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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

This is like a Nascar track. We're right back where we started, which is at clause 1 as originally put forward in the government bill.

I have a couple of points of clarification for members as we go forward.

As you know, last week several members of the committee put forward proposed amendments to Bill C-21. Those went to our legislative clerk, and he put them in what to him was a logical sequence to deal with them as we work our way through the bill. That package was distributed to all members of the committee.

There are 14 amendments in total. We have now dealt with the first one, which is NDP-1.

Having said all that, the amendments that are in the package are not yet moved. If the members who brought them forward would still like to bring them forward, that is agreeable. If they choose not to, then we'll just move on to the next one.

Pardon me. Before I get to that point, I need to call the question on clause 1. I actually need a vote.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to our committee meeting this afternoon.

I was wondering what we would actually have to do here to get on the news tonight as the most-reported committee meeting today. I didn't think setting the table on fire would be enough. I expect the media are busy writing their stories about another committee meeting that took place earlier today.

There are a couple of general points before we get started. Today we have actually scheduled two 2-hour meetings. I'm not sure I was 100% clear on this the other day, when we were talking about extending the length of the meeting. In fact we are having one committee meeting from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., and then we are convening a second committee meeting at that time. It will be from 5:30 p.m. until 7:30 p.m.

It is my understanding that a hot meal will be brought here at 5:30 p.m., so my plan is to go until 5:30 p.m. When we adjourn the first meeting, we'll take a brief recess for 10 minutes so that people can get something to eat, and then we will reconvene and continue with the same business. That's really all I need to say on that.

(On clause 1)

When we left off a week ago, we were dealing with the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-21. Amendment NDP-1 had been brought forward as an amendment to clause 1 of Bill C-21. I had ruled that amendment NDP-1 was inadmissible. That ruling was challenged and subsequently overturned by the committee. Thereafter followed some discussion and debate about amendment NDP-1. As we approached the end of that process, there was a vote taken on NDP-1, and it was passed.

We had actually come to the vote on whether clause 1 as amended would carry. I think there was some very sincere confusion or concern around the table in terms of what all this meant. At that point we chose to adjourn so that people could think through where they were and what they were doing so that we could proceed. Then on Tuesday we were dealing with business other than Bill C-21.

That's the point we're at right now.

Ms. Crowder wanted to say something.

Aboriginal Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, I will speak slowly for the Liberals.

Right now, here is the situation. First nations on reserve are not covered by the Canadian Human Rights Act. They are the only people in Canada who are not included.

We brought in Bill C-21 which would eliminate this discrimination, but now the opposition parties, the Liberals in particular, have gutted the bill so that first nations would still not have any protection. Then they moved to shut down the debate.

The Liberals claim they support the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but they will not include first nations in our own Human Rights Act.

It is the right thing to do to have them included. Let us give first nations human rights protection and the time to do it is right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, on international human rights day, I am astonished at the actions of the opposition.

Government Bill C-21 seems to finally give aboriginal Canadians the same access to human rights as other Canadians.

At last week's aboriginal affairs committee meeting, opposition members voted for an amendment that would water down the intent of the bill. The Liberal member for Winnipeg South Centre, who continues to try to derail this process, then adjourned the committee early to avoid any more discussion on this important issue.

Would the minister explain to the opposition why all Canadians deserve access to human rights and why the legislation needs to be passed now?

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

Mr. Speaker, I must say that the hon. member has guts like Dick Tracy to raise this here today.

That is the member who moved amendments in committee that gutted Bill C-21 so that first nations people would not have coverage under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Then, after she said, “I'm flying blind. I have no idea what I'm doing”, she moved to adjourn the debate so we could not get it done and bring it back to the House.

First nations deserve coverage under the Canadian Human Rights Act and that member deserves to give it to them. Why does she not get off her high horse and let first nations have coverage like every other Canadian?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

I understand the predicament we're in. However, I think this can be quickly settled by a vote. So again, I would ask that we get the chance to go further with some of the other debate that we have. We've already voted down my motion to extend hours. I'd prefer to have the opportunity at least to get into amendment NDP-2, to begin that debate today, as we have only one more day before Christmas to work on Bill C-21.

I would just ask members to call the question on this.

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

Procedurally, though, he could have withdrawn it once he saw that it was now a different Bill C-21.

So I just want to make those points, because I don't want people across the way accusing us of changing Bill C-21 and then continuing to debate it. They had a great opportunity and they blew it. As Anita was saying before, they keep blowing opportunities to get a piece of legislation that people support because they worked with the government to get legislation that they feel they're part of.

I've said before--I've said it to Mr. Prentice, and I'll keep saying it to every minister of Indian Affairs--that you cannot keep making legislation that affects a group of people that doesn't involve the people whose lives are going to be affected. Going back to the words that Anita used, you can't think you know best to make laws about people when you haven't walked in those shoes and you don't involve the people whose lives are going to be affected.

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

So for them to then go to the next step and try to accuse us of changing Bill C-21 is not fair, because they had their chance to get amendment NDP-1 done and dealt with. I didn't see anyone on our side saying no to unanimous consent. That's the point I wanted to make.

For him to then go to this motion to consider the new Bill C-21 is, I think, bad judgment on his part.

That's all I wanted to say.

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

I'm having a really difficult time here. As much as Mr. Bruinooge has said that he wanted to continue discussing Bill C-21 and he did not support NDP-1, now he's on record as saying that he didn't want it withdrawn, which would have been the end of NDP-1, most likely--

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

Thank you.

I have more of a procedural question. I'm looking at the motion by Mr. Rod Bruinooge in relation to the committee stage of Bill C-21, and as you just reminded us, it is now a very different-looking Bill C-21. But he knew that would be the case before he put this motion through, so you can't really blame the opposition at this point, because he knew he was outnumbered.

I want to go back to procedure, and I want a clarification. I came in a few minutes late, so I apologize. You had just suspended to review something. My understanding is that Ms. Crowder wanted unanimous consent to withdraw her amendment NDP-1. Am I correct?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, Mr. Lévesque.

Ms. Crowder is next.

Again, I remind members of the committee that Bill C-21, as now amended, does not contemplate the abolition of section 67. We're beyond that now. We're not talking about a bill that says it is going to repeal section 67. What we are now talking about is a bill in which section 67 is replaced with the body of NDP-1. That is a significant difference. I think we all need to reorient.

We can have the question when those who are on the list have spoken. At this point I have Ms. Crowder and Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

Ms. Crowder.

[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.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, Ms. Crowder.

I'll answer your last question first. As you say, when you brought forward this amendment at the last meeting, I ruled it was inadmissible because it went beyond the scope of the bill. That was on the advice of the legislative clerk and others. I made that point at that time, and the committee in its wisdom chose to override that decision. That's why it was on the floor.

It is my understanding that if Bill C-21 goes to the floor of the House of Commons, and if a member challenges on the basis of the chair's ruling, the Speaker will then rule as to the admissibility of amendment one, NDP-1. The procedural and legislative experts who will be advising the Speaker are the same people who advised me that it was inadmissible.

So there are two things. First of all, to answer your question, I suspect that the advice the Speaker of the House receives will be the same as the advice I received, given the facts haven't changed and if the advisors are the same people.

As you know, neither the chair of the committee nor the Speaker of the House are necessarily bound by the advice they receive. Ultimately, it is the decision of the chair of the committee or the Speaker of the House. So I don't think we can necessarily presume what the Speaker will do.

Therefore, to consider what the ramifications might be if the Speaker of the House were to overturn that ruling is a great question. I just don't think it's possible to answer it. I point out, with all due respect to my colleagues on the committee, that it was as a result of a majority of members of the committee that we have gone down this road, when the decision was made to overturn the ruling of the chair.

Before I go to Mr. Bruinooge, I just want to clarify once again...because I think this is important, and I'm hearing it in the language again.

If you look at Bill C-21, clause 1 is very short. In the bill as proposed, it says that section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is repealed--period. That is the entire clause.

NDP-1 says that section 67 is replaced by what follows in the amendment.

So we have essentially changed the basic nature of this bill, from one that repeals section 67 to one that takes the current section 67 and replaces it with another one.

Given that the committee in its wisdom chose to overturn the ruling of the chair in terms of the admissibility of NDP-1, and subsequently, given that the majority of members of the committee in their wisdom chose to vote in favour of NDP-1, for the balance of these hearings we must proceed on the basis of what has been decided so far--namely, that we are replacing clause 1 with NDP-1.

As I said earlier, we had this conversation this morning, when I spoke with the legislative clerk, that if this passes it ripples through the following amendments that are going to be brought forward. So the nature of the discussion we are going to have about some of the upcoming amendments will be quite different from what it would have been if this had not been adopted by the committee.

Mr. Bruinooge.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair. There are a couple of points I'd like to make. I too will not be supporting Mr. Bruinooge's motion.

Under the normal course of events, I think committees take the time required to consider a matter that's before them, particularly a matter that is so fundamental to how communities will operate. And to suggest that an arbitrary time limit needs to be placed for reasons that are not clear makes one wonder what the agenda truly is.

Certainly the New Democrats support the repeal of section 67. We've heard from a number of witnesses from across the country, from other parties, that they support the repeal of section 67. But people are rightfully concerned about the potential impact.

A number of times at this committee we've talked about the former Bill C-31 from 1985 and the continued consequences that have rolled out from that bill. In fact, as a result of that decision in British Columbia, we've seen a recent B.C. Supreme Court decision on Sharon McIvor that had to do with women's rights in the community and membership and subsequent government actions. So I am not clear on why we would agree to limit debate on this matter.

We know that the government will come to the table in the spirit of cooperation when it suits them. On Bill C-30, the minister, when he was making that announcement, said: The diligence, collaboration and shared insight demonstrated by the task force were instrumental factors in bringing this legislation to life. These qualities also serve as a vivid example of the productive and collaborative attitude that we must all share to ensure the success of a new approach to resolve specific claims.

If I may, I will quote National Chief Phil Fontaine, who said: The AFN is very pleased with the process that was followed in the development of this legislation. It is apparent that when there is a political will, we can always find ways to resolve our differences.

I think the spirit of cooperation and collaboration that was used in Bill C-30 would serve us well under Bill C-21. I would suggest that with that same kind of spirit and will we could fairly quickly resolve our differences around Bill C-21 if people would come to the table with that collaborative process.

My last point is that although my proposed amendment has passed, my understanding of the reason it was ruled out of order initially by the chair was based on advice from legislative counsel. I guess my question to the legislative clerk, through the chair, would be this.

If this amendment proceeds and is reported back to the House in its current form, what is the likelihood of it being ruled out of order on the floor by the Speaker? And if that's the case, what happens to any subsequent amendments proposed at this committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

Before I go to Ms. Crowder, I want to point out to the committee that with the passage of NDP-1, we are now actually dealing with a bill that is fundamentally different from the one we were talking about a few minutes ago. Bill C-21 is no longer a bill whose purpose is to repeal section 67. It is being replaced. With clause 1 replaced in this bill, we are now talking about a replacement of section 67 as opposed to a repeal of it.

Again, I may ask the indulgence of the committee on an ongoing basis today as we go forward in terms of the rules, because even some of the amendments that we are going to continue to work our way through are incongruous with the bill as it now stands, as amended.

So with the successful adoption of NDP-1, what we have done is replace the old clause 1 with a new clause 1, and thus a new section 67. I think we all may need to wrap our heads around that new reality, that this is in fact what we're talking about now.

I have Ms. Crowder and then Mr. Bruinooge.