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.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

I would just like to say that this is an essential bill, and that's why we're here, as elected members of Parliament--to ensure that bills such as this get passed. As we approach the Christmas season, in light of the last two hours of debate that we had, we need to extend time in order to pass Bill C-21.

This was the reason for my motion and hopefully we will get the opportunity to see it passed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Welcome, members, to our committee meeting today.

We have a couple of small housekeeping matters. There will be bells at 5:15 and we begin votes at 5:30. We will need to either end our meeting or suspend our meeting at 5:15 to head over to the House today. So for those of you who are on the list of speakers, wherever we are at that time, we will stop.

In a moment we're going to continue--like one of those kids' stories, we're going to pick up where we left off the last time--with clause-by-clause of Bill C-21.

We are still discussing amendment NDP-1 from Ms. Crowder.

As I said at the end of the last meeting, we'll pick up with our list from where we were. I don't know if you have it, but to my recollection, Mr. Russell has the floor, and subsequently Mr. Albrecht and then Mr. Warkentin. I think those were the three names I had on that list.

Aboriginal Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, this government has been delivering real, tangible results on aboriginal issues. Since coming into office just 22 months ago, we have reduced by half the number of first nations communities with significant water issues.

Sadly, however, the opposition is blocking Bill C-21, our attempt to empower first nations with the same human rights that all other Canadians enjoy. It is are also stalling Bill C-30, which would address the backlog of specific claims.

Can the Minister of Indian Affairs tell the opposition why this bill on specific claims is so important, not only to aboriginals but for all Canadians?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have to say that I appreciate the generally respectful tone of the debate today, because I think it's a very important issue. There's just one issue around respect, and Mr. Storseth raised the issue that he felt that this committee wasn't being respectful.

I would argue that if we truly to talk about respect around process, this committee has passed two motions in the past calling for consultation, which the government has chosen to ignore. So in terms of respect for process, when you have a majority of members of the committee laying out a careful framework around consultation, I think that's important to note.

Just to come back to the interpretive clause, I think the big challenge we have before us is the fact that, on a number of occasions, either the Human Rights Commission, in a report that it's put forward, or individual commissioners have talked about the importance of an interpretive clause.

When Jennifer Lynch, the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, appeared before the committee, her submission on April 19, 2007, talked about the need for an interpretive provision:

The need for an interpretive provision is one important area where differences of view have been voiced and Bill C-44--the now Bill C-21--is silent on this matter. With respect, we submit that it should not be. First nations communities and people have a unique history and a special status in the Canadian constitutional and legal system. Their existing aboriginal and treaty rights are affirmed in the Constitution, and have been progressively confirmed by the courts, and are recognized by governments at all levels.

An interpretive 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 interpretive 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 interpretive provision, there are differences on how this should be achieved.

So you have the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission calling for an interpretive clause. The very people who are going to be responsible for hearing complaints are saying that they need this particular piece.

I guess this is a question for the department. There were a couple of comments earlier that left me feeling really uncomfortable. It almost seems like there's an underlying presumption that first nations couldn't possibly have egalitarian human rights. I hear these concerns voiced around all kinds of decisions that first nations make that are potentially discriminatory. Inherent in that is a presumption that first nations somehow or other don't recognize human rights as valid in their own context.

I'll frame this in the context of the question that I want to ask. In “A Matter of Rights“, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, as I pointed out earlier, raises interpretive provision but they also point out that there are provisions where there's a bona fide occupational requirement, a bona fide justification--you lawyers know all about this stuff--for why it treated an individual in a way that would otherwise be contrary to human rights law.

They go on in their documentation to outline some cases where there is this bona fide requirement. In footnote 28, they're citing the Ontario Human Rights Commission, but I think it's a legitimate comment. It says, for example, under subsection 24(1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code, that the right under section 5 to equal treatment with respect to employment is not infringed where

a religious, philanthropic, educational, fraternal or social institution or organization that is primarily engaged in serving the interests of persons identified by their race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, creed, sex, age, marital status, same-sex partnership status or disability employs only, or gives preference in employment to, persons similarly identified if the qualification is a reasonable and bona fide qualification because of the nature of the employment.

And so on.

So there are human rights codes, and in this context about giving people a bona fide requirement of employment--and arguably a bona fide requirement of employment for first nations might be that you speak the language and have some knowledge of the culture and tradition--I wonder why we wouldn't consider an interpretive clause that looked at some legitimate restrictions around things like employment.

I wonder if you could comment on that.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to start by clarifying for the record that, contrary to Ms. Neville's comments, each one of the parties had the opportunity to have their say on this in the House of Commons. Everybody voted unanimously in favour of sending this to committee, and we should not forget that.

The second thing is, Mr. Chair, this is fundamentally arrogant--ignoring the rules and precedents of Parliament. It's very clear that this is looking at amending a parent act. It is not dealing with anything that is within Bill C-21. In Marleau and Montpetit, under relevance:

An amendment to a bill must be relevant; that is, it must always relate to the subject matter of the bill or the clause under consideration. For a bill referred to a committee after second reading, an amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act unless it is being specifically amended by a clause of the bill.

Very clearly, in my opinion, in the opinion of the chair, and I think in the opinion of any legal counsel, this is outside the scope of this legislation.

Mr. Reiher, I understand you're the representative from Justice Canada on this issue. In your opinion, would this amendment be within the scope of Bill C-21?

Specific Claims Tribunal Act

[Bill Siksay, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as I begin, I want to assure my colleague from the Bloc, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, that the commotion in this corner was New Democrat members defending him against the derision that was heaped on him by Conservative members during his speech. We were listening very carefully to his remarks.

Specifically, this afternoon we are discussing Bill C-30, the specific claims tribunal act. I want to begin by saying that I represent people who live on Coast Salish territory on the Lower Mainland of British Columbia.

The New Democrats believe the legislation is long overdue. The NDP has long called for an independent specific claims tribunal. In fact, it was part of our election platform in at least the last two federal election campaigns and, as party policy, it was reaffirmed at a recent policy convention of the New Democratic Party. We strongly support this and we will support the bill.

We are a little hesitant today because all the experts on aboriginal affairs issues are in committee this afternoon. We think it is unfortunate that the government did not get the timing a little better today to ensure that Bill C-30 would be debated in the House at a time when Bill C-21 was not before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs in clause by clause discussion. Unfortunately many of our members, our experts in this place from all parties, have to be involved at committee today.

We support the legislation and we will want to work on again at committee, where witnesses will be heard and improvements made.

One of the reasons we support the legislation is we know it has been developed in consultation with first nations. This probably could have been more broad than it was, but it is an important step and we want to acknowledge that this consultative step was taken. We believe this is a good example of how this should be applied more broadly by the government in its relationships with first nations. We believe this might go some way to restoring the nation to nation relationship that existed at the time treaties were signed, and it needs to be part of negotiations of new treaties.

The context of our discussion today is one that is not all that positive, to put it mildly. We come to this discussion today after a long and sad history of discussion of specific claims in Canada. We have seen many reports and many attempts at legislation, even failed legislation, legislation that was passed and then proved unworkable.

This has gone on for many years, beginning with the Indian Act that was in place from 1927 to 1951. It prohibited band funds from being used to sue the government, to take the government to court, to change or to hold the government accountable for agreements and treaties and specific commitments that were made. Thankfully that was changed, but we have seen other things.

I think every decade has seen activity around the question of specific claims. In the 1940s we saw the original recommendation that there be a claims tribunal. Similarly there were recommendations in the 1950s. In the 1960s there was even legislation that died on the order paper, apparently twice. In the 1970s there were more recommendations and attempts. In the 1996 report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal People, one of the recommendations, on of the specific calls, was for an independent specific claims tribunal. In the 2000s, in the previous Parliament, we saw an attempt to deal with this issue in legislation, which has proven unworkable. Many attempts have been made over the long and sad history of dealing with this issue.

Therefore, we come to this today. We come hopeful that this current legislation will be more successful and will do more to address the specific issues that have been before us for so many decades in Canada.

I want to note that this attempt has been welcomed by first nations. In British Columbia that is also the case. The First Nations Leadership Council, which is comprised of the political executives of the First Nations Summit, the Union of BC Indian Chiefs and the BC Assembly of First Nations, has been optimistic about this process since it was first made public back in the late spring.

In a press release in June of this year, they said that they would welcome an independent body for specific claims that was being proposed and that they were cautiously optimistic regarding the proposals.

That is a good thing and I think we can all be pleased that there is this kind of optimism from the leadership of first nations regarding this process.

The First Nations Leadership Council points out that the specific claims that are being discussed arise from, as it puts it, Canada's breach or non-fulfillment of lawful obligations found in treaties, agreements or statutes, including the Indian Act. It points out that the existing 25 year old federal specific claims policy sets out the process for the resolution of these claims through determination of their validity and subsequent negotiations.

However, we have seen a terrible backlog and a gridlock in that resolution system. Currently there are over 900 specific claims designated as under review by the Government of Canada. It is important to note that almost half of those originate from B.C. first nations. Also, of the more than 300 claims currently at the Department of Justice awaiting legal review, 65% of those originate from B.C. first nations.

Therefore, B.C. first nations have a particular concern for this process. We have seen in reports that have been made, most recently the Senate report that was made in 2006, that B.C. was a particular subject in that report and the uniqueness of British Columbia when it comes to the outstanding specific claims, given that there are so many from British Columbia.

This is something that is of particular importance to first nations in British Columbia and, by the same token, to all people in British Columbia because we are anxious to see the relationship with our first nations restored and these specific claims resolved.

At the time, back in June when this proposal was announced, the leaders of the First Nations Leadership Council made various statements. Chief Shawn Atleo of the BC Assembly of First nations said:

An independent panel on specific claims is long overdue. Given this body will possess the necessary mandate with full decision-making authority and an appropriate level of financial and human resources, we expect they ensure that specific claims are fairly considered and equitably resolved in a timely manner.

That was a very important statement of support for this process that came from Chief Atleo.

Grand chief, Stewart Phillip, the president of the Union of BC Indian Chiefs, had this to say about the proposal. He said:

The Government of Canada acting as both the judge and jury in the specific claims process has been in a clear conflict of interest. Removing this conflict through the creation of an independent body will ensure that we do not have to wait ninety years to resolve the existing backlog of claims. Furthermore, an effective Specific Claims Policy must be fully committed to addressing, and not side-stepping, all types of claims regardless of size and scope.

While showing his interest in this proposal, Grand Chief Phillip also raised some challenges to the process and some issues that he hoped to see addressed by the legislation and, hopefully, if they are lacking, we can address those when this legislation is before the committee.

Back in June, grand chief, Edward John, political executive of the First Nations Summit, said:

We fully support the recommendations of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. In particular, we fully agree with the recommendation that First Nations need to be “full partners” with the Government of Canada in the development of legislation and policy to ensure that Canada meets its lawful obligations to First Nations in the resolution of specific claims.

Again, that reiterates a point I made at the beginning of my speech about the importance of that kind of consultation going into legislative proposals that are brought before the House. We are glad at least to some extent that kind of consultation did take place on this legislation.

Those were some of the concerns raised by the First Nations Leadership Council in British Columbia. It does indicate its support for the legislation but it has raised some specific concerns. I know that the New Democratic Party's aboriginal affairs critic, the member for Nanaimo—Cowichan, will be raising those issues at committee and will be working to ensure that witnesses appear before the committee who can expand on those concerns.

One of the specific concerns that arises is the $150 million cap on the value of claims that can be referred to the tribunal for validation and settlement. One of the concerns about that cap is exactly how it will be determined, how the value of that claim will be calculated. There is a concern about wanting to be consistent and wanting to ensure that it best represents the interests of first nations in calculating that amount.

Another concern that has been raised by the B.C. chiefs is the need for more resources to be dedicated to the research, negotiation and settlement of B.C. specific claims which comprise nearly half the claims in the system and 62% of the claims in the Department of Justice backlog.

We have heard that many times from leaders in the aboriginal community but also from the Senate committee that looked at the situation and wrote a report in 2006 called “Negotiations or Confrontation: It's Canada's Choice”. The Senate committee spent considerable time and effort looking at the question of limited resources in the current process.

These are all things that we would want to avoid in the new process: things like the constant turnover of staff, the ever-increasing backlog, the lack of training that researchers have which often leads to the repetition of historical errors, of frustration and inefficiency in the system. Another one of the resource issues is the inability to have inappropriate information sharing among the parties involved.

Those are some of the specific lack of resource issues that we believe need to be addressed in Bill C-30 and in the regulations and implementation that follows from it. Without appropriate resources to do this work, it will not be done well or it will not be done at all perhaps. This is something we will want to make sure is followed up on.

Concerns have also been expressed by the aboriginal first nations leadership in British Columbia about the exact definition of specific claims. Clearly, that is something that will need to be looked at and resolved because there is no sense having a specific claims tribunal process where there is concern about what the definition of those claims actually is.

I think the first nations of British Columbia also have a number of concerns that they will be raising and it is our intention to ensure that opportunity is provided at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development when it is looking at this legislation.

Another concern is about the appointment of the tribunal and who serves on the tribunal itself. We want to be sure that first nations are represented in that process of appointment. The resolution of these specific claims should not be solely at Canada's discretion. Canada again cannot be put in the position of being judge and jury on these issues at the same time. We need to ensure the independence of this process, which is the intention of this legislation, but we also need to consider the appointment process of those who sit on the tribunal to ensure they are representative of all the parties, are truly independent and can make the best and most appropriate decisions related to these specific claims. That is something else that we, for our part, will be pursuing in conjunction with first nations at the committee.

I think it is important to point out that we need to make progress on these sorts of legal arrangements to settle specific claims. This mechanism has been too cumbersome, too unproductive, has caused too much tension and too much uncertainty and instability in Canada for far too long. We need to ensure we have an effective process for resolving these issues.

In her speech earlier today, my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan said that we needed to be aware that having the most just process in this case, the most legal process, the best court process that we can have does not necessarily solve the problem of reconciliation between first nations and Canada. We need to ensure we have an early and honourable reconciliation and avoid endless appeals and endless court processes that may not allow us to live together successfully.

Many experts, including many judicial experts and judges themselves, say that reconciliation cannot be dealt with in a courtroom, which is one of the most confrontational settings that we have in our society.

I hope we will also look down the road to reconciliation and how this resolution of specific claims fits into that broader question of reconciliation between Canada and first nations.

We are looking forward to working on many things at committee. One of the other issues that should be reviewed at the aboriginal affairs committee is the political accord that was also signed at the time this legislation was tabled, the political accord that will deal with claims above $150 million. This legislation only deals with claims under $150 million.

Many issues need to be looked at. There are questions about why those claims are outside of any legislative process. Maybe they should have been included in Bill C-30 or other legislation. I think that is very important.

However, we are glad that this agreement was signed between the government and the grand chief of the Assembly of First Nations, but I do have some questions and I think that there needs to be some further discussion of those issues as well.

I hope we can avoid some of the problems that we have seen in the history of our relationship between Canada and first nations. I hope we can avoid some of the problems we have seen with the Conservative government's failure to recognize the Kelowna accord and the transformative change accord that was signed with the first nations of British Columbia, the Government of Canada and the B.C. government at the same time as the Kelowna accord.

We want to ensure those agreement are honoured. We have supported those agreements here. Some of our concern about not honouring those kinds of agreements goes to the whole context of how we resolve other issues between Canada and first nations. A history of failure to live up to agreements, accords and treaties that we have negotiated does not help us resolve the problems that are before us currently.

The New Democratic Party is looking forward to seeing the legislation go to the committee and we too support getting it there. We do not believe in rushing things off to committee without appropriate debate here in the House of Commons because that is part of the legislative process in this place. We will be doing that and we will be taking care to look at all aspects of the legislation as it comes before the House and as it comes before committee.

Sometimes in this place, when we go gangbusters, we miss important issues and make mistakes. We cannot afford to do that. We are looking forward to getting this to committee, hearing from appropriate witnesses and, hopefully, making this the best possible legislation we can to deal with the issue of specific claims.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

I'm a little confused by the member's comments. He seems to have a set idea of how the implementation of Bill C-21 would work itself out and what benefits, as he sees fit for first nations, would be put in place. He started to elaborate on that somewhat in reference to the amendment, saying that the very nature of these pieces of the amendment is the very issue that he wants to deal with in terms of Bill C-21, if I understood him correctly.

It seems clear to me that the member does not respect the nation-to-nation relationship that we have heard about in terms of the inherent right to self-determination, in terms of the nation-to-nation relationship embodied in a treaty relationship. Certainly, section 35 of our Constitution states:

(1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. (2) In this Act, “aboriginal peoples of Canada” includes the Indian, Inuit, and Métis peoples of Canada. (3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) “treaty rights” includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired. (4) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

I mention this because the legal and constitutional framework being alluded to, in terms of it not being part of the consideration of how it seems the member wants to move forward in terms of Bill C-21, is very disturbing, very troubling. Certainly I know that we as a country, we as a nation, as Canada, would certainly not want other nations to be making all of our little laws. That 's what we're talking about here.

The member who moved the amendment made it clear that this is about moving forward in a conciliatory fashion with Canada and first nations. It seems that it's very difficult for us to break away from that within this process and to try to hear what has been presented by first nations.

Although you mentioned a distinguished scholar, why is it that we are not listening to the people whose very lives are affected by this? We have heard repeatedly from AFN, NWAC, and the Canadian Bar Association about the potential impacts and about operating within this constitutional and legal framework.

I find it very troubling.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to explain that my riding includes the region of Nunavik, not Nunavut. There is a difference between the two territories, and I would not like to take the place of my Liberal colleague who represents Nunavut.

If I read correctly, this bill applies only to specific claims, but what are specific claims, in lay terms?

We do not need to look very far to learn that they originated in old grievances made by the first nations. These grievances have to do with negotiations Canada is required to conduct under historic treaties or the way the country has managed the money or other property belonging to the first nations, including reserve lands.

It is true that, since 1973, the government has had a policy and a process whereby it settles these claims through negotiation rather than in court.

However, there have been calls for measures to settle these disputes not just since 1973, but since July 1947, when a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons made this recommendation:

That a Commission, in the nature of the Claims Commission, be set up with the least possible delay to inquire into the terms of the Indian treaties...and to appraise and settle in a just and equitable manner any claims or grievances arising thereunder.

It was not until 1961 that another joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons again recommended that a claims commission be set up and Prime Minister Diefenbaker's cabinet approved draft legislation to create a claims commission. However, as luck would have it, this draft legislation was never introduced, because of an election call.

Nevertheless, Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson introduced Bill C-130, entitled the Indian Claims Act, in the House of Commons on December 14, 1963. He was determined to keep up with the true Conservatives. However, even back then, the government neglected to consult with the first nations, and the bill was withdrawn to allow time for consultation.

Another bill with the same title was introduced on June 21, 1965. June 21: what a lovely date. I can hardly wait for it to arrive. All kidding aside, guess what happened: yes, the bill died on the order paper when an election was called.

It was not until 1973 that further action was taken, with the establishment of the specific claims policy I mentioned at the very beginning of my remarks, which has been in effect to this day.

In the meantime, a government report on the administrative process for resolving specific claims was indeed published in 1979, citing conflicting duties and recommending the creation of an independent body which would in all respects be a specialized tribunal.

During the same period of time, the Penner report, published in 1983, called for a quasi-judicial process for managing failed negotiations and the neutral facilitation of negotiated settlements.

In 1990, in a report entitled “Unfinished Business: An Agenda for All Canadians in the 1990's”, a standing committee of the House of Commons reiterated the need for an independent claims body. At the same time, a joint working group bringing together representatives of Canada and the first nations—things are getting better—was looking at creating a permanent, legislative entity with tribunal-like powers, and finally in January 1991, the government created the Indian Specific Claims Commission under the federal Inquiries Act .

This commission was only intended as an interim measure, until a permanent independent body with adjudicative powers could be created. The commission remains in existence today, but continues to have only non-binding powers to make recommendations.

By 1996, the need was ever more pressing. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, whose report is commonly known as the Erasmus-Dussault report, conducted extensive consultations with first nations people across the country and recommended an independent tribunal to replace the ISCC and concentrate on land and treaty issues.

In 1998, the efforts of a joint Canada-first nations working group eventually led to Bill C-6, specific claims legislation which, this time, received royal assent, in November 2003. That legislation would have provided binding decision-making powers, including on those compensation amounts, estimated at $10 million, which first nations deemed insufficient. They rejected that. This is yet another fine example of consultation.

Here we are now, in 2007, with Bill C-30, at a time when the political landscape has evolved somewhat, at least I hope so. To my knowledge, there are already particular conditions in Quebec, such as a specific first nations association with their own culture and needs. However, this government seems, deliberately or not, to have forgotten to consult those first nations. If we look at the timing of this bill, it is almost certain that we will have an election before it reaches third reading stage. In the end, this bill will only have served electoral purposes, as was the case with Kelowna, in 2005, with Bill C-130, in 1965, or with the Diefenbaker draft bill, in 1962.

In the explanatory notes that accompany this bill—and that were given to us by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development—it is mentioned that the new approach is based on a wealth of reports, studies and recommendations made by first nations in the past. I emphasize the expression “in the past”. I am prepared to believe that federal officials did consult a few first nations leaders, as they did in 1963 with Bill C-130, for which they had to go back again for another consultation, or in 2003 with Bill C-6, for which they consulted a few first nations leaders. I sense that we will have to hear many more dissatisfied witnesses, as was the case with Bills C-44 and C-21, which is now before us and regarding which the government merely changed the cover page, even though it is well aware of the fact that the various first nations associations are unhappy about it.

I feel a little sheepish for overestimating the Prime Minister's vision and desire for transparency, a transparency that is less relevant than that of Quebec's dark ages under Duplessis, whom he reminds me of, if only because he is so blindly obstinate.

Like my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I will nevertheless support this bill, which will speed up the resolution of specific claims of first nations, a process that has been criticized since the 1940s, as I just described. It would still have to receive royal assent before an election, and all the first nations must agree to it.

How many times in the past have we heard the elected members of this government announce the support of provincial premiers or ministers, organizations or union leaders, when it was completely untrue? As some people would say, credibility goes hand in hand with accountability, which the government seems to be seriously lacking.

I would like to take this opportunity to offer my condolences to the Whapmagoostui community and the family and friends of David Masty, a prominent Cree man who went missing in the waters of Hudson's Bay over the weekend. He was seen as an elder throughout northern Quebec. He was a longtime friend of mine for whom I had a lot of respect.

It goes without saying that we have some concerns about this bill, for example, the fact that a single judge will render a binding decision about a third party's responsibility for paying without that party even being involved in the judgment. Quebec assumes a great deal of responsibility towards first nations, so the other provinces and this government could be more vulnerable to this type of judgment. Could the judge unilaterally require a third party to pay 30% of a first nations claim? Once again, what about the government's fiduciary responsibility?

The Bloc Québécois recognizes that certain specific claims are a strictly federal responsibility. Various House committees have been recommending the establishment of this tribunal for more than 60 years, in order to resolve specific first nations claims, as mentioned at the beginning of my speech, with the expression of concern and regret over the fact that this government is, once again, ignoring Quebec's distinctiveness.

Given the current structure of the judicial appointment process, a contested process if ever there was one, it is worrisome to think that a decision by this tribunal could not be appealed, and this goes for Quebec as well as for first nations, even though the decision is subject to judicial oversight.

This approach will have consequences that first nations really need to consider carefully. No further legal action will be possible. The surrender of land rights will give a clear title to third parties who own the land, and the decisions of the tribunal will resolve, once and for all, all specific claims.

Given that a province, which does not attend a land claim ruling, has no obligation to compensate the first nation, it is possible that the first nation will use the federal decision to demand compensation from that province. What happens, then, to the federal fiduciary responsibility?

The Bloc Québécois has always supported aboriginal peoples in their quest for justice and recognition of their rights. We recognize that the 11 first nations of Quebec are nations in their own right. We recognize that they are distinct peoples with the right to their own culture, language, customs and traditions as well as the right to direct the development of their own identity.

For this reason, aboriginal peoples must have the tools to develop their own identity, namely the right to self-government and the recognition of their rights. The right to self-determination was recognized by the Bloc Québécois in 1993 in its manifeste du Forum paritaire Québécois-Autochtones, in the future country of Quebec where we will also be masters of our own culture and vision for the future.

Like my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I reiterate my support for this bill, which will speed up resolution of the specific claims of the first nations that have been ongoing for 70 years. However, this is contingent upon my not discovering along the way, as is the case with many other declarations, that the declaration is as false as the consultation of first nations.

Naturally we will have the opportunity to examine the bill in the standing committee. I have the privilege of being a member of that committee where we can observe the childish antics of the members of this government, who have demonstrated a chronic inability to accept other people's ideas.

That is perhaps why they continue to call themselves the new government. There are too many issues that have failed to advance. It is like a plumber who has not understood that something other than water may pass through a pipe. Or an electrician who believes that his job is to make wires pass through this same pipe. This leads to confrontations, such as those the government will have on the international stage, which unfortunately would have reflected on the whole country had it not been for the generosity of the Bloc Québécois members who helped their colleagues go to defend Quebec's integrity in Bali.

What a bunch of half-wits we would have looked like without those few sensible persons who, democratically, have an undeniable right, especially because in terms of simple distribution, this government only represents some 30% of the Canadian population! Unfortunately, we have not yet avoided this reputation, which we must acknowledge is not a source of pride.

We have not forgotten this government's stand with respect to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is enough to leave anyone involved with this bill perplexed.

We in northern Quebec certainly have our own concerns about the last James Bay agreement, which gave the Cree their share, although they are still awaiting the final agreement.

This is somewhat like Santa's sack, which he is holding in front of the beneficiaries, even though he has no intention of loosening the strings and handing out any presents. This is another point that reminds us of the dirty tricks of the Duplessis years.

It is like the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, who was elected based on his campaign promise to resolve the forestry crisis. He was elected at the beginning of September. The throne speech was presented at the end of October, but there was no mention of the forestry crisis. Nevertheless, he stood up and voted for that speech. This is not a problem; there are others just like him. In fact, one mayor in my riding stood up to protect this little sinking ship in a sea of Canadians—especially in the shadow of a big Albertan—who would include this topic in the next minibudget. Once again, they did not deliver.

Yet, his big Albertan, as a consolation prize, allows him to blather on, making a few silly remarks on occasion, getting a laugh out of the visitors' gallery, more often than not at his own expense. After all, there are still a few good little French Canadians in Quebec who have not yet managed to separate.

For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois must remain ever vigilant and uncompromising on behalf of all Quebeckers, aboriginal and non-aboriginal. This always leads us to demand that Quebec officials be consulted in the same way as Canadian officials.

We will therefore vote in favour of this bill, so we may study it and propose amendments, as needed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, Ms. Crowder.

I am going to rule that amendment NDP-1 is inadmissible.

Bill C-21 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act by repealing section 67 of that act. The repeal of section 67 removes an exemption in its application with regard to the Indian Act.

This amendment proposes to not repeal section 67, but rather replace it with a new framework. This new framework would create many conditions and exemptions similar to those contained in the Indian Act.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 654: “An amendment to a bill that is referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.”

In the opinion of the chair, the introduction of this new framework is contrary to the principle of Bill C-21 and is therefore inadmissible.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Okay.

So we will not be hearing from them, then. You said that we will not be hearing from any more groups on Bill C-21.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

I'm not clear what you're saying. You had, in response to Ms. Crowder's request, these letters of request to speak to the committee on Bill C-21. You said you had prepared letters....

So there are no letters that are responding to those requests going from the committee? That's what I'm asking for clarification of; you didn't seem certain.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In terms of how the committee is going to proceed, as you know we're going to begin with clause-by-clause today on Bill C-21. If we finish today, then I guess we will have to decide what we're going to do on Thursday. If we don't finish today, we're going to continue with this at our next meeting on Thursday. Next Tuesday, we already have a different meeting set up to hear witnesses. Then it's my expectation that if we're not done with clause-by-clause for Bill C-21 on Thursday, we would continue it next Thursday.

I have no plans to interrupt or postpone the clause-by-clause in order to hear more witnesses, if that was the question.

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

I know that the committee members got two letters from the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations. Of course, because Bill C-21 was introduced and brought back to committee, there wasn't an opportunity to bring these witnesses forward, so I wondered how the committee was going to proceed with the request to come and present information around Bill C-21. I think the letters were dated November 19 and November 20.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

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

Our order of business today is pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, November 13, 2007, Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. We do have with us three officials—Mr. Jim Hendry, Mr. Martin Reiher, and Mr. Charles Pryce—if we need assistance along the way today.

Before we actually begin with the clause-by-clause, I just wanted to talk for a second with the committee members.

I am new to this committee, as you know, and new to chairing, as you know. Last week, when we had witnesses, from both the Auditor General's office as well as the minister, I was.... For example, with the witnesses from the Auditor General, I was very loose in terms of dealing with the clock. I wasn't strict in terms of following time. Last Thursday, when we had the minister, I told the committee before we started that I was going to be strict with the clock. I thought that was fair to everyone, and I thought it only fair to tell you before we started how I was going to try to manage the meeting. I thought that worked fairly well.

Today, as we go through this, I just want to say the same thing. We're going to have a discussion of a variety of amendments that have been brought forward. I can't presume to know everything that will be brought forward, but I did see a list earlier today of some draft amendments. I want you to know, in terms of ruling on the admissibility or inadmissibility of these amendments, that I will be cautious, meaning that I need to be convinced that the amendment is admissible.

So as we go through today, I'm sure we're going to have several of those conversations.

Ms. Crowder.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think Bill C-30 is not the norm unfortunately in terms of a consultative process. What we have seen under Bill C-21 is the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. We heard 20 out of 21 witnesses come before the committee talking about the importance of consultation and any kind of respectful relationship.

We would anticipate that if a piece of legislation is going to have a direct impact on over 600 communities across the country that we would look for an appropriate consultation process. On matrimonial real property, there was a report commissioned by the Conservative government and recommendation 18 in the report laid out a number of steps and a consultation process, a very respectful consultation process.

I would argue again that if this government or any other government were to take consultation seriously, first of all they would develop a consultation process in conjunction with first nations. We cannot develop a consultation process that does not actually include people who are going to be affected in that process.

Therefore, I would encourage the government to look at recommendation 18 of the “Matrimonial Real Property Issues on Reserves” report by Wendy Grant-John.