Bill C-21 (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. It also contains interpretative provisions as well as transitional provisions with respect to aboriginal authorities.

Canadian Human Rights Act

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

Mr. Speaker, today the media reported that the government wants to ditch Bill C-21, the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, because it does not like the amendments passed at committee.

The Conservatives do not agree with the amendments that the Canadian Human Rights Commission asked for to guide the commission in making decisions. The Conservatives do not agree with amendments that would allow first nation band councils a transition period equal to that offered to provinces when the Canadian Human Rights Act was originally passed.

Why do they not agree with those amendments? Because the Conservatives do not believe in collective human rights. That is why they have refused to support the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Once collective rights are protected by law, it is up to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, not the government, to decide when they are a legitimate defence. The tribunal has already started to limit when those rights can be used by rulings on employment issues with band councils.

The minister should accept the will of the committee and bring the legislation back to the House for a final reading immediately.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-21 is our government's commitment to deliver protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act to first nations people living on reserve.

The Liberals should be ashamed that their reaction to the bill was to stall and delay it for a year.

On first nations, many Canadians do not realize that first nations people living on reserve do not have the same protection as other Canadians and that the same issue has been studied for 30 years.

Attempting to change the channel on their internal problems and horrible record on aboriginal issues, the Liberals say that we may not move forward on Bill C-21.

Could the Minister of Indian Affairs set the record straight.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have two further questions.

First, with respect to Bill C-21, as the minister will know, the amendments that happened in committee were indeed a reflection of the hopes and the aspirations of aboriginal organizations in this country, so I would hope the government would take a fresh look at that and be willing to respect the will of those aboriginal organizations, because that will is reflected in the amendments that were made.

Further, with respect to Bill C-50, I would remind the government House leader that the vote at second reading is not passage of the legislation. It is simply reference of the legislation to the appropriate standing committee. In the standing committee, the defects in the legislation can be debated and exposed, and of course Canadians for the first time will have the opportunity to speak in a parliamentary forum to tell parliamentarians what Canadians think about this legislation, which is extremely important.

I would ask the government House leader this question. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration has indicated, I believe, a willingness to see not the bill itself but the immigration subject matter of Bill C-50, in addition to what may happen in the finance committee, also referred to the House Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. I wonder if the minister would be willing to confirm the government's willingness to see that subject matter referred to the citizenship and immigration committee while the finance committee is dealing with Bill C-50.

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader could indicate his proposed schedule for the rest of this week and next week, which will take us into the late April adjournment.

At the same time, could I ask him again what his plans are with respect to Bill C-21? It was reported back to the House from the committee dealing with aboriginal human rights on January 30. There has been more than enough time to deal with that legislation. I wonder when the minister intends to call it.

Status of Women

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two points around the member's question. One point under the issue of schools is that we constantly hear about the money being shifted out of schools that are already on the books in order to deal with other emergencies. I mentioned the fact that we have 39 schools with roughly $300,000. We have heard the government bragging about the surplus that is emerging in this fiscal year. That surplus could have built those schools many, many times over. Again, it is about political will and setting priorities. I would argue that education should always be a priority.

With regard to Bill C-21, the member is absolutely correct. The New Democrats and the opposition parties proposed amendments. If only the bill had had the appropriate consultation, as outlined in article 18 in the UN declaration. It is the Crown's responsibility to consult. If that appropriate consultation had happened in advance, the opposition parties would not have had to spend so many months gathering input from coast to coast to coast in order to make sure that the bill would not be a deeply flawed bill.

We have seen other pieces of legislation such as the voter identification bill, for example, that were rushed through this House, and then we have had to go back and try to fix the problems. Instead, the opposition parties, in my view quite responsibly, were hearing from witnesses to make sure amendments could be proposed that would fix the flawed bill.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the member. First, she covered education extensively and I have just one technical question on that. My understanding is that there were some proposals in the department to actually fix some of these schools and to replace them. I wonder if she too has heard that those proposals have been cancelled. Maybe the member for Burnaby—Douglas could comment on that at some time.

Second, just to support the point related to Bill C-21, which she has made this afternoon on several occasions, it is a bill with a few words in it. It was so bad that, as the parliamentary secretary said, it has taken the government over a year when it should have taken a few weeks. There was no consultation. There was no non-derogation clause. There was not enough time to implement it. There was no training. There was no interpretation clause to deal with the collective society that aboriginal people have.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that the government has not been very clear about that duty to consult. It seems to think that it is a concept in which one may or may not choose to participate. The federal government has a duty to consult and cannot off-load that duty onto a third party.

What is really important to note is that in the process of Bill C-21 a far greater number than 90% of the witnesses had many suggested amendments for the bill.

The bill in its original form, as the government put forward, was not a context with which most of our witnesses were comfortable. In fact, the ongoing discussions, which were not at all languishing, nor was it irresponsibility on the part of the opposition members, were important discussions around the legal issues, such as a duty to consult, and ensuring that we move forward to not only meet our legal obligations but to develop a relationship with first nations that would truly be a hallmark of how we define ourselves as champions of human rights.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is specifically with regard to article 18 in the declaration, which states:

Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights....

I was surprised to hear the parliamentary secretary earlier refer to what happened with Bill C-21 around the repeal of section 67. I would call what is happening now languishing with Bill C-21 but I was surprised to hear him refer to it as languishing when what we were doing was hearing from representatives from across the country because the government failed in its duty to consult. What happened at committee was not around consultation. It was around dialogue and discussion.

Could the member comment on the importance of consulting and the failure of the current government to fulfill its obligations around matrimonial and real property and Bill C-21?

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to speak to the motion today. I thank the member for putting it forward. It is a very important debate on this issue.

I will start with a quote from the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nation. It is with regard to the legal questions around Canada's arguments against the UN declaration.

National Chief Phial Fontaine said:

We believe that Canadians are fair-minded people who care deeply about human rights and that they do not want their government to pick and choose when they will apply and respect human rights. Canada has made a commitment to uphold the highest human rights standards in international and domestic law.

We remind Canadians that it is not too late for the federal government to reverse its opposition to the UN Declaration, as Australia has promised to do. We expect the legal panel will agree with other legal advisors and international experts by reaffirming that the UN Declaration is consistent with the rights guaranteed under section 35 of Canada's constitution and all other domestic laws and international human rights laws.

I say that because we hear from the government repeatedly that it would not support the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People because it did not fall in line with domestic law.

Before I proceed any further, Mr. Speaker, I am splitting my time with the member for Don Valley East.

I will speak to this issue and the UN declaration in terms of women's issues, as put forward by the status of women critic for the NDP. I represent a riding which has numerous aboriginal communities, including first nations and Métis communities. Over the last two years and some months, I have had the great privilege to meet with women throughout my riding. I have had the opportunity to have forums on issues pertaining specifically to first nations women, in particular, as we move forward with the government's legislation, a government that claims to be concerned with human rights for aboriginal women and children. It has been unequivocal in the minds and hearts of aboriginal women in my riding that their priorities are their families and children.

We have had in this current Parliament, under the Conservative government, a rare opportunity to have a true dialogue, a true consultation. In fact, when we talk about legislation and when there is the possibility that we might infringe on aboriginal and treaty rights, there is a legal premise, as laid out in our Constitution, section 35, that the federal government has a duty to consult.

That all sounds very legalese and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People often sounds legalese, but we are talking about the day to day issues. When it comes down to the day to day issues of life as it affects women, aboriginal women have been very explicit. They have said that their concerns are directly related to human rights.

For instance, a motion entitled “Jordan's Principle” was unanimously passed in the House. This would ensure that first nations children residing on reserve would receive health services for their complex medical needs. Hundreds of children in my riding are not receiving health services, a basic human right that the government has made no effort to ensure is provided, even though a motion was passed unanimously.

When we are talking about human rights, we are not talking about some concept that is not applicable in people's day to day lives. That is the very reason we have these laws and conventions. The work at the UN on the rights of indigenous peoples has been critical in terms of our domestic law and how we move forward.

Women were very concerned about the whole process of Bill C-21 where the government moved forward without true consultation by claiming that there were 30 years of consultation and that committee hearings fulfilled the duty to consult. We are talking about human rights and yet at the community level we see no new dollars for housing for the people residing on reserves. We have no new dollars for programs to address the issue of violence against women. No effort was made to ensure that the development of the legislation was done in partnership with the Native Women's Association of Canada or the Assembly of First Nations Women's Council.

The government claims that it has the issues and concerns of aboriginal women and children at the forefront and yet it participated in a process toward the development of the matrimonial real property legislation, one of the pieces of legislation in which it chose to participate, in a consultation process, with aboriginal people but when it came down to the actual development of the legislation it did so without the partnership of aboriginal women through the Native Women's Association of Canada or the Assembly of First Nations Women's Council.

I would like to read from a press release that the Native Women's Association of Canada issued. It was the day after the matrimonial real property legislation was tabled. The title of the press release is “'Consultative Partnership' a Sham”. The Native Women's Association of Canada said:

The Honourable Josée Verner, Minister of Canadian Heritage who--

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the parliamentary secretary's speech. I noticed that he mentioned that the Conservatives are claiming to be champions of human rights.

He mentioned specifically Bill C-21, the bill that would have repealed section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Of course, we know that after extensive hearings at the aboriginal affairs committee, the opposition parties submitted a number of amendments that were in line with the testimony.

One of the articles in the UN declaration talks about appropriate consultation. Arguably, what happened at the committee was not consultation, but at least we had an opportunity to hear from people about their concerns for the bill.

The opposition parties worked hard to put those amendments forward. That bill is now languishing somewhere. If the Conservatives are such supporters of human rights, when will they bring that bill back to the House for report stage, so we can debate it and get it into third reading?

[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 an honour to rise in this House at any opportunity, especially in relation to aboriginal issues. These are the most important issues to me over the last two years that I have been in this House. As a parliamentarian of Métis descent, it is always a great honour to speak in relation to these issues.

Canada's decision to not support the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has resulted in some controversy and, of course, we have seen some of that today. In my opinion none of it is warranted.

By voting against the adoption of this declaration at the UN, Canada put on record its disappointment with both the substance and process. At the time of the vote, Canada indicated our understanding that this declaration was not a legally binding instrument. It has no legal effect in Canada and its provisions do not represent customary international law.

I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate this core message. The declaration is not a legally binding instrument. However, hearing the opposition parties speak about it, they would have us assume that in fact it should be implemented in Canada.

The opposition parties are calling upon our government to implement the standards in the declaration. Yet, United Nations declarations are statements only of political commitments and objectives. While they reflect the aspirations of states which support their adoption, they are not intended to be legally binding instruments.

Second, in the context of this particular declaration, let me remind everyone that Canada has voted against its adoption. This means that the concerns of Canada were such that it could not support the text as drafted. Therefore, calls to implement the standards of this declaration are misguided since Canada did not support the declaration internationally. It does not support it at home in light of many of the issues that I have been raising here in the House this afternoon.

For over 20 years Canada helped lead international efforts toward a declaration that would promote and protect the rights and freedoms of every indigenous person, as well as recognize the collective rights of indigenous people around the world.

In the final analysis, however, the declaration was seen to be a flawed instrument that lacked clear practical guidance for states and is subject to competing interpretations. As such, Canada could not support its adoption.

As a country committed to the protection of aboriginal rights, Canada takes the precise wording of this declaration very seriously. Canada is not willing to support this instrument simply because it is expedient to do so. Voting against adoption of the UN declaration was of course a gutsy, if not difficult move, one that put actions above rhetoric and principle above posturing.

I have already referenced how the previous Liberal government was quick to sign on to the Kyoto accord, but of course had no intention of following up any of its founding principles.

Our government takes international declarations seriously and as such we have chosen not to sign on or vote for this draft declaration.

Canada has taken numerous concrete actions to ensure that the rights of indigenous people are safeguarded both within Canada and around the world. On the domestic front we have introduced two key pieces of legislation that will extend legal protection to first nations people who currently do not have access to either the Canadian human rights tribunals or provincial and territorial courts that would protect their matrimonial real property rights.

The interesting thing about both of these initiatives is that they are being opposed by the very parties that are currently creating such a fuss about Canada's refusal to support the UN declaration. Without putting too fine a point on it, it strikes me as ironic, if not somewhat hypocritical, for certain aboriginal organizations and opposition parties to condemn the government for its principled stance on the UN declaration, while at the same time creating such enormous obstacles to the passage of both Bill C-21 and the Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act.

In the last few years Canada has taken enormous strides in rectifying past wrongs and moving forward on initiatives that will ensure protection of the rights of indigenous people here in Canada. Indeed, aboriginal and treaty rights are protected in our Constitution and are safeguarded under numerous self-government and land claims agreements, federal legislation, and through judicial decisions going as high as the Supreme Court of Canada.

Recently, we introduced Bill C-30, legislation that was developed jointly with the Assembly of First Nations. This bill would establish an independent specific claims tribunal, thereby bringing greater fairness to the specific claims initiatives and would be handled in a way that would speed up the resolution process. This government is working with willing partners on a host of other key initiatives, including housing, water, child and family services, education and self-government.

Why did Canada vote against the UN declaration? As I have already said, it was a flawed document that, upon its final ratification, was not incorporating the key elements that we suggested, as a country, be brought into it.

Over the course of the past 20 years, Canada worked hard for a declaration that would promote partnerships and harmonious relations between indigenous people and member states that would strike an appropriate balance between the rights of indigenous people and the rights of others. The final text of the declaration did not meet these objectives.

For example, in relation to indigenous rights to lands, territories and resources, the provisions in the declaration are unclear and open to interpretation. The declaration states that:

Indigenous peoples have the right to the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired.

The member opposite from the Bloc just referenced how her province has a number of signed agreements since the founding of Quebec, but of course what is contemplated here sets that aside, though she did not mention that in her answer.

This statement could be used to support aboriginal claims to ownership rights over much of Canada, even where such rights have been dealt with lawfully and in good faith in the past.

Another problematic issue is that of self-government for aboriginal people. While the document expresses an ideal shared by many Canadians, it lacks the clarity and definition that would make the actual implementation of self-government feasible. For example, there is no effective guidance about how indigenous governments should interact with provinces, territories and municipalities and, of course, the Government of Canada. Nowhere does the document provide explicit direction on matters of jurisdiction and financing.

Yet again, this is an issue on which Canada is leading the way. Our country has amassed considerable experience in the area of aboriginal self-government and has developed an array of effective tools. Our aboriginal people travel around the world talking about the very successful aboriginal governments that they are engaging in Canada.

Canada's Constitution provides for the recognition and affirmation of existing aboriginal and treaty rights. Our courts interpret the content of this recognition and protection. In many ways, an endorsement of the UN declaration would represent a step backward for Canada. It could well negate much of the progress already made on self-government, reignite divisive debates, and ultimately erode popular support for aboriginal and treaty rights.

In spite of Canada's decision to vote against the UN declaration, we continue to embrace numerous human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Canada continues to take action on the basis of such instruments and within our domestic legal framework.

One of the key, modern day challenges facing indigenous people around the world is equitable access to digital communications technologies. To ensure that aboriginal people in this country, particularly those living in remote communities, can access digital technologies, the Government of Canada established the SchoolNet program more than a decade ago. The program continues to provide Internet connections and supportive services to remote first nations schools. Another program, the Aboriginal Canada Portal, significantly improves access to a broad range of content relevant to aboriginal people.

Canada has also played a lead role in connectivity for indigenous people around the world. In 2002, when the United Nations endorsed a proposal for a world summit on the information society, Canada took action to ensure that indigenous people would participate.

Thanks to this country's diplomatic efforts and financial support, indigenous groups from around the world took part in the Geneva and Tunisia conferences. As a result, the final statement from the summit includes this article, which states:

In the evolution of the Information Society, particular attention must be given to the special situation of indigenous peoples, as well as to the preservation of their heritage and their cultural legacy.

The world summit process also led to the establishment of an international indigenous web portal. Owned and operated by indigenous people, the portal aims to foster links among indigenous communities around the world and that portal is an invaluable tool that will help indigenous people advance and protect their rights and interests.

Another fine illustration of Canada's commitment to international indigenous groups is a program funded by the Canadian International Development Agency. The indigenous people partnership program is a pilot program that links aboriginal groups in Canada with indigenous partners in Latin America and the Caribbean.

These cross-cultural projects generate valuable opportunities to forge new partnerships, exchange best practices and share knowledge, experience and expertise as a means of contributing to the improved well-being of indigenous people throughout this region. These projects enhance the capacity of local organizations and these indigenous communities to become self-sufficient.

Canada has also played a leading role in ensuring that aboriginal people are represented in international decision-making bodies. The Arctic Council, for example, was established through the Ottawa declaration in the early 1990s. The council was a high level intergovernmental forum that engaged inhabitants of our Arctic Region, including indigenous people, on these important issues, such as sustainable development and environmental protection.

Canada is also a leading supporter of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, a non-governmental organization that represents some 150,000 Inuit living in four countries. The council promotes Inuit unity, rights and interests.

Canada has worked tirelessly with the United Nations to advance the rights and interests of all people of the world, including indigenous people. This country has played an active role in creating the UN permanent forum on indigenous issues, arguably the most important mechanism to recognize and promote interests and rights of indigenous people.

Canada has also contributed to the creation of the expert mechanism on the rights of indigenous people and supports the renewal of the mandate of the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people.

These actions clearly demonstrate Canada's determination to advance the rights and interests in indigenous people throughout the world, but especially in Canada.

Unlike these agreements, the UN draft declaration on the rights of indigenous people, as I have said, lacks clear, practical guidance for states. Canada, along with other key nations, did not participate in the negotiations that produced the final text.

I am convinced that once my hon. colleagues carefully consider the motion now before us, they will recognize its imprecise language, reject its faulty logic, and join me in voting against it.

The opposition parties have said that Canada's concerns are overstated, yet proponents of the adoption of this draft declaration are calling on aboriginal groups to use the declaration in their negotiations in Canadian courts and to demand that the federal government bring policies in line with the declaration itself.

In a country like Canada, with strong democratic institutions, it is easy to take the issue of human rights for granted. Here the rights of indigenous people are recognized and affirmed in our Constitution and in our legal system. Regardless of the declaration, Canada will continue to take effective action at home and abroad to promote and protect the rights of indigenous people across our country, and of course, we will also work on extending existing human rights obligations and commitments.

Such effective action, I must be clear, will not be undertaken on the basis, though, of this declaration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to endorse the motion we have before us, that is, the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as adopted by the United Nations General Assembly September 13, 2007.

This is a declaration that has been worked on for many years. Indeed, as my colleague opposite has cited, for over two decades Canada has played an important role in the development of the UN declaration, including the drafting of the document's text.

The declaration, as it now stands, is the result of extensive negotiation between member states and between indigenous people from around the world. It is important to note that this is the first time in UN history that rights holders were actually participants in the process. The current text, as I said, now stands because of these extensive consultations that took place.

Canada was known throughout the world and at the UN as a strong supporter of the UN declaration on human rights.

When this government took over, the Prime Minister's friends, Mr. Bush and Mr. Howard, had a considerable role in helping Canada to change its position. It was after the visit to Ottawa of the Australian prime minister that Canada indicated its unwillingness to support the declaration. Since February 2006, as I cited earlier, there has been a total failure to consult between Canada and the indigenous people.

When it came time to vote at the UN, only four countries voted against the declaration: Canada, the United States, New Zealand and Australia.

Canadian officials have repeatedly denied that the federal government has insisted on changes to the provisions in the declaration that were supported by previous Liberal governments. Yet, in amendments dated August 2007, Canada, with Colombia, New Zealand and Russia, sought over 40 revisions. In many instances, Canada actually helped draft the specific measures.

It is important to note that in opposing this declaration, Canada, well-known prior to this government for its advocacy of human rights both nationally and internationally, for the first time, has opposed an international human rights document.

The government says it was not an easy decision, but the gymnastics to justify its position are at best ingenuous. Canada was lobbying against this human rights instrument, we know, in Geneva in June 2006. This was before the government stated to parliamentarians that it was still studying the text. It encouraged opposition against the declaration and aligned itself with countries with highly abusive records, as I said earlier, with Colombia, Russia and with some hard-lined African states.

As described in the December 2007 Amnesty International report:

Over the intervening year, Canada was at the forefront of urging the UN to undertake wholesale renegotiation of key provisions of the Declaration, a process that would have greatly delayed adoption and would likely have resulted in a greatly weakened text. In doing so, Canada aligned itself with states with poor records of supporting the UN human rights system and with histories of brutal repression of Indigenous rights advocates.

Now that the declaration has passed, the government continues to ignore the document and ignores its international obligations.

The government, as well, misled the Canadian public. If it were truly convinced that the arguments against the UN declaration were valid, it would not resort to what I believe are false statements to justify its actions.

The minister says that the declaration does not provide a balance of individual and collective rights, although it is cited right in the declaration. He said:

In Canada, you are balancing individual rights versus collective rights, and (this) document...has none of that...By signing on, you default to this document by saying that the only rights in play here are the rights of the First Nations. And, of course, in Canada, that's inconsistent with our Constitution.

However, a simple reading of the declaration confirms there are 17 provisions that address individual rights. The federal government is aware that the previous Liberal government took a lead role in promoting article 46, one of the most comprehensive balancing provisions to exist in any international human rights document.

The claims of inconsistency with Canada's Constitution are not substantiated. Canada fails to demonstrate how the declaration is inconsistent with Canada's constitutional framework. The declaration provides uplifting human rights standards. Canadian courts may rely on such progressive international instruments to interpret indigenous peoples' rights.

As the Supreme Court has confirmed, and again I quote:

—our Constitution is a living tree which, by way of progressive interpretation, accommodates and addresses the realities of modern life.

It goes on to state, “A large and liberal or progressive interpretation ensures the continued relevance and, indeed, legitimacy of Canada's constitutional document”.

I talked earlier about Canada's failure to consult with indigenous people. I will not go back to that. However, we hear members opposite trumpet Bill C-21 and the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. We support the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and we are waiting for that bill to be brought back into the House. It is now over two months since it has left the committee.

In coming to that, I would question the issue of collected versus individual rights. In the many discussions leading up to the final report of the committee on Bill C-21 we saw a real effort to subvert the collective rights of indigenous peoples.

We have heard much about the importance of this declaration for women. It is an important aspect of our concern for the full implementation of the Declaration of Human Rights in Canada.

We know aboriginal women are at much greater risk of domestic violence. We know that in many situations it is because of the living conditions. We know aboriginal peoples do not have access to adequate water. In fact, the water supply for aboriginal peoples on reserve is not what it should be.

We know the health opportunities for aboriginal women and their families are far less than those for non-aboriginal Canadians living in urban and rural settings. We know the educational opportunities for children are not there. We know the government is in fact robbing Peter to pay Paul, basically taking moneys designated for education projects in communities in order to transfer them to water projects so they can trumpet what it is doing there.

I am not saying that the water projects are unimportant. In fact, they are very important to the health and the safety of all Canadians. However, it is important that all human rights be honoured. When we focus on women, we must understand that human rights are basic human rights.

I want to quote Beverley Jacobs from the Native Women's Association of Canada. She talks about all of the individual challenges facing first nations people, water, education, health, et cetera. She says:

All of these seemingly individual problems stem back to our history where our lands, resources and territories were unjustly taken from us and where our right of selfdetermination was subverted for the benefit of others.

Unfortunately, this is not only an historic problem, but a contemporary one where the order of business has not significantly changed in some respects.

We still see the Canadian government fighting court case after court case to challenge the constitutionally protected aboriginal rights we hold. As indigenous women leaders, we come to our positions not only as defenders of individual women, but as defenders of our lands, our resources and our territories.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, on the business of the House for the coming week, I wonder if the government House leader could provide the agenda that he has in mind beyond the budget bill, which of course is preoccupying the House now. I would also like to ask him two specific questions.

First, Bill C-21, dealing with aboriginal human rights, has been dealt with extensively in a committee of the House of Commons and has been reported back to the House. It has been sitting on the order paper ready to be dealt with by the House since the 30th of January. I wonder if he could tell us when he intends to call Bill C-21 to be finally dealt with in the House.

Second, it was three weeks ago today that this House adopted a motion pertaining to the mission in Afghanistan. That motion calls explicitly for the creation of a special standing committee to provide greater transparency and accountability with respect to that mission in Afghanistan. It is important that that committee be struck immediately. I wonder if the government House leader could indicate his intention with respect to the establishment of the committee on the Afghanistan mission.

Opposition Motion—Status of Women

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Mr. Speaker, is that not surprising? His constituents say the same thing to me. They write to my office as the parliamentary secretary on that file because they cannot get a response from him. In fact, I have had very similar phone calls to my office. It might be a partisan thing. Who knows?

In response to his question on the matrimonial real property, this is an issue that first nations women and aboriginal women have been wanting to discuss with the federal government. They made it clear from day one that they wanted to participate in this process. The first nations women's council of the Assembly of First Nations, and these are aboriginal women themselves, engaged in a process with the ministerial representative, Wendy Grant-John, a very fine ministerial representative. She also has indicated that the government should not prepare this legislation unilaterally. In fact, that unilateral decision making on legislation is at the crux of the problem. That in itself is paternalism.

On this very serious issue, the Conservatives have manipulated it just as they did on Bill C-21. We are talking about the whole issue of human rights. Again, native women—

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as usual my question has to do with the flow of business, over the time between now and the Easter adjournment. I wonder if the government House leader could designate the remaining opposition days that will need to be covered in that space of time, and also indicate precisely what he has in mind in terms of House business for the two days of the five next week that would not be opposition days.

I would inform him that if he has in mind designating Monday as an opposition day for the official opposition it would be our intention to use that day to provide extra time for members of the House of Commons to give the proper kind of participation and consideration to the motion with respect to Afghanistan.

There is a strong desire, certainly on the part of the official opposition and I think on the part of all members of the House, to have adequate time to consider this matter in a proper way. Therefore, if Monday is to be a Liberal opposition day, we would devote it to that very important public business.

I would also ask the government House leader a question with respect to Bill C-21.

There was a procedural issue earlier with respect to that bill, Mr. Speaker. You have now ruled that two particular amendments are in fact in order and therefore any procedural question has been removed with respect to Bill C-21. Therefore, I wonder when the House leader intends to bring that bill back for consideration in the House.