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.

Business of the House

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a supplementary question with regard to the Thursday question.

Having looked over the House calendar very carefully, the first thing that is obvious is that there is a real dearth of new legislation, which leads one to the conclusion that the government certainly seems to have run out of steam and ideas. There is really nothing there. In fact, some pieces of legislation that the government did introduce are actually provisions that were previously approved but did not get through, so they are just a reintroduction.

I would like to ask about two bills that have gone through the House but have yet to come back. Bill C-21, deals with human rights for aboriginal people. From the first session of this Parliament, there is Bill C-30, the climate change bill. Both of these bills have been through committee. We are waiting for both of them to come back into the House. I think the government should give us an explanation as to why these bills are not coming back to the House.

I also wonder if the government House leader would illuminate us as to whether or not there are other opposition days. We know that there will be one when we get back, but I wonder if he would tell us if he is allotting the other oppositions days and what days they will be.

Charter of Rights and Freedoms

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the 26th anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Today also marks the 23rd anniversary of the coming into force of the section 15 equality provisions of the charter, which took place on April 17, 1985.

Today, as we recognize these two anniversaries, we should take a long, hard look at the fact that there are still Canadians who are not treated equally under a Canadian law inspired by the charter.

Last November, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development introduced Bill C-21. This bill will right a wrong that should have been addressed many years ago. It will repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and guarantee that Canadians living on reserve benefit from the same access to the act as those living off reserve.

Unfortunately, the opposition parties have watered down the legislation and have taken away the full benefits provided under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Three years or three months: both are too long to wait. In the spirit of the charter and the equal treatment of all Canadians, our first nations deserve better.

[Chief Phil Fontaine]

I certainly don't want to give mixed messages or leave you with the wrong impression.

The questions that were posed and that I responded to here have to do specifically with Bill C-30. And I described how we entered into the process, the fact that we had to bring some trust to the process, and that there was goodwill in the process on the part of both sides.

Trust and goodwill and the success that resulted from ensuring that we were an integral part of this collaborative process--because that's what it was--ensured that this would be successful, or as successful as we could make it. That's why I come here, certain that this will bring about the kinds of changes that first nations have been seeking for a long, long time. I said 60 years. It's beyond 60 years, but 60 years is when government started making an effort to resolve these land matters.

In terms of other issues, and the role of the Assembly of First Nations in these other issues, and whether I'm satisfied that the government has treated us fairly in terms of addressing those issues, that's a different proposition. That's an entirely different question. I mentioned matrimonial real property, the repeal of section 67, fisheries, water, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the current work related to the Organization of American States and the declaration of aboriginal peoples in that regard. I could list a whole number of issues where I have been really disappointed and bothered by the approach taken by the government.

First of all, the Assembly of First Nations is a legitimate political organization. It represents distinct peoples with rights that are unique to them. We are as legitimate as you are, representing the BQ; as you are, representing the NDP; as you are, representing the Liberal Party; and as you are, representing the government. We're not less than you. We shouldn't be treated less than you. We're important to Canada. Our issues are important to Canada. The fair and just resolution of our issues is important to Canada.

Because we represent distinct peoples with unique rights, with interests to the land that are different from any other Canadian, you can't expect us to come here and do your bidding for you, the government. You should trust that when we have something to say, our position and our statements have as much validity as your statements, your words, and your positions. We can't be treated any less than that.

We've demonstrated that when we're treated with respect, with integrity, with appropriate goodwill, we achieve success. But governments can't pick and choose on what issues they're going to treat us with respect. It doesn't work that way. That is why I was very concerned when there was a suggestion that the fact that we had asked to be last here was somehow demonstrating our lack of confidence in our work. How could that be? I couldn't come here and criticize our work, because it is ours. The outcome before you, the piece of legislation before you, is a direct result of our joint efforts.

I just wanted to make sure today that whatever I had to say didn't take away from the good work that went into this piece of legislation, because it is indeed good work and it will bring about some real improvements, positive improvements to our communities.

On other issues, as I said, I'm so disappointed. I've committed myself to working with this government, making every effort to establish a good, respectful relationship with the government, and through the process of an effective, respectful relationship convince them that our agenda should be theirs as well. We shouldn't be treated as an afterthought. Our views shouldn't be disregarded. We want to make a difference in the lives of the people I represent. We have some huge challenges, and I have some very serious concerns about some of the issues where the interests of first nations people have been completely disregarded.

For example, the suggestion that we're against the human rights of women is a complete fabrication. We are for human rights for all our people. The suggestion was that because we wanted a three-year delay in the legislation, BillC-21, this meant that we were not prepared to extend protection to the most vulnerable in our community. All we were trying to do there was make sure that our interests were treated the same as you treat your own interests. Governments that have greater capacity than we will ever have at this point were given three years to ready themselves for the charter, when the charter came into force. We were offered six months. So when we pushed for greater time, we were accused of undermining the human rights of women. That isn't so.

I appear here before you deeply committed, as are all the people I work with, to the human rights of all our people.

Think of this for a moment. There are approximately over 100 women chiefs in Canada. There are approximately 800 women councillors. Do you think those people are against the human rights of women? Of course not. Absolutely not.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank National Chief Fontaine for being here today. It has been a lengthy process, and we've heard from many witnesses.

I would like to ask you two questions. We have heard concerns from many of our witnesses around the land issue. Arising from this process, of course, through the tribunal is the settlement solely of monetary compensation. One of the concerns that was raised is that claimant groups that may be seeking land settlement may be forced into this process through the process that would deem them rejected.

The Canadian Bar Association has raised the matter that there is trepidation that this whole pattern or doctrine of deemed rejections that it found under the ICC may emerge, and they raised the question of what would be in place to deal with those. In that regard, they also made a statement that there was no independent body to review ministerial decisions to reject claims and to make decisions binding on the federal government. That is a concern we heard around the monetary compensation.

I would also like to ask you one other question, and this is regarding the trust and good faith. You raised the matter today in terms of the process we saw on the MRP, where we failed to have a piece of legislation that moved forward, reflected the consultation, no consultation on Bill C-21, and in fact that this government did choose not to participate in the duty to consult on the development of this Bill C-30. So how is it that you reconcile the good faith of this government, which did not sign the UN declaration either?

So I would like to ask those two questions.

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.

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

Thank you both very much for coming today. I'm intrigued with what you're doing, and I commend you on it.

There have been a number of both initiatives and lack of initiatives by this government that affect aboriginal women. I'm interested in knowing how your GBA process would intersect with the federal government legislation--and perhaps provincial, but we're talking about the federal legislation.

How would you have brought forward your GBA on Bill C-21, on MRP, on the budget bill, and perhaps even on the Speech from the Throne? How would the processes work?

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?