only noise, Conservatives did not want to solve all the environmental problems. So we went with vibrations and we asked ourselves whether we could perhaps solve at the same time the problems of vibrations and fumes from locomotives.

This is where we attack the law clerk of the House. The government knows quite well that, when it introduces a bill, we cannot move the amendments that we want, even though we have a lot of goodwill, even though all my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois are experiencing major problems, since, for example, some of their fellow citizens live close to the Moreau railroad yard, in Hochelaga, or the Joffre railroad yard, in Lévis. Even though this committee is now represented by a Conservative, we will ensure that all this will change in the next election. However, the fact remains that the people of Lévis complained to us and we never stopped defending their interests. There is the same problem close to the Farnham railroad yard, in Brome—Missisquoi, and to the Pointe-Saint-Charles railroad yard, in Jeanne-Le Ber, east of Montreal. All these people wanted us to solve all these problems, including fumes. Thus, we introduced an amendment, but the whole part concerning fumes was taken out. The law clerk of the House told us that it was out of order.

So, it is not like we did not try. We wanted to show our goodwill and our good faith in this issue. We tabled everything that we could think of. We even wanted to include public health, because there are now international standards on noise pollution. We really wanted to comply with public health standards. One of our amendments asked that public health not be unreasonably affected, given these essential operational needs. We wanted to include the issue of public health in the bill.

However, because the bill introduced by the Conservative Party was totally silent on public health, the law clerk of the House told us that this amendment, even though quite interesting, was out of order, because it would change the meaning of the legislation.

Those citizens who are listening to us must understand that a government is something that is complex. And when it is a Conservative government, it is twice as complex. That is how things work. That is the reality. The government uses every possible trick to prevent us from succeeding and achieving our objectives. In this case, we were able to reach an agreement on noise.

So, as we are speaking, clause 95.1 of the bill reads as follows:

When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company, must cause as little noise and or vibration as possible,...

This is what we have before us now. The original bill introduced by the Conservative Party talked about not making unreasonable noise.

We managed to get an amendment in that goes further. That was done with the support of the Conservatives, who finally realized that we wanted at least to settle once and for all the issue of noise and vibration, so that we would no longer talk about it, and so that citizens would be able to win their cases.

So, we managed to agree to include the expression “as little noise and or vibration as possible”.

One day, this bill will come into force, but not today. It is at third reading stage, then it has to go to the Senate and come back here. Canadian federalism is complicated. There is another chamber, the upper chamber, called the Senate. It has to study the same bills. The Bloc Québécois has been wanting to get rid of the Senate for a long time. The Conservatives have decided that senators will be elected by universal suffrage. We are far from getting rid of it. The federation will become even more complicated. However, one day, we will no longer be here—we hope. One day, Quebeckers will decide to have their own country and they will not have a Senate. That will be best. There will just be a parliament and it will be far less complicated.

However, in the current situation, the bill as amended by the Bloc Québécois, among others, reads as follows at clause 95.1:

When constructing or operating a railway, a railway company, must cause as little noise and or vibration as possible, taking into account

(a) its obligations under sections 113 and 114, if applicable;

This has to do with operations.

(b) its operational requirements;

[...]

(d) the potential impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway.

We managed to get that included. The following clause—and this is the crux of the bill—gives powers to the Transportation Agency, which is new. During its operations, it will have to take into account the potential impact on persons residing in properties adjacent to the railway. From now on, it will have to take into account those who live close by when there are problems with noise and vibration. That is how it will be for their operations.

Clause 95.2 states:

The Agency shall issue and publish, in any manner that it considers appropriate, guidelines with respect to:

This requires the Transportation Agency to establish and publish guidelines that the railway companies will have to follow. Just to get this part into the bill required many hours of discussion. Finally, the agency can be forced to establish and publish guidelines. It is all well and good to say there will be as little noise and vibration as possible, but there still need to be guidelines. This bill will force the agency to establish and publish guidelines.

Once the guidelines have been established and the railways are operational, we proceed to clause 95.3.

On receipt of a complaint made by any person that a railway company is not complying with section 95.1, the Agency may order the railway company to undertake any changes in its railway construction or operation that the Agency considers reasonable to cause as little noise or vibration as possible, taking into account factors referred to in that section.

Before this bill, the Canadian Transportation Agency had no power. Its only role was that of intermediary. Judicial power was tested in that respect in an Ontario court.

One might have thought that after getting involved in a file and participating in negotiations, Transport Canada could have made recommendations and ordered the company to take certain measures if no agreement could be reached in the end. In a decision concerning an Ontario community, the Ontario court ruled that the Canadian Transportation Agency had no power, that it was simply a mediator, not even an arbitrator. It could participate in discussions, but it had no power.

The real purpose of this bill is to give the Canadian Transportation Agency the power to order measures to be taken. That is, once it receives a complaint, it will analyze it and order the railway company to take measures.

Recently, I met with the Railway Association of Canada, which turned up practically in tears to tell us that it made no sense to force railway companies to produce as little noise and vibration as possible.

I might ask all railway employees, who work very hard, why we have this bill before us today. I might also ask the shareholders and the companies that are making healthy profits and doing good business why we are debating this bill. We are debating it because they have been so remiss in past years that we have no choice.

Personally, I took part in a meeting with citizens who live around the Moreau marshalling yard in Hochelaga; the railway company was also present. I will not say its name because they are all the same, regardless of which one it is, and I do not want to discriminate. So I participated in the discussions. It was easy to see that the employees taking part were there under duress. The member for Hochelaga was present to listen to the citizens. I was there as the transportation critic for the Bloc Québécois. My colleague from Hochelaga and the community, who had been following the Ontario decision, were very well informed and proposed some mitigation solutions to the representatives of the railway company. These people seemed interested but in the end nothing ever came about. That is how it is.

It was the same thing when I met with citizens’ groups in the Joffre marshalling yard in Charny. I had a chance to meet the Mayor of Charny, who is now a councillor for the City of Lévis and who really took an interest in this file. It was and still is the same thing. The companies listen, but in the end, when they have to spend some money, it does not go anywhere, not to the next level up anymore than to the board of directors.

Since I am being told I have two minutes left, I am going to use them wisely.

This is how we have ended up where we are today. The Bloc Québécois does not want to be one of those who would prevent the railway from developing. On the contrary, we know that it is developing just fine, that business is good and that it is probably time to put things in order and do something about the pollution that railways can cause. There is noise pollution and other kinds of nuisances.

We will not fix all that today, as I said. And it is not because the colleagues of the Bloc Québécois would not have liked this bill to solve all the nuisances caused by railways. Given that the industry is doing well, maybe it is time for it to make some investments.

At least today the noise and vibration problems should be solved. For any citizens who live along railways or near railway yards this bill should solve any noise and vibration problems they experience. From now on complaints can be filed with the Canadian Transportation Agency, which can intervene and, in accordance with the provision contained in paragraph 93(3), order the railways to take action. The Agency will be able to order railway companies to take remedial action.

Obviously this does not solve the other problems. In committee, communities came to tell us that the trains are increasingly long. In some places, they are even afraid that emergency services cannot get through. That obviously includes ambulances, firefighters, and all sorts of services. Actually the trains are so long that they block entry into entire neighbourhoods. This problem is not dealt with in the bill. I hope that the government one day will listen and table new bills that will deal with all these issues.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the opposition side, now dressed as government, is waiting to hear this speech with bated breath, most of it after much libation has passed through the lips.

Without casting too many aspersions on this, one has to be in control of one's senses when one listens to some of the rhetoric of the government side. I wondered why those members would not take just a moment to say that they have a responsibility as parliamentarians to come forward with legislation that is good for all Canadians. It was there and we are going to try to implement it, they could say, even though for partisan reasons they said no in the past. They said they were not going to support Bill C-44.

But in a stroke of blinding light, of genius, let us divide it up, those members said. They came to this side and asked for our support. We said why not, it is in our collective interest to ensure that legislation that helps Canadians is put forward.

I am not going to reread into the record that which the parliamentary secretary has thought useful for his party's business to talk about what is in the bill. I gave an indication earlier on that there are several things that are important about this bill and that attracted a positive reaction from us.

One of them, of course, is in regard to railway lines that are no longer used, that are declared underused by the railway companies, in that commuter agencies in the various centres through which they pass would have access to them for the purposes of developing appropriate commuter traffic. This would allow us as governments, whether it is this Parliament or the provincial legislatures or the municipalities, to develop a transportation policy for commuters in order to address the environmental, economic, transportation and consumer issues that are evident for everyone.

To do that, we have to put an infrastructure in place that would allow the minister to play a proactive role. That is what Bill C-44 intended to do. The government opposite fought that with every breath it could muster. Today the Conservatives want to put themselves in the clothes of shining bright knights who would accomplish the solutions that would satisfy all Canadians' aspirations and needs.

The truth is the opposite. The government has been asking for and receiving the support of the opposition parties. I see my colleague from the Bloc way down at the end to my left--I can say he is here, I do not have to say he is not here, as that would be for those people--and he has been patient. He has offered the same kind of support that we have offered, because in this instance, at least, he too is thinking about the commonweal.

While we have been doing this, we have watched as the Minister of Transport has ignored the larger implications that were resident in Bill C-44. The underlying principles are as follows: do what is good for the economy of the country, do what is important for the infrastructure and transportation policies of this country, and take into consideration the economic impacts of transportation policies, especially, in this instance, on rail traffic.

What did the government do? We found the minister preferred to do nothing with the cooperation the opposition parties have been offering. So what happened? With Canadian National Railway, he allowed a work stoppage, a strike, to go on for ever so long. I am sure my colleague down at the other end has received the same kinds of submissions that I have from all interested parties and communities across Canada. Whether they were in the lumber industry, the mining industry, the wheat, grain and oilseeds industries, the commercial products industries or even, as we now know, the petrochemical and gasoline industries, we had no movement of goods.

There was no movement of goods while the minister's parliamentary secretary and his government stood and said, “Oh my. Aren't we wonderful? We're just like Jack Horner sitting in a corner. We're just marvellous people”.

Meanwhile, there are communities everywhere around the country, especially those one-industry towns, those in northern Ontario, northern Quebec and northern British Columbia, to name just three places, that are completely, totally and undeniably dependent on rail traffic to get their goods to market, to keep the mills open and to keep the mines going. All them were crying for some intervention while two unions, local and international, with CN, played with the economic life of all Canadians and the minister sat there and did nothing.

That government did nothing and then turned around and told us that it was doing all kinds of great things. Look at us, said the Conservatives, we have been here for 13 months and look at all that we have accomplished.

We have asked for the cooperation of the opposition parties, they said, and look at what we in the opposition did: we gave it. We split up a bill, Bill C-44. One aspect of that has been passed. A second one is here before us today. There is a third one down the road. We have been trying to move this along really quickly.

The debate on this should have finished last week, but no, we had the minister for hot air insulting one of my colleagues, the member for Mississauga South, I think, who was here a moment ago. He is moving around the table now. Instead of carrying on with discussions of substance, that minister for hot air wanted to engage in discussions of disruption, and so the bill goes on a little while longer. Instead of capitalizing on the opportunities to build on the cooperative spirit that was here in the House, on this side of the House, with respect to transportation, particularly with this bill and particularly with movement of traffic around the country, while communities everywhere were crying for our help, he did nothing. The Conservatives did nothing. Not only did they dither, but they did nothing.

Let us look at the ports, for example. The ports in the lower mainland in British Columbia were crying for some sort of intervention. No, I am sorry, that would have been too much to ask for. They were looking for some kind of attention and interest on the part of the Minister of Transport to get some things moving. They had to lay off all the personnel, or portions thereof, at the ports. They had boats sitting out in the harbour; others still more. Trains were backed up. Wheat, lumber and minerals were being held up out in the west. Markets out in the Orient and in the States were looking for some kind of product and some kind of interest on the part of the Government of Canada to get that product going. There was nothing.

The Minister of Transport said:

My name is Pontius. I wash my hands.

It was a labour issue, he said.

The Minister of Labour came before our colleagues and asked us if would we help him out and support back to work legislation if it became a real labour issue. We said of course we would do that, but we asked why the government did not get the infrastructure in place. We asked why the government did not do the minimum that is required of all of us, which is to show interest. It is not a question of partisanship.

So now what we have in southern Ontario, for example, in parts of Quebec, and in fact almost everywhere in the country but particularly in southern Ontario, is a huge shortage of gasoline, because some of it has not been able to get to the market. Yes, there have been other interests as well, and there have been other incidents, but the product could not get to market, and there has been an increase in the price, diminishing our ability to be productive and competitive and obviously bringing all things to a standstill.

I am sure that the minister for hot air on the other side will immediately say let me see now, has there been a diminution in the emissions of greenhouse gases? Yes, that must be so in part, because there is a voluntary participation by all of those drivers who could not get their gasoline and so walked to work in the middle of winter. Great.

I guess I am reduced to a little bit of sarcasm because I sat there, watched, waited and in fact offered all the cooperation that this side of the House could offer the government to say, “Get this done”. But those members were of course interested in heckling, as they are not out of the opposition mentality. They were chuckling, laughing and being as disruptive as they could.

Could we imagine that on this side? No, it would not happen.

I know you will be shocked at this, Mr. Speaker, but there is a member of the transportation committee who comes from the riding of Essex, which is a focal point for all of the manufacturing trade in southern Ontario. The trade goes through that riding into Detroit and on to the other side of the border. Of about $2 billion worth of trade, about two-thirds of it goes through that area. What happens? Instead of being able to deal with his own party in government to get the trains back on track, he has to be fighting his own party.

Competition in parties is a fact of life that we deal with. One always has to worry about whether the enemy is on that side of the House or on this side of the House, but there we had a ridiculous situation. I am looking at a CanWest news story dated February 22 about how the member had to worry about “murder threats” from his own riding executive. There are all kinds of soap operas going on within that party. No wonder those members cannot address the issues of the country. They are too busy trying to take each other out.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

If we could spend a few moments, though, at the next meeting talking about the process for preparing for Bill C-44 in terms of how we're going to--

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Okay. We'll do that first thing. And I want to let you know that we won't be dealing with Bill C-44 until after the break--so you understand that.

Mr. Bruinooge.

The House resumed from February 19 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.

Canadian Human Rights Act

[Ken Boshcoff, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some serious concerns have been raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and the hon. member for Churchill. They have articulated most eruditely a wide amplitude of quite legitimate issues that must be addressed before the proposals of Bill C-44 become law.

If the intent is truly to reform, improve and address the concerns of aboriginal, Métis, Inuit and native peoples, then sincere dialogue that truly hears the messages as presented by such organizations as the Assembly of First Nations is more than requisite. It must be compulsory.

In my riding of Thunder Bay—Rainy River, a constituency that covers the entire northern border of the state of Minnesota, covers two time zones from Manitoba to Lake Superior and takes seven and a half hours to travel end to end at the speed limit without stopping for coffee, it tells us that the expanse of this one riding affecting 11 first nations is similar to the rest of the nation that has first nation populations.

My riding also has large Métis populations in several communities and growing populations in the cities and towns of the 16 municipalities of the riding. All of these citizens need to feel that justice is being done. Canadians who do not live on reserves and already enjoy all benefits of human rights as enacted want all Canadians to have equity. Who can disagree?

As I hear the other party representatives make their presentations, it is clear that there are some grounds for commonality. I am quite convinced, after listening intently to the arguments of the members opposite, that by following a reasonable process everyone can be heard, adjustments can be made and we will be able to develop a solution that incorporates the unique aspects of indigenous Canadians.

A demonstration of good faith by Parliament utilizing all the principles of decorum and democracy would go a long way to demonstrating to first nations that we are sincere, truthful and honest. Our goal will be to support this bill and have it move to committee with a series of amendments to be introduced in committee stage. The amendments should be to extend the implementation period, allow for consultations to be held, insert an interpretive clause and to allow for an examination of the constitutional analysis and its impact on aboriginal and treaty rights because this is a matter of human rights.

The Liberal Party is the party of the charter of human rights and supports this measure to extend fundamental human rights protection to all native Canadians. The Liberal opposition believes that aboriginal communities will need time to change their laws and interpret the Human Rights Act.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission's report on section 67 recommended an 18 to 30 month transition period and we believe the bill definitely should be amended to allow for this modest transition period. The Liberal opposition supports the legislation and again needs to push the minority government to address the human rights needs of aboriginal Canadians. These include such issues as education, employment, poverty, water supply and health.

In 1977, when the CHRA was first implemented, section 67 was intended to be temporary. The clause was added because it was recognized that it was possible that certain provisions of the Indian Act would not pass human rights scrutiny and could be struck down.

Since its inception, however, it is interesting to note that section 67 has been the subject of innumerable calls for appeal from national and international organizations, such as the United Nations human rights committee. The CHRC issued a report in October 2005 entitled, “A Matter of Rights,” a special report by the Canadian Human Rights Commission on the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which recommended an immediate repeal of the section.

Since being proposed, it is clear that the stakeholders throughout Canada have had considerable concern in a most valid way, but let us not assume that because someone has a criticism or concern that it is necessarily negative. The Assembly of First Nations and Native Women's Association were disappointed that the legislation was introduced without consultation and have called on the minister to accept the Canadian Human Rights Commission's recommendation of an 18 to 30 month period of transition. This, I believe, is reasonable if we are going to address fairly those questions of capacity.

I believe that in any legislation the affected parties should have a direct response and it would probably save an enormous amount of time if they were actually addressed beforehand.

First nations themselves are recommending that the federal government not proceed with any repeal until they have been adequately consulted. When we think about what that could mean, it could be that we have recognized national groups, not only representing first nations communities but such groups as the Native Women's Association which represents constituencies that will be directly affected and, therefore, have more than a reasonable interest in wanting to have their say.

We know that there should be no repeal of section 67 until an interpretive provision has been designed, developed, passed the scrutiny and consulted upon and then we will at least know that portion will be dealt with properly.

When we think of constitutional analysis, it is also a recommendation that there be no repeal until the government concludes an impact assessment to determine the potential impact of the repeal of section 67 on aboriginal and treaty rights and, furthermore, that the federal government not proceed with any repeal until any analysis on operational issues is completed.

I believe, as reasonable people in the House, we would feel that these would be things that not only would be requisite but, in terms of fairness and equity, should be part and parcel of any provisions.

As I mentioned briefly before, there have been numerous calls to repeal but they also argue correctly that first nations people are entitled to full protection from discrimination. In re-emphasizing the key point, it is a matter of rights.

The hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, in his aboriginal policy paper, “From Principles to Action: ...Plan to Tap into the Full Potential of Aboriginal Peoples” , indicated that it was his position that all first nations people should be protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act.

As an opposition party, we have been on a scale of somewhat to very critical of the minority government for opposing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People. We believe that supporting the repeal would be consistent with our position on the UN declaration.

It is interesting how this has become a hot button issue with many first nations people who simply cannot understand why Canada, which seemingly wants to be a world leader and recognized for its position on human rights and fairness, will not support the UN declaration.

Currently, self-governing first nations that are operating outside the Indian Act are subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Therefore, there is no rationale for treating first nations communities differently and the repeal of section 67 would go a long way to correcting this inequity.

After hearing the other speakers, I hope they will also support the bill, at least those from the opposition parties. We hope the government accepts our proposed amendments and the Canadian Human Rights Commission's report and amends the bill to provide for some period of time for transition. I would think that the minority government would see an implementation period of 18 to 30 months as being fair and that it would address the capacity issues. We also ask that the bill, as recommended by the CHRC, have this interpretive clause to assist the commission and the tribunal in adjudicating claims against first nations governments, agencies and institutions.

A recent article in The Globe and Mail indicated that a major Senate report warned of more Caledonian style blockades and violent confrontations between natives and non-natives unless Ottawa started setting aside $250 million a year to settle land claim disputes. By repealing this and doing it properly with consultation, we can avoid these kinds of things. I agree.

Resolving land disputes would allow native communities to benefit from economic activities and, in every case where these have been settled, it has meant an improvement in the lives of first nations people. Similarly, as federal leaders, we need to treat the legal liabilities in the same way a business sets the money aside so this can be done.

In summary I will just clarify. In 1977, it is remarkable that this was established as a temporary measure. Although it has the effect of shielding the Indian Act and any decisions made or actions taken by band councils pursuant to the Indian Act, it would prohibit the discrimination in areas of federal jurisdiction on 11 grounds: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.

In an effort for us to reduce, minimize and eliminate the domestic and international criticism for our failure to repeal this, we had an obligation to do it. Historically, I think the three previous bills to repeal it did not receive royal accent due to the prorogation or dissolution of Parliament.

After 30 years we have had enough reports and discussions. We know that the number of aboriginal people representing so many different national and regional organizations have spoken in favour of repeal. I believe that what we can do prior to introducing a bill is consult and determine that, in principle, no aboriginal organization opposes it.

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.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel very privileged to have the opportunity to speak on the subject of Bill C-44. This is an important bill because it addresses an important aspect of first nations' organization and shared reality: their relationship to human rights and freedoms.

Any Quebecker who thinks about first nations cannot help but think about René Lévesque who, as we all know, was not only the founder of the sovereignty association movement, but was also a man with a very generous vision of our relationship with first nations.

When he was premier, René Lévesque introduced a motion in the National Assembly to recognize Quebec's 11 aboriginal nations as nations. The word “nation” implies recognition of a people's history, language, institutions, will to live, and territory. It implies that they deserve to be considered not just a society, a minority or a group, but a nation.

The term “nation” also implies self-determination. Self-determination is the right to decide one's own future, the right to decide one's own destiny, and the right to create one's own vision for progress.

We must support Bill C-44 in principle. This reminds me that a former Supreme Court justice, Justice La Forest, was given a mandate by Allan Rock or Anne McLellan. One of those former justice ministers chose him to oversee a working group on the modernization of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Justice La Forest came to two major conclusions. Like all New Brunswickers, he is very endearing.

Justice La Forest concluded that social condition should be added to the Canadian Human Rights Act as prohibited grounds for discrimination. As unbelievable as it sounds, social condition is not currently grounds for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Eight provinces and territories have it. Quebec was the first to include it. Yet the federal government never updated the Canadian Human Rights Act by including social condition.

Since 1997, I have repeatedly tabled bills to ensure that this is done. Other members have done this as well. I know that in the other chamber, in the Senate, Senator Kinsella, who has become the Speaker of the Senate and is a professor specializing in human rights, has also tabled a bill to this effect.

Judge La Forest's second recommendation was to remove the exception made under section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act so that the act would apply. All Quebec and Canadian citizens, no matter what their origin or position in society, whether or not they are a members of a first nation, are subject to the Canadian Human Rights Act.

First, a distinction must be made. The Canadian Human Rights Act is not the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter is a constitutional document adopted in 1982. You will recall that this was a very unhappy time for Quebec because the charter was adopted without the agreement of the National Assembly.

At the time, under both René Lévesque and Claude Ryan, everyone was well aware that this was no the way to treat one of the founding peoples of Canada, that is, Quebec, which had significant experience in the protection of human rights; in 1977, it instituted the Quebec charter of human rights and freedoms, which continues to this day to guarantee judicial, social and economic rights. It is considered to be one of the most thorough documents on human rights. The Canadian Human Rights Act protects individuals who receive the services of the federal government or in areas where it has jurisdiction, such as banking, national transportation, financial institutions, the RCMP and the federal government itself.

Anyone who believes they are the victim of discrimination by a federal institution, agency or office can invoke the Canadian Human Rights Act, which has significant repercussions for intergovernmental affairs.

It is a pleasure for me to note how well my caucus is served in intergovernmental affairs because the member for Trois-Rivières is our critic and looks after this file with sensitivity and wisdom.

The Canadian Human Rights Act lists 11 prohibited grounds of discrimination. I am going to mention them for everyone's benefit. They are: race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion—regarding which the Supreme Court has handed down some landmark rulings—age, sex and sexual orientation. I was in this House when we amended the Canadian Human Rights Act. This was in response to court rulings and to representations from all the groups involved in the protection of major civil liberties. It was the then Minister of Justice, Allan Rock, who amended the Canadian Human Rights Act. Later on, he was appointed to the United Nations by the Liberals but, unfortunately, the Conservatives did not renew his mandate at the UN.

The Canadian Human Rights Act protects our fellow citizens who receive services from the federal government, or its agencies, against discrimination based on race, ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status—whether or not one is married; as we know, some very important rulings were made by the Supreme Court, including on custody and income—family status, disability and, what is more unusual, conviction for which a pardon has been granted.

When that act was passed, section 67 provided the following:

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

When we passed the Canadian Human Rights Act, why did we want to exclude the first nations from its scope, and particularly people who live on reserves? This was meant to be a transitional provision, because we wanted to negotiate with the first nations to prepare them to develop conciliation methods, to prepare them for the fact that complaints might be made to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and, ultimately, a notice to appear before the Human Rights Tribunal might be issued.

Section 67 was meant to be a transitional, temporary provision, not a permanent one. The various governments that have been in office have all failed in their responsibility to negotiate with the first nations.

It is not the first time, as my colleague from Chambly just reminded me. He could give us countless examples, himself, with regard to employment insurance and the POWA, the Program for Older Worker Adjustment. Examples abound of governments that renege on their commitments.

The government did not negotiate to create any mechanisms suited to the first nations. We are talking here about areas such as culture, heritage, traditions and the justice system. How can we not think, for example, of what justice means to our aboriginal people?

As a matter of fact, the Law Reform Commission tabled an excellent report on the subject. The Conservatives have abolished that commission. Could we have ever thought that a government would be so mean-spirited as to abolish such an important consultative body? May I add that that body was chaired by the dean of the University of Ottawa law school, Nathalie Des Rosiers.

It was with astonishment that we realized that this government is not keen on doing intellectual work. It does not want to create situations where it would be confronted with its values and its vision, which is we know is a right-wing vision. That is the difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. I am not saying that the Liberals are above reproach, but since coming into office, the Conservatives have proven that not only the economic right is alive and well, but also the social right. We had not seen that from a government in a long time.

How can we not be outraged, for example, by the fact that the government is planning to cut $2 billion, not from tax shelters or subsidies to oil companies, but from literacy programs, from Status of Women Canada and from programs aimed at helping those in need?

Coming back to Bill C-44, what is really sad about this bill is not the principle. We recognize that aboriginal nations are different—as I pointed out—in terms of justice. On that, the Law Commission of Canada pointed out that restitution is possible, and not merely restitution in the form of fines and imprisonment. When an offence is committed in an aboriginal community, people sit down together and figure out how restitution can be achieved. Restitution could involve the offender putting himself or herself at the direct service of the victim. There are all sorts of innovative and more interesting ways to look at justice than our conventional sentencing mechanisms.

We can surely agree, in 2007, that the specificity of aboriginal peoples cannot preclude offering impervious guarantees concerning human rights. We can no longer tolerate the notion of two categories of citizens: those who are protected by the Canadian Human Rights Act and can invoke it when discrimination occurs, and those who are excluded.

The Bloc Québécois agrees that section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be removed from the act, as Justice La Forest recommended.

However, there is one thing we do not understand. Our critics who sit on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development know what this is; we do not understand why there was no prior consultation with aboriginal groups and the first nations.

It is true that the bill provides for a six month transition period as soon as section 67 is repealed. Nonetheless, that is not very much time considering the adjustments that will be necessary.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court, in Delgamuukw, in Mitchell and in so many other cases, reminded us that the federal government has a specific responsibility toward aboriginals: it is their trustee. When the charter was passed in 1982, section 35 recognized specific ancestral rights for the first nations stemming from the fact that they were the first inhabitants of this land. It is unacceptable that the federal government, in its capacity as trustee—as part of its fiduciary responsibilities—is not consulting the first nations.

Again, the Bloc Québécois does not have a problem with the principle of the matter. We agree that 30 years after the Canadian Human Rights Act was passed, it is conceivable, normal and desirable for the first nations to enjoy the same protection, same rights and the same constitutional guarantees. When discrimination occurs, they have to be able to lodge a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and ultimately call for a human rights tribunal, if necessary.

This is the federal government's responsibility as a trustee. Moreover, if the member for Abitibi were with us today, he would remind us of that fact. Our colleague who sits on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development would do the same. If the federal government has one fiduciary responsibility, it is that it must never take action without first consulting extensively.

This is what is so sad about the current situation. No one in the first nations was consulted, be it their authorized spokesperson, Phil Fontaine, Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, the women's groups or young people. We believe that this is not the way to do things.

Failing to consult these groups is a black mark on the federal government in its relations with the first nations. Obviously, it is not the only one. We know that this government has a very poor record when it comes to the first nations, especially on the issue of housing.

We know that the first nations are a young people. Demographically and statistically, they are undergoing great changes. They are a people with an extremely high birth rate. Young people make up a large segment of the aboriginal population. This reality raises the whole issue of equitable access to housing.

The government has a fiduciary responsibility to the first nations. Sadly, it is doing a very poor job of living up to its responsibilities and has not put sufficient resources for housing on the table.

Since I see that my time is almost up, I will conclude by saying that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-44. It was in favour when Justice La Forest issued his recommendations in 2002. We believe that human rights and freedoms should apply equally to first nations people living on reserves and people living throughout Canada and Quebec. Nevertheless, it saddens us that the first nations were not consulted. We hope the government will learn its lesson and will not introduce other legislation without holding consultations.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, today I want to spend my 20 minutes explaining that this is not going to be as easy a process as people might think. It appears to simply be taking a clause out of bill; obviously it is a motherhood clause whereby we would give everyone human rights. That seems pretty simple and straightforward, and a lot of us in this House agree with that.

For a number of reasons, this is not going to be that simple. I do not think the media, a lot of whom have tuned into this, or some members of Parliament realize the important debate underlying this particular removal of one simple clause. We are talking about the coming together and cooperation of two entirely different cultures. They have different linguistics, rituals, forms of government and collective rights, and different ways of governing, and we are going to apply legislation related to a right from one onto the other.

Mark my words: this is going to involve a very serious debate on this issue in committee and, as this bill is being discussed, on this larger issue. Some of the problems that some of my colleagues have already outlined, and which I will again emphasize, simply are created by the inappropriate preparation of this legislation. The government could have reduced a lot of the amendments that will have to be made to make it more reasonable and appropriate.

Bill C-44 is related to an amendment to the Human Rights Act. The Human Rights Act, passed in 1977, prohibits discrimination during employment or provision of services by governments. This bill would remove a clause that basically says discrimination caused by the Indian Act is okay and cannot be charged against. I am going to just go through some of the issues I see here and some of the things that have to be taken into account for this very worthy cause to be successful and to be undertaken properly.

First, of course, is resources. If we were to try to implement laws in Canada today without any police or prosecutors, to some extent like we are trying to do in Afghanistan, obviously it would not work. These things are involved when we are implementing a new law. As for ignoring this issue completely, unfortunately this government seems to have a habit of doing this. I think we have asked different justice ministers about this three times. On each occasion, the answer was no, there was no provision and there was either no calculating or insufficient calculating of resources. I remember that in regard to the two times I asked, the first time he said that the improvements to society because of this bill will pay the costs.

First, with regard to this particular bill, the witnesses suggested there would be more costs to society and it would be a backward step, so that would not work, and even if it did, of course, the Financial Administration Act does not work that way. We cannot take some general improvement in society to pay for the implementation of a bill. In the other act, the Minister of Justice just said that it was the public safety minister's problem and he can pay for it. If a government seriously wants legislation to pass, to be implemented and to work, it is obviously going to analyze the resources.

In regard to this particular bill, first nation governments and institutions, especially as strapped as they are, will need training. They are going to need implementation funds. There are all sorts of costs to bringing in laws, obviously, both for them and for the federal government.

Of course, the federal government has a big purse for defending itself. It has a lot of lawyers itself. All governments are always defending themselves. But what resources do first nations have? People think they just add things to first nation governments or aboriginal governments and there is a wealth of resources, but they are strapped for cash. They do not have resources for anything except for what has been given to them for specific reasons by other levels of government. On a day to day basis, they are scrambling to implement the things they have to implement now.

If we impose more demands on those resources, like we would by this act, where are they going to take the resources from? From the things that we have already found wanting, such as housing, education and even safe drinking water? They have no other resources and there are none contemplated here. Just imagine, for instance, the number of buildings and facilities in first nations communities across the country that are not wheelchair accessible. In regard to this bill, there are all sorts of potential costs to first nations with no analysis of what they might be, with no provisions, and with no suggestion by the federal government that they would be paid for.

Another very important area, as mentioned by some of my colleagues, is an interpretive clause. I will discuss it more later, but when we have, in a cooperative, diverse society such as ours, a coming together of two entirely different cultures, we are going to need, and the experts have suggested it, an interpretive clause as to how this would be applied to first nation governments and institutions. This has come out before, in many recommendations

The third major area that will require discussion and improvement is consultation. I do approve of the government's clause in the bill that there will be a review after five years, but that is too late. In this day and age, it would be insane for any government, both politically and legally, not to consult with first nations on such a major issue as this, which is entirely in the essence of the philosophy of defining collective and individual rights. Consultation is just mandatory now when major changes are made. Court case after court case has indicated that with first nations we must do consultation. It would make no sense at all to go forward without consultation, as the government seems to be doing. A number of members have already spoken to that point so I will not go on at length.

The next is the time needed to put this into place. The government is giving six months. There is no possibility that such a major change could be in place in six months given all the training and resources that the government has not come up with yet, given the interpretation that it has not come up with yet, and given the preparation and training of first nation governments to deal with these complaints under the human rights commission. No one, including the government, has suggested that six months would work for the training of police and setting up of systems in Afghanistan, so for this there should be a far more reasonable time. I am suggesting 30 to 45 months to put all the pieces in place, pieces that have not even been started yet.

The next area that I think needs to be discussed is the area of aboriginal and treaty rights and the effects on aboriginal treaty rights. These are longstanding and very complicated. Some are constitutional. Some are a moral imperative. They have to be looked at and analyzed and there is no sense that it has been done in the development of the bill. We have been given nothing whatsoever in regard to the effects of this bill on these complex situations, nor has there been analysis of the effect of the bill on those rights. I am not saying it cannot go ahead, but obviously we have to analyze those effects, make sure this can go ahead legally and morally and see if any adjustments have to be made.

In the modern treaties, it is not so much a problem, because in most of the modern treaties the first nation or aboriginal people have to come under the human rights legislation. For those aboriginal people who are worrying about whether it is possible, we can see good examples of this, such as the Cree, the Tlicho, many of the Yukon first nations, the Nisga'a, and the Westbank, who do fall under human rights legislation. We can see that it is working, but it is all the other situations that have not been analyzed.

That leads to a very worrying aspect of the development of legislation by the Conservative government. Normally, legislation is developed through a very thoughtful process, after long study by the officials in the bureaucracy. They finally come forward, after having looked at all the things I am talking about, with recommendations in all of these areas and with the effects of a bill. That just does not seem to have occurred this time, obviously, or all these things would have been looked at and addressed one way or another. This is a very serious charge.

When we were doing the justice committee in Toronto, we heard from a person who told us that basically this was also not occurring with the preparation of justice bills. Previously there had been vast public consultation, with officials from the bureaucracy looking at all aspects of a bill and then bringing it forward. This was not being done in the justice bills that were being so widely criticized by a vast majority of the witnesses. That was obviously why they were being so widely criticized: they had not gone through the proper preparation.

I want to talk about the sixth area of concern. It is related to institutions. It may be more appropriate to have an aboriginal institution deal with charges against aboriginal governments and institutions. Most members who have been in the House for a few years realize that a number of bills have been passed recently that have very appropriately expanded the institutional operation of first nations, and they have created a number of first nations institutions to have them deal with new powers given to aboriginal people rather than existing institutions that may not be as sensitive or knowledgeable about the area. That is a whole area that has not been looked at and commented on.

There are other areas in justice development that of course need priority attention from the government. In my area, the Teslin Tlingit Council has been negotiating for years to get its justice system into place. It has evolved through land claims. As well, the Carcross Tagish First Nation is working on new family law that it needs support for.

I want to make it clear for those watching that the exemption that would be removed only allows it to be about discrimination that is caused by the Indian Act, so that aboriginal people on treaty land can continue, as they do about 40 times a year, to lodge complaints against the Human Rights Commission if it is for other human rights violations in their communities. This is just a narrow scope. Although the Indian Act is fairly large and pervasive, it is only the actions relevant to the Indian Act.

As my colleague, the hon. member for Nunavut, was explaining, this would not apply to self-governing first nations that no longer come under the Indian Act, because there would be no discrimination caused by the Indian Act.

As I said, I think this is a far larger debate than the media and some MPs think it might be, because of the great debate it brings up between collective and individual rights and the differences between the two societies. I think of the collective ceremonies of potlatches and sun dances, and I think of the family law being developed by the Carcross Tagish Band, where family relationships and who is responsible are much broader and different in first nations.

I think of first nations people not “owning” the land. What says that kind of system cannot work? I represented Canada in Mongolia recently. It was Mongolia's 800th anniversary. No one owns the land. Vast herds move around on unowned land. There are very successful producers. There is nothing to say that any type of society's laws, institutions or procedures cannot work or that any one is better than another, but I believe that in Canada we can come up with a made in Canada solution. We can compromise and work together to accomplish something that will work in a practical way for all of us.

I want to talk a bit about the history of the development of this exemption. This is not the first time it has been tried. In talking about that, I also want to show support for some of the changes I have recommended in the first part of my speech.

This has been brought forward a number of times since the Canadian Human Rights Act was implemented in 1977. In 1992, Bill C-108 was put forward but did not pass first reading. The second time was in the year 2000. There was a report called “Promoting Equality: A New Vision”. All the aboriginal groups at the time had asked for a repeal but thought a blanket repeal was inappropriate, and once again, they thought an interpretive clause was required for the very reasons I set out earlier. That supports one of the points I have made.

The third time it came up was under Bill C-7. The women, who were probably the most drastically affected by this, still brought up the question of collective rights. Bill C-7 did not go through, but it was a much larger bill so there were other elements that prevented it from getting through.

The fourth time it came up was in a report in a special study on the repeal of section 67, entitled “A Matter of Rights” in 2005. Once again it hit the nail on the head when it said there should be an interpretive clause in order that individual claims, to be free from discrimination, are considered in light of legitimate collective interest. It also talked about the need for consultations which a number of us have already explained that are so sorely lacking. It recommended 18 to 30 months for implementation, not the 6 months in the bill or the 30 or 45 months that I was suggesting. It also talked about institutional adjustments, which support the six suggested areas that need improvement, study, additions or amendments that I spoke about earlier.

The report also talked about resources which was my very first point, so we are not taking this money from areas that are already in dire need in first nation communities: health, education and housing.

The fifth time it came up was in 2006 in a report entitled “Access to Justice and Indigenous Legal Traditions”. Once again the report suggested that there a multi-year plan to fully engage and meaningfully consult with first nations and aboriginal communities on the repeal of section 67 and again there was no consultation. It talked about a comprehensive multi-year plan and access to resources, and other points that I made earlier which would be needed to make this work at all.

If the bill goes into effect and there are no resources, obviously it will not work. Some might say that aboriginal women in remote areas could perhaps access legal aid to put their complaints forward to make it work or the court challenges program or the Law Reform Commission. Lo and behold, the government has cut all those programs either entirely or in part. Therefore, what type of resources is the poor aboriginal woman in some remote community going to use to engage in these new-found powers and abilities to protect herself?

The UN has also brought up the potential repeal of section 67 in 2004 by the special rapporteur, in 2006 by the human rights committee and in 2006 by the committee on economic, social and cultural rights. All were in favour of the repeal of section 67.

I want to talk about the reaction of various groups. The Native Women's Association of Canada and similarly the AFN said that this would be a disaster without consultation for the various reasons I have mentioned on numerous occasions already.

The AFN suggested the need to look at an aboriginal institution for the implementation in the aboriginal community. It talked about an interpretive position once again to safeguard the important collective rights while balancing the rights of the individual. It talked about resources, so we can see over and over again the six points I made at the beginning of my speech are being supported by all sorts of experts in other areas. The input and consultation, if it was done, was not taken into account in what has been presented to Parliament. It talked about how it would affect the housing shortages if resources were taken away to implement this law in order to train people and to have their officers working to defend them on claims under the bill. It talked about a minimum of 30 to 45 months for implementation which is exactly what I recommended earlier in my speech.

Other supporters of the repeal of section 67 were the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and the Grand Chief of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation. In general, there has been editorial support for this in all regions of the country.

I would like to summarize the six serious points I have given with all sorts of backup from experts, from previous reports and from first nations consultations. We need the resources. We need to look at interpretive cause under this coordination of cultures. We need to look at consultation that should have been done long ago. We need to look at the timeframe to realistically implement this. We need to look at the potential impacts on aboriginal treaties and rights. We need to look at aboriginal institutions to possibly implement this.

Finally, this is a much larger issue. We can support this and come up with a made in Canada solution, but we have to have a very sensitive and open discussion, and understanding among Canadians where collective rights are viewed with importance but come together with a practical Canadian solution so that this can work for everyone's benefit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join my colleagues and speak to Bill C-44, a bill that seeks to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act by repealing section 67 that pertains to the Indian Act. Section 67 reads:

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

At the outset I can say that I am a very staunch supporter of human rights. I have spoken publicly on this topic many times. Therefore, I support the bill in principle. What I do not support is the lack of sensitivity and understanding of the perimeters of the bill and its implications on the aboriginal way of life.

I am also saddened by the fact that the Conservative government failed to listen to many interventions already made in the past about the approach to take with the step to repeal section 67 that no one is arguing with, mainly the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Canadian Bar Association, to name a few.

I am also disappointed that the government failed to work with the very people who will be impacted by this legislation to draft a bill that has their blessing, the first nations of Canada.

Many members have spoken to the technical aspects of the bill. I will speak more to the human elements and the fine balance of collective rights versus individual rights. I will also speak to the need for an interpretative clause, as recommended by the Human Rights Commission in more than one report.

In its report entitled, “A Matter of Rights:”, the Canadian Human Rights Commission review panel amplified that point by saying:

In repealing section 67, it is important to ensure that the unique situation and rights of First Nations are appropriately considered in the process of resolving human rights complaints.

The commission stressed that there be an additional clause that provides an interpretation of how individual rights do not ultimately discriminate instead on legitimate collective rights.

I will read an insert from AFN's report which states:

In previous submissions on section 67 the AFN has strongly advocated for the inclusion of an interpretative clause. Our rationale for doing so relates to our concerns about the effect of federal legislation in undermining our collective rights and its strong interest in achieving an appropriate balance between individual and collective rights.

The Indian Act is an instrument that has been used to undermine the “collective” economic, social, cultural and political rights of First Nations Peoples in Canada for more than 100 years.

This same CHR report spoke strongly of the need for provisions to enable the development and enactment in full consultation for first nations. It was also sensitive to the timeframe required to implement the changes and gave a more realistic transitional period of between 18 and 30 months so that first nations and the commission are ready and prepared to work to resolving complaints efficiently, effectively and quickly. There needs to be time given to adapt to another fundamental change to a different way of doing things.

Aboriginal people suffer constantly because of decisions made somewhere else that do not give us any opportunity, first, to be part of the process that leads to that decision. Then we must live with it and are usually not given any chance to phase in the change. Canadians wonder why we are suffering social consequences.

Governments have had over 100 years to implement the Indian Act, as imperfect as it is. Now they are asking bands to implement Bill C-44 in six months. Where is the fairness in that?

The previous Liberal government was building a strong relationship with the aboriginal communities and worked with concerned people on the scope of legislation before it was tabled in the House.

First nations should also be given resources, not only to implement this change but to help develop the interpretive clause so sorely needed with this legislation: funds to do capacity-building, funds to explain the changes to everyone, funds to develop procedures and implementation systems, funds to phase it in and to do the work in the language required to reach the people who will be affected.

We see examples already in the world of fundamental changes happening, but also of how the people are slow to follow in the actual practices. The western world rejoiced in the fall of the Berlin wall and also when Communism was no longer a way of life in Russia, but we know that people have been slow to exercise their new freedoms. There is always a need for transitional time for life changes. Six months does not cut it.

I am sure we can go to these countries and see the people still learning to embrace their new freedoms and exercise their democratic rights. Why would the Conservative government think it would be any different for first nations? Does it think they are not the same as other human beings, which would then, of course, defeat the whole purpose of repealing this section? I say this because the Conservative government is sending mixed message to the aboriginal peoples of Canada in how it is treating all its aboriginal files, without any sensitivity and true deliberation on the issues.

I also want to address briefly the issue of individual rights versus collective rights. I know this is a difficult concept for our Conservative friends to understand but it is a real concern for us, as aboriginal people who stand firmly on the issue of our collective rights.

In my riding of Nunavut, we chose within our modern day treaty to own the land collectively and not individually. This is a fundamental difference in our way of dealing with real estate than most Canadians. One of the things that I am really worried about with this legislation is that it may be a first step to putting the land under fee simple, which would then cause a total erosion of aboriginal claims among the first nations people.

Also, when there is an economic opportunity, like a park or a mine opening, most aboriginal people want the collective to benefit rather than a select few. How we achieve this can be in the area of hiring practices or in awarding contracts and giving preferences to our members, or in providing programs and services exclusively or on a preferential basis to members where justifiable. This is done for members who are usually not benefiting from this economic activity or prosperity of their region.

Sometimes there is a need for affirmative action programs for a group of people who are already disadvantaged in order to get them to a level playing field. We need to ensure that first nations have that flexibility within reason to address the social dilemmas facing many of our aboriginal communities. First nations must be given that option.

One example I can give with my own modern day treaty is that we need to get mining companies or even the different governments to have an impact benefit agreement with the people who live there. That would ensure that the benefits are reaching and benefiting the people who live there and not all of the money is going out of the territory.

However, I am very sad to say that this legislation chose to ignore that and I must question why. Is there another reason for this? Because there is no provision for that in this legislation, I can stress the lack of sensitivity to the realities of our lives as aboriginal people.

I strongly urge the government to make the bill more user friendly and not another imposition and another change in which they had no opportunity to be part of the decisions leading up to this change. I had thought we were past that stage in Canada's history. Do not make us live it again.

[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.

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.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will continue the debate on the Liberal opposition motion.

Tomorrow we will resume debate on Bill C-31, the voter integrity bill, with Bill C-35, the bail reform bill as backup.

Monday we will call Bill C-31, elections, if it is not completed tomorrow; Bill C-44, human rights; Bill C-11, transport; Bill C-33, technical income tax; Bill S-2, hazardous materials; and the statutory order. We have an ambitious agenda there.

Tuesday, February 20, and Thursday, February 22, will be allotted to the business of supply.

On Wednesday we will continue with the business outlined on Monday.

Next Friday, I will consider beginning the debate on Bill C-45, An Act respecting the sustainable development of Canada's seacoast and inland fisheries.

With respect to the debate on the statutory order regarding the Anti-terrorism Act, if an agreement on debate is not reached before February 28, certain provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act will sunset. It is the government's view that all members should be given the opportunity to decide the fate of these provisions because they involve the safety of people they represent.

Recent events have made us aware that the terrorist threats continue to specifically target Canada, but if the terms of the law are not extended by March 1, the protections that we have in place right now will cease to apply.

If an agreement can be reached, I am prepared to call the motion sooner and sit as long as necessary on that day to bring the debate to a conclusion.

Opposition Motion--Government Policies

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest and with some incredulity as the minister outlined the efforts of his department to address aboriginal issues.

Let us be clear about this. The issue of the $3.7 billion includes the residential schools agreement, which was negotiated by the previous government and ratified by the Conservative government. It is not part of the regular operating dollars of the Department of Indian Affairs. Therefore, that is misleading to the public and to aboriginal peoples.

The minister speaks with great enthusiasm about his efforts to remedy the wrongs for aboriginal women. While I support very much his interest and commitment to it, I question the manner in which he is going about it. The other night in the House we heard one of his colleagues disparage the whole consultation process. I am curious to know why Bill C-44 was introduced without any consultation process, dealing with the repeal of section 67 of the Human Rights Act.

I am interested in his response to the fact that the Ontario chiefs have withdrawn from the matrimonial real property consultation process. I am interested in how he reconciles his desire for human rights for aboriginal women, without his real willingness to address the issues of housing, child welfare—

Indian Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to express my opinion on Bill C-289, An Act to amend the Indian Act (matrimonial real property and immovables).

As we debate Bill C-289, we are also debating government bill C-44. The latter proposes to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. The adoption of these two bills could be prejudicial because they run counter to commitments made by the government in May 2005.

In May 2005, the government promised to renew and strengthen the collaboration of the government and first nations, specifically by consulting the first nations before developing policies that impact them. This principle of collaboration constitutes the cornerstone of the new partnership. The private member's bill of the Conservative member for Portage—Lisgar directly affects this government commitment made to native peoples.

I have the statement made by the Prime Minister on April 19, 2004, and reiterated by the government on May 31, 2005. It states:

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

To strengthen policy development, the minister and the Assembly of First Nations commit to undertake discussions: on processes to enhance the involvement of the Assembly of First Nations, mandated by the Chiefs in Assembly, in the development of federal policies which focus on, or have a significant specific impact on the First Nations, particularly policies in the areas of health, lifelong learning, housing, negotiations, economic opportunities, and accountability; and, on the financial and human resources and accountability mechanisms necessary to sustain the proposed enhanced involvement of the Assembly of First Nations in policy development.

The government did not receive the support of the First Nations for the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, nor has it received the support of the native women's association for this bill tabled by the member for Portage—Lisgar, as it was introduced without consultation.

Is it unreasonable to believe, in the modern context, that to consult also implies the consideration of at least some recommendations based on cultural values and specific lifestyles?

Subsection 89(1) of the Indian Act exempts personal or real property of a band member located on-reserve from seizure or attachment by a non-Indian or a non-band member.

The provisions of the Indian Act on the rights of surviving spouses to property may be affected by approaches taken to address the issue of on-reserve matrimonial real property, and this would need to be considered.

Is this not good reason to take a closer look at the difficulties encountered in resolving certain situations that may at first appear very straightforward?

It is important to consider the opinions of the people experiencing the problems that need to be resolved or those who are involved in the conflict, in order to examine the necessary corrective action and, as needed, ensure the creation of legislation or regulations.

It seems to me to be a little early—perhaps even much too early—to present such a bill, given that a joint task force was only formed in February 2006 to carefully examine the issue of on-reserve matrimonial property. To pursue this, we would have needed recommendations from both Houses.

The joint task force was set up when the Bloc Québécois demanded that the government consult the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations by acting on the following recommendation made by the Senate Committee on Human Rights in its November 2003 report:

—the Committee recommends that appropriate funding be given to national, provincial/territorial and regional Aboriginal women’s associations so that they can undertake thorough consultations with First Nations women on the issue of division of matrimonial property on reserve. These consultations should be the first step in a larger consultation process with First Nations governments and Band councils with a view to finding permanent solutions which would be culturally sensitive—

The joint task force's mandate included drafting joint consultation documents, touring to consult aboriginal communities in Quebec, Canada and the provinces, and reporting aboriginal recommendations with a view to drafting a bill on the division of matrimonial real property and immovables on reserve.

Unless the hon. member for Portage—Lisgar can announce to us that he is withholding privileged information, more complete than that of the native women's association—which says it has not completed its research—we have to consider this bill as an insult to everyone doing research on this file. Accordingly, we have to recommend that this bill be defeated.

We find that through his bill introduced on May 17, 2006, the Conservative member for Portage—Lisgar has demonstrated political opportunism and lack of knowledge of the process already launched by his government. His persistence to achieve this could hinder the democratic process of the joint committee which, for the first time in 30 years, could have or propose a viable solution to an awkward situation for any democratic country. Furthermore, what are people to think when this involves the “very best country in the world”?

This private member's bill is an affront to the Quebec Native Women Inc., which is a major stakeholder in this working group. This ridiculous, thoughtless and disrespectful initiative undermines the credibility of this association's initiative and its chances for success.

This bill prematurely calls on Parliament to take a position at the very moment when the working group recommended by this House has not concluded its research, the results of which are needed in order to improve the living conditions of aboriginals.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada has noble intentions: to undertake consultations to find a solution to the issue of matrimonial real property on reserves in order to improve the rights of aboriginal women and provide them with the same legal protection enjoyed by non-aboriginal women with respect to divorce.

It is critical that aboriginal women be consulted with the utmost respect for their culture. To ensure that the consultations are worthwhile, native women's associations in Quebec, Canada and the provinces must be given the funding and the time they need to meet with all of the communities.

Aboriginal women deserve to have all of the information about the subject of the consultations: the Indian Act (matrimonial real property and immovables). It is even more important that the entire aboriginal population be informed of the impact of a law on the division of matrimonial real property on their everyday lives and in the case of separation.

Quebec Native Women Inc. believes that consultations in aboriginal communities require the expertise of family law and legal rights specialists. The officials conducting the consultations must be accompanied by specialists who can answer all of the people's questions.

Governments change with the tide, yet they stay the same. Whether Liberal or Conservative, their vision and their avoidance tactics are similar.

The member for Portage—Lisgar's Bill C-289, which was drafted without any consultation, is not what we need to make change happen now.

In conclusion, I feel it is premature to debate this bill because of the lack of consultation with the affected population and the lack of essential but currently unavailable information, a lack of information that could cause problems that will be even harder to fix than those these various bills seek to correct.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you for coming in for your presentation today.

I'm going to echo Monsieur Lemay's frustration. I was interested to see comments around personal responsibility in this document. I was in a home last summer that was absolutely spotlessly clean; you could have eaten off the floor. But on the outside of the house there was tin covering rotten floor boards that a contractor, who'd been in a couple of years ago looking at the house, didn't repair. He just nailed tin over top of them. We had to leap from the stairs of the front porch into the house because the boards were so rotten that the stairs pulled away. The house was absolutely spotless, but in the bathroom there was a piece of plywood over the floor so you didn't fall through the floorboards. In the second bedroom there was mould growing up the wall and over the ceiling. It wasn't an overcrowded house, which was unusual. The grandmother and her partner lived there, and occasionally the grandchildren stayed there. They would sleep in the living room so they weren't exposed to the mould.

This woman kept the house spotless, so tell me about personal responsibility.

In the Auditor General's report of 2003--and I think we come to some fundamental issues here--she talks about the fact that there are some fundamental differences in who has responsibility for what. She talks about the basic challenges with roles and responsibilities. Then in CMHC's report, “Aboriginal Housing Background Paper” draft, November 2004, it seems that the underlying problem comes down to the federal perspective that the Government of Canada does not recognize universal entitlement to government-financed housing as either a treaty or an aboriginal right, on- or off-reserve. It says, “However, housing challenges faced by aboriginal people greatly exceed those experienced by other Canadians. Consequently, the federal government has an interest in improving the socio-economic conditions for all aboriginal people regardless of location.”

So in that context, and given that we've heard from Statistics Canada that there's a growing crisis around housing, I wonder if any of you would care to comment on whether or not you see first nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples as having a fundamental human right to housing that other Canadians in this country expect as a right. Do you agree that first nations, Métis, and Inuit people have a human right to housing? If you do, what challenges do you see will face the government if they actually pass Bill C-44, repealing section 67? What's your estimate of what kinds of human rights complaints we might see filed against the federal government for its failure to provide adequate housing in this country?

Take it away.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, today we will be continuing the debate on the Bloc opposition motion.

Tomorrow we will begin debate on the statutory order concerning the Anti-terrorism Act. That is for the extension of its provisions.

Next week will be justice week, when the government will showcase part of its safer streets agenda, starting on Monday with the continuation of the debate on the Anti-terrorism Act if it is not completed on Friday.

On Tuesday we plan to begin debate on Bill C-35, which deals with bail reform, and on Wednesday we will resume debate on the second reading stage of the dangerous offenders legislation, Bill C-27.

Thursday, February 15 shall be an allotted day.

On Friday it is my intention to call the report stage of Bill C-10 on mandatory minimum penalties, on the assumption that the justice committee can have it to the House by that time.

For each day, we will have the following business scheduled as backup bills: Bill C-31, the voter integrity legislation; Bill C-44, relating to human rights; Bill C-11, on transport; and Bill C-33, the technical income tax act.

I will be working closely with my counterpart in the Senate with respect to progress on Bill S-4 or, as we keep hearing, the lack of progress.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, a strong, effective and responsible government must speak with one voice, whether it be in the Senate or the House of Commons. The fact that the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate cannot present the same position on Bill S-4 is further evidence that the Liberals are currently not fit to govern. I certainly would like the opportunity for this House to deal with that bill.

Canadian Human Rights Act

[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.

[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.

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that first nations women coast to coast to coast in this country have waited long enough to ensure that their human rights are respected and honoured in this country.

However, first nations women in this country, the Native Women's Association of Canada in particular, have gone on record as saying that they want to see their involvement in any legislation that is going to directly impact on them. I think it is absolutely reasonable that we would include people in the discussion, in identifying the problem and the solutions, when we are going to develop legislation that is going to directly impact on them in their communities, not only on them but on their children and their spouses.

I would agree with and I said earlier that we support the intent of the bill, but what we want to see is full consultation. When we are talking about issues around human rights, I urge that we have full consultation around Bill C-44 and the declaration on indigenous rights. There are many other things that we need to actually bring to the forefront if we want to talk about human rights in a meaningful way and sound like we have any credibility about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-44 today. The NDP will support the bill at second reading and refer it to committee. We do support the intent of the bill, but we do have some grave concerns around a number of aspects of the bill and that is specifically what I am going to be addressing this afternoon.

There are a number of issues that I will be talking about. I will be talking about lack of consultation, resources and process.

There have been many claims that there has been consultation over a number of years and yet, when it actually came to writing the content of the bill, there was no consultation on that particular part.

Part of what has been called consultation is consultation that went back to 1999, for example, in an overall review of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the old Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act. Those are some of the mechanisms that have been deemed as consultation.

I would argue that part of the problem that we have before the House right now is the fact that we have a government and previous governments as well that have not defined what consultation has meant. So we continue to bump up against this as a problem.

For first nations, Métis and Inuit people, whether it is this piece of legislation or other pieces of legislation that are developed, this directly impacts on their lives, on their ability to live in their communities, and in their ability to maintain a living. There was no consultation and sometimes the consultation is what I call lip service consultation. They will be called in and provide an opinion, and then the door is closed when the decision making is actually going to happen.

Consultation has been a problem that has been identified by the Auditor General. Supreme courts have ruled that there is a duty to consult, but the Auditor General has identified in one of her reports that there has been very little progress made on the part of the government in defining what consultation means. I would argue that if we are going to define what consultations means, we should actually include first nations, Métis and Inuit people as well.

In the discussion of the repeal of section 67 in Bill C-44 is the fact that every review of section 67 has called for an interpretive clause. Although there have been previous attempts to take a look at an interpretive clause, they have fallen short and actually failed.

In this case, I want to go back to the October 2005 report, “A Matter of Rights” by the Canadian Human Rights Commission which did call for the repeal of section 67 legislation. In the report it states:

--provisions to enable the development, in full consultation with First Nations, of an interpretative provision, which will take into consideration the special rights and interests of First Nations in order to guide the Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act with regard to complaints against First Nations governments and related institutions.

There are two pieces in that. First, is the issue around full consultation which I have already talked about and the long foot dragging that has happened in defining consultation, but second, in the report it specifically called for an interpretive provision. This same report also called for a transitional period between 18 and 30 months to allow for that consultation and the enactment of the proposed interpretive provision.

The bill is dealing specifically with first nations on reserve. We have 633 reserves in Canada and part of the challenge when we are talking about consultation is how do we meaningfully include people. We have seen some of these challenges come up with matrimonial real property in how people are included from coast to coast in consultation.

How do we reach out to those rural and remote communities? How do we ensure there are sufficient resources to make sure that people who are different nations, who have different points of view and different cultural and traditional backgrounds, have a consultative mechanism that actually takes a look at those differences?

Further on in this report it talks about moving forward to repeal the legislation. New Democrats agree there is a need to do that, but many first nations women are concerned that moving too quickly will have unanticipated consequences, much like the aftereffects of Bill C-31. That bill reinstated a woman's status if she married a non-native person, but has had the unintended consequences of what some people are calling legislated extinction. Under subsection 6.1(b) of that particular piece of legislation, there is a provision where people who marry non-native people end up losing their status. I want to say a little more about that.

I want to quote from a press release issued by Quebec Native Women Inc. It states:

If passed into law, Bill C-44 would change the ways in which decisions are made in Aboriginal communities. Human rights protection is an issue that deserves immediate attention, but a solution must be developed that takes into consideration the unique reality of Aboriginal people. Moreover, our customs and traditions must be taken into account, as well as our Aboriginal and treaty rights. “The creation of a structure that respects individual and collective rights of Aboriginal people should also originate from a process that reflects these same principles”, stated QNW president, Ellen Gabriel.

Ellen Gabriel is a well respected woman from Quebec. She has expressed some other concerns about how this particular piece of legislation can also be compared to the unintended consequences in Bill C-31. The press release went on to say:

The experience of Bill C-31 has shown us that well-intended legislation can have serious consequences for our people in the future. In addition, Aboriginal people can no longer accept the unilateral imposition of non-Aboriginal laws, which may be incompatible with our cultural values. Furthermore, research regarding the effects of the legislation should be undertaken before it is passed into law, not five years after when the problems created may be irreversible or are simply ignored. After all, we have understood for some time now the negative impact of Bill C-31, but nothing has been done about it.

It is really interesting to have a Conservative government introduce a piece of legislation that is talking about human rights. Yet, the Conservative government had an opportunity to support the United Nations declaration for indigenous rights. The Conservatives worked hard to ensure that Canadians were not supporting that, the Canadian government was not supporting that declaration. That has signalled to first nations, Métis and Inuit communities that this particular government is not taking human rights seriously in their communities.

Recently, Monday as a matter of fact, we had National Chief Phil Fontaine talk about filing a complaint at the Canadian Human Rights Commission regarding the appalling situation concerning child welfare in this country. Then my colleague from Timmins—James Bay today asked a question about Kachechewan, a community where the children do not even have access to a primary school. Surely schooling is a fundamental human right in this country.

There have been many opportunities for the government to demonstrate its commitment to human rights for first nations, Métis and Inuit people across this country and it has failed to do that. It is a bit hypocritical, I would suggest, to argue that the government's foremost piece of legislation will deal with human rights for first nations people in this country.

Mary Eberts from the Native Women's Association participated in the Department of Justice review on section 67 in the year 2000. She made a number of recommendations around section 67. I want to talk about a couple of those because people have put forward some proposed solutions for how we might deal with section 67. These are solutions that have come from first nations communities. Surely, those are the people who should be actively involved in putting forward those solutions. She said:

To protect traditional Aboriginal rights from the impact of a CHRA without section 67, include in the Act a provision similar to s. 25 of the Charter: the guarantee in this Act of certain rights shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any Aboriginal, treaty or other right that pertains to Aboriginal peoples in Canada.

She went on to say:

However, it should be recognized that some of Canada's most prominent foes of the rights of Aboriginal women have argued that the right to discriminate against and exclude women is part of the traditional heritage of Aboriginal people.

I might add that there are many people who do not agree with this opinion. This is not a universal point of view.

She states:

This argument is made, for example, by the Sawridge band in its case against Bill C-31, and in its intervention to oppose John Corbière's attack on s. 77 of the Indian Act. Accordingly, any provision drafted pursuant to recommendation 2 should include a safeguard, or rider, to the same effect as ss. 35(4) of the Constitution Act, 1982, that aboriginal and treaty rights are extended equally to men and women.

The [Canadian Human Rights Act] should apply to Band Councils, to their membership codes, and to the actions of the federal Government pursuant to the Indian Act. The Act should also include a standard provision that would make the [Canadian Human Rights Act] applicable to self-government agreements unless and until the measures to protect human rights were put in place pursuant to the agreement.

She also mentions:

--procedural rights, which could be enforced against procedural unfairness in dealing with claims for reinstatement under Bill C-31, and in the ways First Nations deal with reinstatees.

The [Canadian Human Rights Commission] needs to be provided with the funding to make it fully effective as an instrument of human rights enforcement. In the case of Aboriginal people, such funding would allow the Commission to take account of the facts that Aboriginal people live in isolated and remote areas; may not have access to sophisticated communications means; may have literacy and language issues in dealing with the Commission; do not have ready access to legal advice because of their isolation and poverty; live in small communities where reprisals for complaints may be a continuing problem or in urban centres where they may be homeless or transient; and are dealing with organizations...with a record of poor communication, so that access to required documentation may be difficult to obtain.

Ms. Eberts made a number of concrete recommendations that successive governments have failed to implement. The report was written back in 2000, I believe. I also have another section that I want to read for members, around the old Bill C-31, the old bill that reinstated women and has had this unintended consequence. She stated:

The shrinking of the status Indian community as a result of the application of the discriminatory provisions will enable the federal government to shed its responsibilities toward Aboriginal people, since it now recognizes obligations only to those who have status under the Indian Act. Bill C-31 also restricts the life choices of young Aboriginal people whose parents are C-31 reinstatees: to ensure that their children can be registered, they will have to partner with a status Indian. Policies restricting access of Bill C-31 reinstatees to their Bands or Band reserves may make it difficult to make such social connections; in any event, forcing them erects a kind of race segregation that resembles apartheid.

I am sure that nobody in this House wants to see unintended consequences from a piece of legislation that has not had that full consultation with first nations communities. The reason we support getting Bill C-44 to committee is that there must be that opportunity to hear from people who are going to be directly affected by the impact of this bill. It is essential that those voices are heard not only in examining this bill, but in identifying the resources required, in identifying the processes to make sure that we are hearing from people, and in identifying any potential amendments that might be necessary to make sure this bill reflects the needs of people in their communities.

I mentioned funding and resources. There are a couple of other things where we could talk about what might actually address some of the issues around human rights complaints. A number of first nations and reports have identified the fact that first nations are quite capable of developing human rights standards that could be equal to those of the Canadian Human Rights Act, if not better. The other issue is that there is a potential to have an ombudsperson who could work with communities that are identifying some human rights issues in their communities.

One of the things we know, of course, is that there is a financial cost to this, but I would argue that there is a financial cost to not doing it as well. We often do not examine those financial costs of not doing things. In this case, what we know is that if this bill goes ahead as it is, without any additional resources assigned to it, the Canadian Human Rights Commission could face increasing backlogs around dealing with some of these issues.

However, we also know that many band councils are not equipped to deal with the volume of Canadian human rights complaints that could come in. They do not have the resources. They often do not have the capacity. Then there are the challenges with travel, communications strategies and all of those kinds of things. If this bill is to move forward, it is essential that resources are provided to communities.

Mary Eberts and others have actually called for an ombudsperson. This person should be able to interact with communities that often have different language capabilities and that have perhaps some educational awareness issues around what could be included in appropriate mechanisms to deal with section 67.

The Native Women's Association of Canada has also recommended that the Canadian Human Rights Commission establish staff and tribunal panels composed of aboriginal people who not only have a background in human rights but also have a background in traditional dispute resolution mechanisms. That would also make sense.

We are seeing in other fields that there is a call in the criminal justice system for some restorative justice processes. Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, it would seem reasonable that we have some sort of commission or tribunal that could work with communities around their own traditional methods of dealing with complaints.

The other issue that I do not think we have touched on is the fact that the Canadian Human Rights Commission should have a special monitoring function with respect to Canada's compliance with international human rights obligations. I know that unfortunately Canada has been cited on a number of different occasions around violations of human rights in this country, particularly women's rights.

We have seen things like the cuts to legal aid that have impacted on first nations women being able to access legal aid when they have a court case to deal with. There are other issues like that which would seem to make it important to give the Canadian Human Rights Commission the ability to oversee the implementation of Canada's international obligations.

I talked about the short transitional period. The Canadian Human Rights Commission, when it made its recommendations, and we would support it, said that there should be at least an 18 to 30 month period of transition to allow the consultation and the development of the interpretive clause, which would make sure we were meeting the needs of first nations communities.

There are a number of other things that I would like to address, but I know I will run out of time so I will close with a couple of specific points.

I mentioned earlier that this is an opportunity for the Government of Canada to fulfill other obligations around human rights. I want to touch again on the United Nations declaration for indigenous rights. This is a statement of principle that has become a flagship for first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples from coast to coast to coast. Canada could signal its absolute commitment to human rights by supporting that declaration. There will be another opportunity, because it will likely come up again over the next few months.

It would be a statement that would say to first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples across this country that Canada takes human rights seriously and is committed to human rights. If we want to demonstrate that we are prepared to work with first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples across this country on human rights, that we are prepared to engage in discussions on a nation to nation basis and talk about some of the situations on the reserves in this country, this would be one way to show that we are prepared to not only talk the talk but walk the walk. That in itself would go a long way to telling people in this country that Canada truly does have a commitment to human rights.

In conclusion, the NDP will support this bill going to committee for a fuller review, where we would look forward to the kinds of consultation that could have this bill reflect the needs in communities across this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Churchill has given me the perfect introduction.

First, I would like to point out that the fundamental debate in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development will focus on the issue of individual rights vs. collective rights.

I would also like to point out that today, February 7, is the anniversary of a historic moment. I do not know if the Speaker and the members are aware of this, but exactly five years ago today,Quebec Premier Bernard Landry signed the Peace of the Braves, an agreement enabling the James Bay Cree to achieve the development they are currently enjoying. I wanted to point out the anniversary of this event that was so important to the development of relations between Quebec and first nations in the province.

The federal government should use the Peace of the Braves as a model for important agreements with first nations in the rest of Canada. One of these documents and one of these important matters is the one we will begin examining today, Bill C-44.

Why did I say earlier that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is important? It is important because the Canadian Human Rights Act is a fundamental law.

We lawyers know that, generally, the rights of individuals take precedence over collective rights. Before this bill was introduced, there was one exception, namely, section 67, which stated that the Canadian Human Rights Act did not apply to first nations peoples.

Complaints can be filed. I think it is important to underscore from the beginning that complaints can be filed if an individual feels he or she has been discriminated against based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex—including pregnancy and birth—sexual orientation, marital or family status, mental or physical disability—including existing or past addiction to alcohol or drugs—and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.

Why did I bother to articulate such a list? Because Bill C-44 will have a considerable impact on first nations peoples, who should be directly concerned about the application of this bill.

I think we must not be too hasty to pass this bill quickly, without first understanding all the consequences it will have on first nations peoples.

The Bloc Québécois, for which I am the critic for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, agrees that this bill should be studied in committee, where we must examine the impact this bill will have—because it will have an impact.

I looked at the documents sent to us for consultation. The bill itself is very short; it has only three clause. I think the impact of the bill will be considerable, given that previous governments have already tried in the past to repeal this famous section 67, which has been around since 1977.

It is not complicated. Since 1977, aboriginals have been excluded from the application of important legislation. In 1999 and 2002, there were attempts to adopt legislation to abolish section 67. In 1999, an independent review tribunal conducted a thorough study.

As I am sure you will understand, there is no way the Bloc Québécois will support a study to study the study that studied previous studies of the application of section 67.

As someone I know—me—would say, we will move on to more serious things as soon as the House consents to let the committee study this bill. I am saying this not only to first nations, but also to the government. They will have to have done their homework before appearing before us, before the committee that will study Bill C-44.

Why am I saying this? Because the Assembly of First Nations sent its recommendations to committee members. I have a question for the government. I began asking the parliamentary secretary earlier, but he dodged the question. Maybe it was the interpretation or maybe my question came at him too fast for him to understand it, but now I will make it very clear: How will the government interpret the clause or introduce a clause to interpret section 67?

The government has to be able to answer that. If individual rights prevail, if the government intends to give individual rights precedence over collective rights, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will have to undergo some major anti-aging treatment in administering the budgets allocated to it because it will find itself before the courts on what will likely be almost a daily basis. Imagine if, all of a sudden, tomorrow morning, individual rights were to take precedence. Let us say I am a person living on a reserve who does not have running water and is therefore deprived of adequate housing, so I take the government to court. That is how it will be for a very long time with a lot of issues.

However, if the government were to decide that collective rights take precedence for first nations, how would it explain to the general population that collective rights take precedence for first nations only?

Would that not leave the door wide open for citizens in the rest of Canada to take the government to court claiming it is not complying with its own law?

What I mean to say, after that little digression, is that even the government will have to do its homework and appear before the committee with real, practical solutions.

When I look at what the Canadian Human Rights Act covers, I do not know how the government is going to deal with the issue of marital status. People are currently discussing land-related rights on reserves, the rights of aboriginal women who do not enjoy equal rights. Are these individual rights? If so, the government is going to have to get its act together and allocate money accordingly. And will that put an end to first nations governance as we know it? These are important issues.

For once, I think that the government wants to go ahead with a bill that will drastically change how things are done in aboriginal communities in Canada, in Quebec and even in the far north. This afternoon, I am not certain whether the minister or the first nations have considered all the impacts of this legislation.

I can assure you that, starting this evening, I am going to read the reports that have already been tabled. Those on the committee who know me know that I will. I am going to read them so that the same reports cannot be tabled a second time as if they were new, but especially so that I can say that, from now on, things have to be done differently.

I look at the bill and I see that it does not explain what sort of review will be conducted under clause 2 of Bill C-44. For the time being, we do not know how the government will act. I do not have the answers today, but I would like to have them before I get to the committee. If we leave it to the parliamentary committee to determine how exactly this work will be done, the committee could be left with little time to consider the impacts of abolishing section 67.

I respectfully submit that this is important legislation, even though it has only two clauses. Despite its brevity, it would put an end to a temporary situation that has gone on for 30 years. That is quite powerful. If this bill is adopted by the House of Commons, everyone will have to realize that life will never be the same for the first nations or the minister. The question that I am asking myself but cannot answer is whether the government anticipated that things would never be the same. And is that what the government wants? This is important.

We will support this bill, so it can be examined in committee. We feel it is important to learn not only what first nations peoples want, but more importantly, whether they are ready to deal with the repeal of section 67 and to be subject to the act. Beginning immediately and as soon as the bill is passed, how will they be ready to deal with the act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act?

I feel this is important, with respect to aboriginal women and governance.

In my opinion—based on what I have read and my interpretation thus far—by repealing section 67 with this bill, the government wants to have an impact on first nations governance. I would remind the government that a bill was introduced in 2002, but it never passed. The government must be prepared, with its consultations of first nations peoples, to face the music.

I would now like to speak to first nations peoples directly. In my opinion, first nations peoples should agree to be subject to this act. I think it is important to say that the status quo is no longer viable. First nations peoples, first nations children and first nations women tell us that enough is enough and we must move forward. I do not necessarily believe that we have to move very, very quickly, before we have the chance to study all the implications of such a bill, but I think we should go ahead with this bill and that everyone must be prepared to deal with the ramifications.

Today, on February 7, I am not sure that the government or the first nations peoples are prepared to deal with this change, which is not just a legal change, but a change that necessarily requires a change in mentality. People have to get it in their heads that effective immediately, human rights must be respected within the first nations, the same way they are in other segments of the population of Canada and of Quebec.

In my opinion, and in the opinion of the Bloc Québécois, this legislation is important and will redefine relations between the government and the first nations. In my opinion, if this legislation is passed, the situation and development of the first nations will open major debates on the respect of individual rights versus collective rights within the first nations.

In closing, we are going to be faced with the extremely significant challenge of reconciling individual rights with collective rights within the first nations. At this stage this challenge seems very exciting and extremely important and I think that the first nations are ready for it.

I hope the government is ready as well. I would like this bill to be considered in committee quickly. I say quickly, but I mean with fresh eyes, with a view to the future and without constant reference to what was done in the past. Mistakes were made by both levels of government and by the first nations. Starting today, we have to look forward to see how we can make this important bill see the light of day. That is what we are going to do. I hope we have interesting debates in committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, you will see that I can ask a question in under 10 seconds.

In the member's opinion, when we study Bill C-44, should we focus on individual rights or collective rights?

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, this is a critical and important debate looking at the human rights of first nations citizens in our country. The Canadian Human Rights Act is not only based on principles upheld in this country but on international human rights principles and practices for which we are leaders on the world stage. As Canadians we are very proud.

Today I am also proud to contribute to the debate at second reading of Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. The intention of the bill is to effectively repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, 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.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development stated:

Since its inception, section 67 has been the subject of numerous calls for repeal, including calls from the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, as well as from Canada's national Aboriginal organizations. Today, this Government is moving forward to finally repeal section 67 to ensure that all Aboriginal people have the same access to human rights protections as all other Canadians.

The member for Provencher, when he was minister of justice, stated:

The repeal of section 67 represents an important step in furthering and enhancing the individual human rights protection enjoyed by all Canadians.

The departmental backgrounder states:

Section 67 was part of the Canadian Human Rights Act when the Act was introduced in 1977. At the time, discussions were underway with Aboriginal groups about possible reforms to the Indian Act. Section 67 was originally adopted as a temporary measure because it was recognized that the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act to all matters falling under the Indian Act could have resulted in certain provisions of the Indian Act being found discriminatory before the discussions with Aboriginal groups about reforming the Indian Act had concluded. Since its inception, however, section 67 has been the subject of numerous calls for repeal--

As was stated by my colleague and by the member opposite, the intention of this bill, to address the issue of human rights for first nations in Canada, is indeed something which I am also in agreement with, but I have serious concerns with the process indicated in Bill C-44. Given that Churchill riding has a high first nations population, I want to ensure that my constituents have a voice in this critical debate.

We have heard from the parliamentary secretary that the issues and concerns surrounding section 67 have been around for the past 30 years and since its inception it has been the subject of numerous calls for repeal. First nations and aboriginal groups have also made statements and have positions on this issue as well.

As a whole, first nations have voiced their commitment to human rights. They have long-standing traditions, cultures and laws, respecting human rights, both individual and collective. Indeed they have been here for thousands of years.

When the Canadian Human Rights Act became law, the unique circumstances and perspectives of first nations were recognized in the exemption of the Indian Act bands through section 67. It was never intended to be long term but it was expected that the government would engage the first nations and respectfully and appropriately reflect first nations interests and perspectives relating to human rights. That the Government of Canada intends to forcefully move ahead to repeal the section without due regard to the first nations position as voiced is a deep concern.

There was also a recommendation for a consultation process in the October 2005 special report by the Canadian Human Rights Commission entitled “A Matter of Rights”. It recommended the repeal of section 67. It recommended that:

The repeal legislation [must] include provisions to enable the development and enactment, in full consultation with First Nations, of an interpretative provision, which will take into consideration the rights and interests of First Nations.

If we are considering human rights, then it must be in that spirit that Canada work alongside first nations. How critical is this? How necessary is it for the government to fully consult with first nations on this legislation and how it relates to their future and their well-being?

We have heard over and over again in this House about the dire living conditions of first nations. The government must also fully appreciate the potential impacts on aboriginal and treaty rights that this bill may have. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples stated that aboriginal peoples must have the room to exercise their autonomy and structure the solutions.

We are talking about a position by first nations, recommendations, and consultation between first nations and government, and more specifically, the drafting and approval of an interpretative provision on section 67. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, which represents 33 first nations in my riding, has recommended that any proposed interpretative provisions not become merely guidelines or policy but a legislative provision, legally binding, and also that this process be first nations specific.

We have heard from other members today about the concerns on collective rights that first nations have continually maintained and to achieve a sustainable solution for all first nations citizens. I have mentioned many of these elements in previous speeches, but unfortunately, I have to repeat myself.

In May 2005 an agreement was signed by the Assembly of First Nations and the then Liberal government, the First Nations-Federal Crown Political Accord on the Recognition and Implementation of First Nations Governments. It laid a framework for a collaborative federal policy development process that would guarantee first nations participation. Bill C-44 was not a result of this collaborative process as guaranteed by this accord.

While the bill actually has a transition provision, it does not explicitly contain any terms for a delay period in order to establish issues relating to implementation. Bill C-44 does provide a six month period of immunity for first nations from complaints as outlined in clause 3 of the bill.

Most first nations lack the resources to manage the new exposure to liability they would face if Bill C-44 was adopted or to undertake ameliorative measures to minimize potential risks. A six month immunity period will not change this situation. It will only defer the inevitable flood of complaints that will follow after a six month delay period when our communities are facing chronic housing shortages and limited access to and services for disabled people. First nations require the financial resources to minimize or eliminate potential exposure to the risk of complaints. We must first ensure that first nations are provided with adequate resource mechanisms and institutions to fulfill their new responsibilities and risks.

I agree with the intent of this bill, but I have serious concerns about the process and the lack of consultation with first nations and aboriginal groups such as the Native Women's Association of Canada. That association has voiced concerns as well about the lack of consultation in this process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech given by my colleague, who, I would like to underscore before the House, is doing terrific work on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. I have a very specific question for her. She knows from committee that I ask very specific questions.

Does she believe that this bill will focus on individual rights rather than group rights, when we talk about eliminating section 67 and replacing it with Bill C-44?

What position will she take on this bill once it goes to committee? A very serious matter concerning the rights of individuals in relation to group rights will then have to be debated.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by saying that those of us on this side of the House will not take a back seat to anyone on human rights. I am very proud to be part of a group and a community that has championed human rights, a party that has enshrined in Canadian society the right to freedom of religion, freedom of thought, freedom of expression and freedom of the press, to name but a few.

However, I listened to my colleague opposite, and before I get into the substance of the bill, I want to remind him that while his Conservative government has indeed introduced legislation to right a legislative wrong, it has to do more. We cannot talk about addressing human rights issues without addressing the human rights needs of individuals, such as housing, drinking water and education.

As we know, the Kelowna accord addressed many of these human rights needs of first nations. The actual negotiation for Kelowna took place over 18 months between 2004 and 2005. It focused on building a more promising future for aboriginals. It set aside more than $5 billion over that period to close the gaps in the needs that we expect all Canadians to have: the human rights needs of a safe place to live, a bed to sleep in, education, housing and economic opportunities.

In my view, it is a profound breach of faith that the minority Conservative government decided to break a promise made by the previous government, a solemn promise made to the leaders of the nation's five most prominent aboriginal groups.

If we are going to strengthen democracy, we cannot ignore the human rights needs of our first nations people that go beyond the legislative need to file a human rights complaint.

I will acknowledge that there has been a hole in the Human Rights Act, a hole that needed to be and should have been filled by previous governments.

When I speak of section 67 of the Human Rights Act, I acknowledge that it was designed to be in place for only a temporary period of time. That temporary period of time, we have heard, has been 30 years. It is time that steps are taken to extend to aboriginal peoples on reserve what those of us not on reserve take for granted, that is, the ability to file a human rights complaint when we feel that our rights are being abused.

However, while I support the intent of the legislation, and I want to underline the fact that I support it, I do have some concerns.

The first concern I want to raise has been raised by one of my colleagues in questioning. In keeping with its pattern of operation, the Conservative government has yet again failed to recognize and acknowledge that the time period in which the federal government would dictate policy to aboriginal people is behind it. It is no more.

We do not impose any more without consulting. Why the government would choose to operate in this way is beyond me. There has been no consultation. There has been no forewarning. There has been no discussion with first nations. There has simply been a decision made to do it and say that it is time to impose it. That is not the way to do business with first nations.

Previous reports that examined the effect of repealing section 67 of the Human Rights Act have made it clear that a transition and implementation period is necessary in order to effectively acclimatize first nations for the legislation. The Human Rights Commission, which we all know of and is well regarded, recommended that the transition and implementation period be a minimum of 18 months and up to 30 months. Other groups have also recommended an implementation and transition period of 30 months.

Did the government consider this when it drafted its recommendations? Did it consider what the Human Rights Commission had to say? Did it ask first nations how long they thought they needed before being adequately prepared? It appears not. It seems that they plucked a number out of the air and said that first nations have six months to prepare.

We know that most first nations do not have the resources or capacity to cope with the potential exposure to liability or to undertake measures to reduce risk. We know that in the bill the government has neglected to mention any resources that will be allocated to capacity building. There must be a capacity both to respond to and to prevent human rights violations.

Also, as it relates to the repeal of section 67, the government has chosen to ignore the matter, and again it has been raised here today, of an interpretive clause. By so doing, the government has once again said that it knows best. It has ignored the advice of the Human Rights Commission and the will of first nations, which both say that an interpretive clause is a necessary inclusion in any legislation dealing with section 67.

The purpose of the clause would be to assist the Human Rights Commission in adjudicating claims against first nations governments, agencies and institutions. In previous submissions on the repeal of the section, the Assembly of First Nations has strongly advocated for the inclusion of such a clause. It does so to ensure that their concern in maintaining an appropriate balance, which again we heard raised earlier today, a balance between collective rights and individual rights, is maintained, and consequently the tradition of collectivity carries on for future governments. Again the government has chosen to bypass this. Before Bill C-44 is finalized, there must be an accommodation for an interpretation clause.

Yet another concern as it relates to the repeal of section 67 is the impact it will have on aboriginal and treaty rights. The constitutional analysis and effect related to the repeal is unknown and needs to be examined before moving forward with the bill. We have heard that will happen in five years. It seems to me that this is putting the cart before the horse. Usually in all other areas when we implement legislation, we need to know what the impact will be, and then we move forward. We seem to be doing it backwards this time.

Another concern is the issue of jurisdiction and who is best able to deal with the issues of human rights complaints on reserves. In its report on section 67, again the Human Rights Commission suggests the possibility of the enactment of a first nations human rights commission and tribunal. Its idea, which I believe the Assembly of First Nations has endorsed enthusiastically, is nowhere to be seen in the legislation. The establishment of such a commission and tribunal would go a long way to addressing the concerns.

From the outset, I say on behalf of my party that we support the intent of the legislation. Our support for the purpose of the legislation, the extension of rights, is consistent with the Liberal Party's activities over the years from Confederation to today. However, I do have to note the irony that the same government that rushes to introduce the legislation is also responsible for successfully lobbying for the abandonment of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples.

I agree that the same rights need to be extended across this country to every person. The fact that the legislation will extend the ability to file human rights claims is long overdue, but I repeat that there are concerns that need to be addressed. There are matters of consultation. There are matters of implementation. There are matters of capacity. There are matters of an interpretive clause. There is the matter of the analysis on the impact on treaty and aboriginal rights. Also, there is the whole issue of operation.

I look forward to seeing this piece of legislation go to committee. There is much work to be done in committee before it can be brought back to the House for a successful conclusion.

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if passed into law, Bill C-44 would change the way that decisions are made in the aboriginal community. Human rights protection is very important, but the point I was trying to make with my last question is that even though we keep hearing about 30 years, it will take time to take this on issue and gain the trust of this community. I will repeat my point that I do not believe the minister gave enough time to establish that relationship of trust as needed.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the parliamentary secretary's comments. I would like to point out to him—this is rather bizarre—that the current government is using pressure from the United Nations Commission on Human Rights to justify coming back with this bill, in order to eliminate a section that, I feel, completely discriminates against first nations peoples. I will come back to this in a moment.

First off, following that small comment, I wanted to ask the parliamentary secretary if he heard the statements made by the Assembly of First Nations of Canada. Furthermore, what does he intend to do or recommend to the committee concerning the famous interpretation clause that first nations peoples would like to see before Bill C-44 is enacted, if it passes?

[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 rise today to express my support for Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. Today my hon. colleagues have an opportunity to make Canada a more impartial and egalitarian society. The legislation now before us strives to end an unjust situation created when the Human Rights Act first came into effect 30 years ago.

Bill C-44 proposes to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and thereby provide individuals, namely residents of first nation communities, with the same protection against discrimination long enjoyed by other Canadians. To understand the importance of repealing section 67, allow me to provide some context.

When the Canadian Human Rights Act was enacted in 1977, it was properly seen as a significant and progressive accomplishment for our country. The act furthered Canada's reputation as a respectful, democratic nation, dedicated to protecting the rights of its citizens. Observers from around the globe applauded Canada and our comprehensive approach to human rights protection. The Canadian Human Rights Act defines discrimination clearly and institutes a readily accessible investigative process that is open to public scrutiny.

The act not only prohibits discrimination based on 11 specific grounds, but also it provides the legal resource and recourse to citizens who feel that the federal government or institutions operating under federal jurisdiction have violated their rights. Under the act, it is forbidden to discriminate based on age, race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, mental or physical disability or pardoned conviction.

To investigate and adjudicate alleged acts of discrimination, the act establishes 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 our country.

Unfortunately, not all Canadians enjoy equal access to the legal instruments provided by the Canadian Human Rights Act. Section 67 states:

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

This sentence simply and effectively denies some Canadians access to the remedies granted in the act. Section 67 shields the Indian Act and any decisions made or actions taken under the Act from application of the Canadian Human Rights Act. In effect, section 67 puts into question our claim to be a fair and egalitarian society.

When the Canadian Human Rights Act was debated in the House and reviewed in committee, the presence of section 67 elicited many objections. The exemption it granted, though, was accepted at the time as a temporary measure, one that would be rescinded once reforms to the Indian Act were completed. In fact, however, the kind of extensive reform of the Indian Act that was anticipated, and so greatly needed, in the 1970s has still not come. Later, more focused attempts to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, in the form of both government sponsored legislation and a private member's bill, died on the order paper.

Today the exemption remains in place, creating a twisted 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 disturbing is that section 67 affects many of Canada's most vulnerable citizens, residents of first nation communities.

Among other matters, the Indian Act stipulates how first nation communities are governed, how Indian status is defined and how reserve lands are administered. Under section 67, potentially discriminatory decisions made by agencies mandated by the Indian Act, such as band councils and 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. We must take immediate action to remove this fundamental inequality.

Most Canadians recognize that huge gaps exist in the quality of life experienced by aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in our country. The government is determined to close these gaps and make tangible, sustainable progress on the full range of aboriginal issues. To do so, I believe we must address root causes, and there is no doubt that inadequate legal frameworks exacerbate many key problems. I am pleased to report that a collaborative effort is underway to design and implement appropriate legal frameworks.

Prior to our last adjournment, members of the House accorded speedy passage to Bill C-34. The legislation grants first nations in British Columbia greater control of on reserve education and encourages improved education outcomes through appropriate partnerships among first nations and with provincial educational bodies.

A series of consultations is underway to recommend legislative options to resolve the difficult issue of on reserve matrimonial real property, something that our minister has championed since the day he took office. Another consultative process that is ongoing is aimed at improving the quality of drinking water. This has been proposed through legislative options, which can lead to putting appropriate standards into law.

I am convinced that the repeal of section 67 is an important building block in a renewed legislative framework that can enable aboriginal peoples to participate fully in the prosperity of our country.

Bill C-44 has three main components.

The first repeals section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, something that has been in place for some 30-odd years now.

The second commits Parliament to conduct, within five years, a review of the effects of this repeal, and this is important to consider.

The third component provides six months to prepare for the application of the repeal to first nations. In essence, for the first six months following royal assent, the exemption granted to first nations under section 67 would remain in place. While some parties have called for a longer delay period, in my view, after 30 years access to these important rights protections cannot and should not be delayed any further.

For first nations, adapting and responding to the Canadian Human Rights Act regime is a process that will evolve over the years, just as it has for institutions to which the act currently applies.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has already established an aboriginal program to give specific attention to the unique needs and circumstances of aboriginal communities as they relate to the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Employment Equity Act.

The six month delay will provide for a focused period during which the Canadian Human Rights Commission will inform first nations about the Canadian Human Rights Act and begin to work with them to develop culturally appropriate community redress mechanisms, if they so wish. The Government of Canada, though, would be subject to the act once Bill C-44 received royal assent as there would be no six month delay.

The simplicity of the legislation before us belies the valuable impact it will have on the residents of first nation communities. Bill C-44 would give full legal protection to the rights of thousands of Canadians for the very first time. It would enable them to challenge and adjudicate potential cases of discrimination that may exist currently on reserves.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission fully supports Bill C-44 and has declared itself ready and able to help first nations deal with the repeal of section 67. Its work with first nations will not simply end after the six month delay period. The Canadian Human Rights Act authorizes the commission to establish guidelines on how to interpret particular types or groups of complaints.

I fully expect that the commission will work closely with first nations to explore and develop appropriate interpretive policies, guidelines and regulations, helping first nations build the capacity to address the new avenues provided for the protection of their citizens, avenues that have long been available for the rest of Canadians. I know all first nations families would be interested in seeing this come to pass.

As I noted previously, another mechanism to ensure that Bill C-44 does not cause any group undue hardship in including itself, we have included this in the legislation. A parliamentary standing committee must conduct a thorough and open review of the impact that this repeal will have on first nations after five years have passed. The committee must also submit a full and public report to the House of Commons.

The Canadian Human Rights Act has become a cornerstone of Canada's democracy and today we have the opportunity to ensure that it applies to all Canadians, first nation Canadians, so all citizens can be treated with equal respect and dignity before the law.

I urge the members of the House to support Bill C-44.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

moved that Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fine words of welcome from the opposition House leader.

Today, of course, we will be continuing with the opposition motion. Tomorrow we will continue debate on the report stage amendments to Bill C-31, the election integrity act amendments with which we are all familiar.

For Monday and Tuesday, we are intending to call Bill C-26 on payday loans, which is at third reading, Bill C-32 on impaired driving, Bill C-11, the transport act, and Bill C-33, the technical income tax bill.

On Wednesday we hope to begin debate on the third reading stage of Bill C-31, followed by Bill C-44 relating to human rights.

Thursday, February 8 shall be an allotted day. Next Friday we would like to begin debate on the anti-terrorism motion that would extend the application of certain sections of the Anti-Terrorism Act that are due to expire.

Finally, as members know, democratic reform is a priority for Canada's new government, and given that the Liberal leader has publicly expressed his support for term limits for senators, could the official opposition inform the House as to when it can expect the unelected, unaccountable Liberal senators who are delaying and obstructing that bill to give us a chance to consider it here in the House of Commons?

International Bridges and Tunnels Act

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-3. Accountability has been a long time coming on some of our border processes.

Quite frankly, to continue the discussion on Bill C-44 and Bill C-3, there were some excellent things in Bill C-44, but I am glad at the very least that we are moving on Bill C-3. It is very important that we get some type of accountability.

That is what has been lacking on our 24 international bridges and tunnels that connect us to the United States. There has not been a standardized process to ensure safety, security, pricing, and a whole bunch of operational issues. That is why we want to see this bill pass in the House of Commons.

It is not the perfect bill. It is something that I tried to improve with a number of different motions. Some actually got through and some did not, but at the end of the day this is an opportunity to do something good for our commerce and our prosperity for the future. It is more than just the operations that we have to be concerned about. It is the investment.

I first want to outline the summary of the bill. It is important that people understand this context. It did not really come into the national perspective of the sensitivities and difficulties at border crossings until 9/11 in 2001 with the terrorist attacks and the shutting down of the border with the United States. We in Windsor, Ontario and many other jurisdictions across the country understood the infrastructure, operational and accountability deficiencies, but were unable to successfully penetrate it to a national level that would get it to the point where there would be action taken by any particular level of government. That was very important.

When that episode happened, new challenges began to emerge that became very important, not only to the people who lived around the immediate facilities of the border crossings but to those who live in an area that has four border crossings in total; who live along the 400 series highways, the Golden Horseshoe area; Montreal; British Columbia; and those who live in areas of border crossings right across the Prairies.

A number of different challenges began to emerge, but when it came to international bridges and tunnels, there was no actual mandate for the federal government to have some type of accountability standards or procedures and to ensure there was oversight. That is very important because there are border crossings that are privately held.

Two of the 24 are very unusual in the context of the overall infrastructure portfolio this country has, but they are very significant ones. Second to that, there was also no standardization for the other ones owned by the federal government, provinces and municipalities that had some type of vested stake in the actual border crossing. This brings a greater perspective for all of us in relation to this bill.

The summary states:

This enactment establishes an approval mechanism for the construction, alteration and acquisition of international bridges and tunnels and provides for the regulation of their operation, maintenance and security.

That is important to note. Looking at the titles of the different chapters, it is about interpretation and application for actual border crossings, construction and alteration, maintenance and repair, operation and use, security and safety, changes of ownership, and operational control. These are all things that are very important to how the border functions and operates.

As I was discussing earlier, it is not just about the operator of the border crossing, whether it be a public or private entity. It is about the repercussions that are faced by the goods and services trade, people and vehicular flow across these border crossings into other regions. The less efficient they are, the less accountability that happens with regard to public safety and investment in infrastructure to ensure it is preserved in perpetuity, the less investment there is to actually expand and meet the challenges and, on top of that, the less there is to do with accountability about pricing, which is an actual trade barrier to our country being successful with the United States. Whether it be the tourism aspect, where people pay a higher price by going along a certain border corridor or transport trucks being charged far greater than what they should be, all of these affect our economy.

What is important to note about that is that in the auto industry and other types of industries these are significant costs. At the border, for example, in Windsor, Ontario an automobile can quite literally cross the border six times before it is completely finished. Between all the parts and different operations that are exchanged, the vehicle will cross the border to Michigan and return to Ontario multiple times. If there is a lack of investment, all of these additional costs will have a significant impact not only on our current infrastructure and economy but also on decision-making.

I have been involved in this since 1997 when I was a city councillor. We have been arguing for this investment as a way of showing Ontario and Quebec in particular that we could solve the border problem to ensure it was fast, safe and secure. This would enable goods to get to markets very quickly and it would be done in an accountable way. This would provide for possible plant expansions. I have heard from different corporations that they have withheld funding for plant expansions because of their concern about the border question.

We still have this problem in the Windsor-Detroit corridor despite all the rhetoric and all the bluster in many announcements. There is yet to be the political will to invest the capital to fix our current problems. We have not seen anything. It is important that we at least get the operational aspect under control. It is not sinister. It is not something one would think there would be problems with.

The fact of the matter is that we have to deal with the most important border crossing between Windsor and Detroit which is owned and operated by a private American citizen. We have to ensure that Canada's interests are represented. We have to ensure the infrastructure is safe and sound. We have to ensure the infrastructure is going to have the proper operational supports so in times of emergency there can be an appropriate response. We have to ensure that the planning process will be done in conjunction with the community and the province and country at large.

As a result of the previous administration's lack of political will, the Windsor, Ontario area has become a literal battleground with respect to who wants to own and operate the next border crossing. People are receiving letters. TV commercials, airwave commercials, propaganda of all sorts is being received by people in the area from private proponents about why one proposal should be supported over the other.

The previous prime minister promised that this would impact positively on the quality of life of citizens in the area. We wanted the trucks off our city streets. We wanted to ensure a free flow of economic goods and services without the hazardous materials and the pollution flowing through our streets. We are still being confronted with congestion and safety issues on a regular basis.

This bill would provide some remedies to these problems. There is actual incorporation. The member for Windsor—Tecumseh and myself have been pushing hard for amendments to make the local municipality engaged on this issue. This is one of my concerns about the bill. It would give the minister greater influence. However, we could not allow no accountability whatsoever.

As things stand right now we do not have any rights on private property where these privately owned and operated border crossings are located. Public crossings need consent. This is a problem. How can we assure the general public that proper procedures are being followed? How can we assure the general public that the necessary investment is being received?

The Ambassador Bridge in my riding has made millions of dollars over the years with respect to tolls. I do not have the official number but some of the estimates are $50 million to $60 million a year. This is significant. However, at the same time we have to ensure that investment will be made to the infrastructure at the end of the day for perpetuity.

This is a definite problem because the toll rates at this particular operation are much more expensive than at other operations such as those at Sault Ste. Marie, Sarnia, the Blue Water area, and Niagara Falls. All of these areas have lower toll rates for passengers as well as for transport trucks. This has caused extra costs to be added to businesses, especially local and regional commerce, in order to compete.

Industries in Ontario, for example, have been suffering significantly from manufacturing competition from the United States because it has invested in these types of facilities in order to maintain them and to keep and grow the jobs. Canada has not been as aggressive. Beyond this is the issue of other developing countries which have really had a profound impact on the actual manufacturing base of our economy.

What is really important is that we are demonstrating, and Bill C-3 does this to a certain degree, that we are actually going to rein in some of the issues about the border. The second step to this which is very important and something I could not get through the bill but I believe is so important, especially for the Windsor economic region as well as the rest of Ontario and the Montreal area, is that in the Windsor corridor we need to get a border authority developed.

The border authority is something that New Democrats have been pushing for that area for a long time. Sarnia has one, Sault Ste. Marie has one, Fort Erie has one and Niagara Falls has one. Everywhere around the region are these border authorities. They are binational organizations that have representatives from different government agencies as well as the communities that provide solutions and ongoing contact about how to manage the border.

If we look at our most important corridor, being Windsor-Detroit where we have 42% of the nation's trade, we have an issue. We have a rail tunnel that is privately held. We have a city tunnel for vehicle traffic and transport trucks that is owned by the City of Windsor on the Canadian side which we just got back after many years. It is paying a profit back to the people and has lower fares and will do so in the future. The Detroit side of it is owned by the City of Detroit and outleased to Macquarie North American, a private infrastructure leasing agreement that was decided upon. The Ambassador Bridge is privately owned by an American citizen. We have the ferry system which is also owned by a private American citizen.

We have four different border crossings and there is absolutely no coordination whatsoever from an overall perspective. When we have issues develop, such as the unilateral action by the United States with the new bio-terrorism act that requires more standards and more procedures to be followed by commerce and particularly in goods and services from agriculture. That is particularly important for the County of Essex and Chatham and Kent as we have a big greenhouse industry that actually produces a lot of different vegetables that go to the United States market. If they are delayed there are additional costs which causes problems.

There is not only the effect of that legislation with the extra cost being introduced but second to that are new procedures for the physical infrastructure at the border and the processing that needs to be done. Therefore, we need a border authority to help coordinate and advocate for that.

I remember in the Niagara Region when the NEXUS program was introduced and the American customs officials on the other side of the border were opening every single trunk. For those who do not know what NEXUS is, one goes through a pre-clearance inspection. Persons are validated on who they are and agree to certain terms and conditions so they can traverse across the border more quickly than if they go through the regular channels. There are limitations on what they can bring and what they can bring back but it is a bonded agreement between the person and the department of homeland security.

The whole point of that is to move vehicles quicker. In the Niagara Falls area they were opening every single trunk which was basically defeating the whole point of NEXUS, after people had gone through all the screening. It has a commission that can advocate for the changing of that practice. That is what happened in that region which was very successful.

In the Windsor and Essex County area we need the same type of body to deal with legislation coming forth in the United States in terms of lobbying. The bio-terrorism act is a classic example. The then Minister of International Trade found out about it, did not bother to tell anyone, and later on the Canadian Trucking Association found out about it two weeks later with the general public and it caused quite a bit of havoc.

We need to ensure that we are going to present a common front together especially when legislation like that is not even warranted. I do not want to get into the details of that legislation, but it is one classic example of the challenges that we face.

The second thing that we tried to get into the bill which was very important for the areas that are affected by the border is a community investment fund. We have seen significant problems with backups and environmental degradation. In the Windsor Star today, our home town paper, a study is reported that came out of California which shows that if persons live along an area with traffic congestion within a 500 metre radius, they are more likely to have different types of diseases and can contract problems related to health, be it heart and stroke or a series of different problems.

We had wanted an investment fund on the environment so that the local communities would be able to actually extract remedies for their areas on the environment.

That is one of the big battles that is going on right now through the new process that we have on the border in Windsor and Essex County, the DRIC process. It is binational. The American federal and state governments and the provincial and federal governments on our side are trying to come up with a plan.

The environmental degradation of a new border crossing and where it would go is a big issue. The New Democrats want some type of investment fund so that local leaders, advocates and municipalities could cope with the problems on the border. That would give people who live with those types of problems hope and an opportunity to participate in the betterment of their communities. On top of that, it would improve our image on the borders between Windsor and Detroit and all across Canada because everyone would be entitled to this type of support structure.

We also wanted to enshrine an open process for the border competition regarding what was going to happen in the future in terms of ownership and new crossings. That was very important to us but we were not be able to pass that.

I hope no other community goes through this, but as I mentioned earlier, a ground war is going on in my community. The Ambassador Bridge is pushing ahead its particular proposal and the Detroit River Tunnel Partnership wants to ram a rail tunnel through an area. It has been a divide and conquer situation, basically spending a lot of money and requesting basically a public subsidy at the end of the day for their operations to move ahead with their particular proposal despite there being a planned process in place. We wanted to see that move to a more transparent level.

I have been calling on the government for public ownership of the next border crossing, similar to the one that is being built on the east coast, but there has not been a commitment. There have been many studies and evidence that public border crossings actually have lower fares. The most recent study was by Citigroup in the United States. It looked at the public benefit of corporation owned versus privately owned border crossings. It looked at interest rates, equity, corporate income and sales tax and compared the advantages of each different sector. It found that privately owned infrastructure facilities usually require toll rates that are 35% to 40% higher.

It gives me great concern that if we do not have the same commitment for the next Windsor-Detroit region border crossing to be publicly owned and operated, we would then add another cost factor into that infrastructure that would affect the viability of commerce going between our two nations. Once again, there is approximately $1 billion a day in trade through this corridor. If we were to add on another layer of cost it would certainly be a net detractor from further investment in Ontario and other areas.

We want to make sure that the toll rates are low and relatively stable. More important, like many other publicly owned and operated crossings, we want to make sure that the money actually goes back into the management and operation of the facility and also toward future expansion and community issues. The Peace Bridge in Fort Erie has done a series of work for the community around it to help offset the impact on having the border there.

We also wanted more protocols regarding hazardous materials and procedures to be implemented for bridges and tunnels. Unfortunately that motion was defeated. There is enough evidence to warrant that we are not doing the best job we could on this. The government's logic was that this could be moved to the hazardous materials act. I am hoping it has a great interest in doing that. The government said that was going to move that forward quickly in this session and I would expect it to do so. I wanted it in this bill because we have a series of regulations that will involve those types of operations. People need to understand the significance of this.

In the United States a number of municipalities have worked to ban the transportation of certain gas materials and hazardous materials through their regions. Cleveland has done that. It could be anything, such as chlorine gas that could cause quite a bit of a difficulty. It is a safety issue for thousands of people.

I will wrap up by saying that Bill C-3 is just the start of the real accountability that is needed at our border crossings. It will improve things. It is not a perfect bill but it is necessary at least for the public safety and security of all bridges and tunnels in our great land.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Bloc is absolutely correct to note Bill C-44 and the difficulty experienced on the VIA Rail project, in particular.

I had the opportunity to sit with the minister prior to the announcement of an $800 million commitment to fast rail service throughout the Ontario to Quebec region. It was very important for passenger rail transportation. It was also important that the rail itself be upgraded for commerce and that other types of transportation be available to the public for travel, commerce and tourism.

He was quite right to note that as soon as the member for LaSalle—Émard became prime minister and leader of the Liberal Party he cancelled that project because it was seen as a legacy project from the Chrétien era.

Does my colleague believe that it is still worthwhile investing in this project, a project that could help with greenhouse emissions as well as transportation and trade development throughout the Ontario to Quebec region?

Canadian Human Rights Act

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)