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.

Specific Claims Tribunal Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-30, the specific land claims tribunal act. This piece of legislation is long overdue. New Democrats have long called for an independent tribunal. I am very pleased to see this piece of legislation come forward, and of course we will be supporting it.

I want to provide a bit of context because I think this is important to Canadians who are listening to this debate.

A document prepared by the Library of Parliament on the specific claims process outlined the long, sad and sorry history of specific claims. It started with the year 1927. I am going to read from that document:

Assertions of outstanding commitments owed by Canada to First Nations groups remained largely unconsidered by government well into the 20th century. From 1927 to 1951, the Indian Act prohibited the use of band funds for claims against government. In 1947, the special Senate-Commons committee struck to examine the Indian Act and other Indian Affairs matters recommended, inter alia, the immediate establishment of a “Claims Commission” “to inquire into the terms of all Indian treaties … and to appraise and settle in a just and equitable manner any claims or grievances arising thereunder.”(1) The 1959-1961 joint committee on Indian Affairs also advocated an “Indian Claims Commission” “to hear the British Columbia and Oka land questions and other matters....

It goes on to say that in 1963 and 1965, the then Liberal government revived a draft legislative initiative which subsequently died on the order paper.

It also states that in 1982, the federal government issued “Outstanding Business: A Native Claims Policy--Specific Claims”. There were a couple of points that the document specifically talks about. It talked about non-fulfillment of a treaty or agreement, breach of an obligation under the Indian Act or another statute related to Indians, breach of an obligation in administration of Indian funds or other assets, and unlawful disposition of reserve lands.

In reserve related circumstances, it talked about failure to provide compensation for reserve lands damaged or taken by the government and clear cases of fraud in acquiring or dispossessing of reserve land by federal employee agents.

In the 2000-01 annual report submitted by the Indian Claims Commission, the ICC observed that the specific claims process remains painfully slow and in gridlock.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, in its 1996 paper recommended the establishment by federal statute of an independent aboriginal lands and treaties tribunal which would replace the ICC and, in the area of specific claims, review federal funding to claimants, monitor negotiations and issue binding orders.

We can see that there is truly a long, sad and sorry history when dealing with specific claims. As many of us know, there has been report after report after report.

A report issued by the other house, called, “Negotiation or Confrontation: It's Canada's Choice” contained a number of recommendations. I want to touch very briefly on two of them. When this bill is before committee we will need to consider some of the questions that were raised by the other house.

The report talks about the fact that the process has limited resources. A number of issues were discussed in terms of the current process and its limited resources. One would hope that this bill would address that. There was a constant turnover of staff that were involved in specific claims. There was a high volume and the very fact that there were insufficient resources meant that the backlog was ever increasing. The process has untrained researchers. In terms of the research, some of the witnesses who came before the committee said that they therefore continually repeat historical errors, fail to have effective management regimes and function inefficiently.

We also know that under the specific claims, and under comprehensive claims as well, but we are only dealing with specific claims on this matter, there was also a lack of sharing of information among the various parties at the table. Mr. Michael Coyle has written a paper on specific claims in Ontario solely but has made some recommendations about how research could be shared among the parties at the table so that different parties are not duplicating research.

In particular, because I am from British Columbia, I want to mention that in the report called “Negotiation or Confrontation: It's Canada's Choice”, some very key pieces of information about British Columbia were raised. In the report it says:

Witnesses from British Columbia were quick to point out that the majority of Specific Claims in the system are from BC. They said the uniqueness of British Columbia’s Specific Claims must be considered in any new strategies aimed at reducing the backlog of Specific Claims. Speaking for the Union of BC Indian Chiefs (UBCIC), Chief Debbie Abbott thought not only that the allocation of resources for resolving BC claims should reflect the number of Specific Claims submitted by First Nations in BC but that there should be an independent body established for BC claims only.

The numbers vary but it is significant that well over half of the specific claims before the current process are from British Columbia. The chiefs from British Columbia have come out in support of this piece of legislation, but they have raised a number of questions, which I am sure the committee will have an opportunity to address.

In a letter that they sent out dated November 23, they indicated that there are a couple of issues they would like addressed, and they talk about the $150 million cap on the value of claims that can be referred to the tribunal for validation and settlement. They say in their letter:

--the $150 million figure for “value” will be calculated based on principles consistent with those set out by the Ontario court recently in its judgment in the Whitefish case.

More resources will be dedicated to the research, negotiation and settlement of B.C. specific claims which compromise nearly half the claims in the system and 62% of the claims in the Department of Justice backlog.

Provincial statutes of limitations do not apply to specific claims.

Water rights, pre-confederation claims and all unilateral undertakings of the Crown must be included in the definition of “specific claims”.

There should be no conflict of interest on claims that have access to the ICC. This means appointments to that committee need to be jointly agreed upon by First Nations and Canada.

There should be no conflict of interest in claims that do not have access to the tribunal, ie. those valued at over $150 million. This means there needs to be a legislated process to deal with those claims and that their resolution not be at Canada's discretion.

Certainly, we know that part of the problems with the current process is that the government ends up being both judge and jury on the specific claims process.

In a recent court decision in British Columbia, in the Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia, the piece that is relevant to this current piece of legislation is around the process of reconciliation. The justice in the decision said:

Throughout the course of the trial and over the long months of preparing this judgment, my consistent hope has been that, whatever the outcome, it would ultimately lead to an early and honourable reconciliation with Tsilhqot’in people. After a trial of this scope and duration, it would be tragic if reconciliation with Tsilhqot’in people were postponed through seemingly endless appeals. The time to reach an honourable resolution and reconciliation is with us today.

Further on down, the justice stated:

Unfortunately, the initial reluctance of governments to acknowledge the full impact of s. 35(1) has placed the question of reconciliation in the courtroom--one of our most adversarial settings. Courts struggle with the meaning of reconciliation when Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal litigants seek a determination regarding the existence and implications of Aboriginal rights.

Lloyd Barber, speaking as Commissioner of the Indian Claims Commission, is quoted on this issue in the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples: Looking Forward, Looking Back:

It is clear that most Indian claims are not simple issues of contractual dispute to be resolved through conventional methods of arbitration and adjudication. They are the most visible part of the much, much more complex question of the relationship between the original inhabitants of this land and the powerful cultures which moved in upon them.

I think those issues around reconciliation and the relationship between the first peoples of this country and various governments of various political stripes since 1927 speaks to the fact that this is an important piece of legislation and one would hope that during this process, it does lay some framework for future pieces of legislation.

In particular, Bill C-30 was drafted with the support of first nations. The Assembly of First Nations and others worked very closely with the Conservative government to come up with Bill C-30, and that in itself is an important statement, and one would hope would set the tone for future pieces of legislation.

I think the sad and unfortunate part is that the government missed an opportunity to look at Bill C-21 in the same light, particularly in view of the fact that the majority of the committee had called on the Conservative government to use it as an opportunity to look at the repeal of section 67 using a consultative process that clearly the government sees as valuable because it had used it with Bill C-30.

I will conclude by saying that certainly in British Columbia and the rest of Canada the specific claims have been a thorn in people's sides for a number of years because of the untimely and some would argue disrespectful process in terms of how claims have been moved through the system and resolved.

I welcome the opportunity to support this piece of legislation. I look forward to it coming to committee and hearing about how it can be implemented in a timely fashion. I look forward to more detail around the political accord because of course some of the mechanics of the bill are happening outside of the legislative process.

I hope that the details around the accord will be put forward in detail with appropriate resources. For example, on appointments to the tribunal, I understand there is a process in place, but the NDP has called on the importance of making sure that first nations are represented in that process.

I look forward to the speedy passage of the bill and the New Democrats will certainly be supporting it.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Gentlemen, I am glad to see you because when you are here, I feel that my average salary is going up. It makes me happy. I have a very brief question for you and I would like you to answer me with a yes or a no.

Has your department studied the impact of Bill C-21?

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must say, you folks are a pretty punctual bunch.

I am pleased to be here, obviously, to have this opportunity to appear before the committee to discuss not only the supplementary estimates but the government's larger view and the challenges facing aboriginal people and the initiatives we are undertaking to address those challenges.

Although this is my first appearance as minister before this committee, I have been a member of various committees for many years. I am very conscious of the important role that committees play in the parliamentary process and I appreciate the work that you are doing.

My remarks today reference the supplementary estimates of the department. My predecessor, the Hon. Jim Prentice, appeared before you several months ago to discuss the main estimates for the current fiscal year. We're now in the next phase of the budgetary cycle.

As you may recall, this government's inaugural budget in 2006 adopted a new strategy to address aboriginal issues, targeted investments to resolve quality of life issues. This commitment was reaffirmed in Budget 2007.

This government's larger aboriginal agenda was articulated by the Prime Minister in an address in Halifax earlier this month. I was pleased to be in attendance. It focused on five areas: economic development; education; empowering first nations and protecting the vulnerable; land claims; and reconciliation governance and self-government.

To effect a real change in these areas, our approach is to build a record of results through concrete, tangible actions undertaken with willing and able partners.

The supplementary estimates helped us to achieve these results. In total, these estimates commit, through Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, $209 million in additional investments that aim to improve the lives of aboriginal people and northerners. Another $25 million is committed through Indian Residential Schools Resolution Canada.

Mr. Chairman, since my appointment as minister, I have crossed the country, meeting with provincial and territorial ministers, aboriginal leaders, and private sector stakeholders, and I have visited northern communities and first nations reserves.

I am proud to note that, with our partners, this government is making real progress—and that aboriginal people and northerners are beginning to reap the benefits.

Let me address the reconciliation first. One of my first actions as minister was to meet with the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations and a group of former residential school students in Winnipeg.

I realize that addressing the legacy of Indian residential schools is personally wrenching for many of these folks, and it is extremely complex, but it is the right thing to do, and we will do it right.

Let me be perfectly clear on the point that contrary to a recent and incorrect media report, the full $1.9 billion in support of the common experience payment for the settlement agreement is available for former Indian residential school students. The $1.9 billion in funding is managed through a trust account, minus the advance payments of $82.6 million that have already been made to 10,326 former students, which this government provided in advance of the implementation of the agreement to former students who were 65 or older on May 30, 2005.

This government is also moving to fulfill its lawful obligation to first nations through a significant retooling of the specific claims resolution process. On Tuesday, I had the honour of introducing Bill C-30, the Specific Claims Tribunal Act in the House. This progressive legislation will establish an independent tribunal to make binding decisions on specific claims that have been rejected for negotiation, or when negotiations have failed. It is the critical element in the implementation of the broader specific claims action plan announced by Prime Minister Harper on June 12.

This government recognizes the importance to first nations of the timely resolution of both comprehensive and specific claims. For instance, the single biggest amount in the supplementary estimates involves nearly $31 million to support implementation of the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement. Bill C-11, the bill to enact the agreement, is now before the Senate.

In addition to this legislation, we are working in partnership with Inuit and Quebec leaders in other areas of interest. In August I met with Inuit and provincial, federal, and local government leaders at a conference in Kujuuaq, with a view to opening new horizons in the development of Nunavik. We agreed to set up a tripartite working group to ensure that the spirit of working in partnership established at that meeting continues to guide the future development of Nunavik.

I am also pleased to highlight that we are making great strides in the treaty land entitlement settlements. When I met with the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs in August, I was pleased to note that more than twice the amount of land in that province was converted last year than converted since the TLE agreements were signed in the 1990s. The addition of these lands will help foster stronger first nations economies and bring economic benefits to surrounding areas as well.

The funding provided by these supplementary estimates will assist my department in delivering on another of our priorities: protecting the vulnerable. Earlier this year, a tripartite agreement was signed in Alberta allowing for the use of a prevention-based service model to deliver child and family services to Alberta first nations. The supplementary estimates allow $15.3 million toward the delivery of these services.

Let me also note that just under $9 million will go toward enhanced spending for shelters for victims of family violence and prevention-related community-based programs.

Economic development is another cornerstone of our prosperity initiatives, so we are working to create a more coherent and practical approach to increasing aboriginal participation in the economy. The National Aboriginal Economic Development Board will be assisting us with implementing this approach. In April our government named new members, and a new chairman, Chief Clarence Louie. They will provide invaluable advice in such areas as investment strategies, business creation, and access to business capital.

Since my appointment as minister, I have had the opportunity to speak with the board, and I met recently with Chief Louie in Vancouver to discuss these and other important issues.

Of course, the north is an extremely important part of my mandate as well. I have made a number of trips north of 60 in the past months, talking to territorial and Inuit leaders about their plans and aspirations. Every time I visit, I am impressed by the immense potential of this region and its people.

Our government is working to achieve real progress in the north in four priority areas: strengthening arctic sovereignty, promoting social and economic development, protecting our environmental heritage, and improving and developing northern governance. The actions we take in support of these priorities will benefit not only northerners, but all Canadians. We are establishing a Canadian Forces training centre in Resolute Bay, and a deep-water docking and refueling facility in Nanisivik provides some of the infrastructure needed to exercise sovereignty.

We have also taken other significant action. For example, further investments in the International Polar Year are included in these supplementary estimates; we will get the job done on seabed mapping; and a world-class arctic research station will yield the knowledge we need to make sound decisions on environmental, social, and economic policies.

The final point I would like to raise concerns the food mail program, in support of which the supplementary estimates call for an investment of $20 million. I discussed food mail with northern officials when I was in Kuujjuaq. I want to emphasize that although there are cost and delivery issues concerning this program—and we are working to address those and make the program more cost-effective—the food mail program should play a vital role in ensuring that people living in northern communities have access to healthy, nutritious food.

Mr. Chairman, I have outlined what I believe were some impressive accomplishments, but this government does not plan to stop here. Our parliamentary agenda is also a full one. For instance, I am looking forward to working with this committee on Bill C-21, currently before you, and on the Specific Claims Tribunal Act, which I have also mentioned.

Also, the B.C. legislature recently passed legislation to implement the Tsawwassen agreement. I will be introducing federal legislation in the near future to bring this agreement into full force and effect.

The investments outlined in the supplementary estimates and the initiatives I have talked about this morning demonstrate this government's determination to address the whole range of aboriginal and northern issues.

Assisted by the addition of $209 million to my department's total budget from the supplementary estimates, we will help strengthen aboriginal and northern communities in this country, and work with our partners towards a rich and rewarding future for all Canadians.

I will do my best to answer any questions committee members may have. I am pleased to have officials with me to help if necessary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Good morning, everybody, and welcome to our meeting.

In particular, welcome, Mr. Minister.

There are a couple of really quick housekeeping items before we start.

Last week some of you asked me if in the wintertime we couldn't hold our meetings a little further south. We have managed that. I hope you're enjoying 131 Queen Street.

It is an interesting debate, though. Would you rather drink coffee out of a plastic can up in the West Block or would you rather have Starbucks three blocks away? I'm going to go with Starbucks and three blocks away.

Anyway, good morning. On the questioning rounds for the committee members, we're going to get a presentation from the minister, and then I can appreciate that many of you are going to want to have an opportunity to ask the minister questions. We will do our normal cycle, which is seven minutes, but I would like to keep it to seven minutes. So what I'll do is when there's a minute left, I'll just say “one minute”, and we don't need to stop the conversation, but that gives both the questioner and whoever is answering the question a warning that we're into the last minute. That way, hopefully, we can get as many turns as possible.

There is one other quick reminder. For those of you who have amendments to Bill C-21, please get them to the clerk as soon as possible so that we can have those prepared for Tuesday's meeting.

At this point, I would like to call for vote 1a under Indian Affairs and Northern Development. To begin this process, I'd like to ask our special guest today, Minister Chuck Strahl, to make a presentation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Right.

Just to summarize what I think I'm hearing, there's general support for the notion of bringing representatives from several groups who made presentations at the conference in June. Those were listed on the record by Ms. Crowder; I don't remember all of them off the top of my head. There's general support for setting aside one meeting; and in that meeting, depending on who is available and there, we would set up either one or two panels to create the environment for the best possible discussion.

There are two issues. One is scheduling. As of today, there are eight scheduled meetings between now and the Christmas break. Today is meeting one, which is almost over; and we're going to ask the Auditor General to be here for meeting two on Thursday. Next week, for meetings three and four, basically we'll be dealing with the estimates with staff on Tuesday and the minister on Thursday. The following week, on December 4 we would begin clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-21. At this point, we haven't specifically set something up for Thursday, December 6, but if clause-by-clause is not complete, we would continue with it on the sixth. We have discussed dealing with the Naskapi issue on the 11th, and that would take us to our last meeting on Thursday the 13th.

And there was some discussion this morning that there's always the possibility at the very end of the session that it might be cut short by a day or two. If I were betting, I would bet against that, given this has been a pretty short fall already.

So I'm not sure we can recommend a specific date for this, but that it would be as soon as possible.

Mr. Storseth.

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

Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I think it is important to be in a position to focus on our deliberations. I know there is a motion on the floor that will allow us to prepare and present draft amendments by December. We all agree that we do not need to hear other witnesses, unless there are particular circumstances...

I would like to know if we can include them or if the minister will tell us that he does not want to know anything about it and that he does not want to hear anything about the possibility of discussing certain points.

These points are a non-derogation clause, an interpretive clause, a report section, and an adequate transition period.

These are the four elements that must be part of Bill C-21. In any case, we will be able to discuss the duration: will it be 6, 8, 24 or 36 months? We can discuss it, but if we do not want to know anything about the expression “ transition period or interpretive clause“, we will be making amendments for nothing, because they will not have the government's approval. That is my question. I just want to know if we are preparing to engage in a pointless exercise from now until December 4.

I have nothing further to add.

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

We will vote in favour of my colleague's motion, but I have a question I would like to put directly to the departmental official.

Without getting into a long speech, it is clear—and I think everyone will agree— that we have heard from many people and that we would not want to go back and have all of these discussions again from the very beginning, which is to say to go back to last year.

The position of the Bloc Québécois will be the same as that taken by the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador. Shortly, that is to say at noon, they want us to vote against Bill C-21 and to do everything possible to prevent the bill from being passed or even studied clause by clause. However, I said earlier that we would not object to the study being done or to the start date of December 4 or thereabouts.

The Chief of the Assembly of First Nations of Canada, Phil Fontaine, appeared before us. He tabled a very interesting brief that was reaffirmed by aboriginal women and by many others. In this brief, the Assembly of First Nations made four recommendations, that I do not wish to revisit at this time.

My question is for the departmental official. If these four recommendations were introduced as amendments to Bill C-21, would they be debatable and in order, which would allow us not to get caught up in days and days of debate? The parliamentary secretary was made aware of the tabling of the brief by Mr. Phil Fontaine of the Assembly of First Nations. Could these recommendations be considered debatable as draft amendments to Bill C-21?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order.

We have three motions that we need to discuss. The first one is from Mr. Bruinooge: That the committee immediately go to a clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-21 so as to delay no further the granting of access to the Human Rights Act to all aboriginal Canadians.

Mr. Bruinooge, would you like to speak to that?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

At this time, I would like to bring forward a motion.

Due to the fact that former Bill C-44 has been reinstated as Bill C-21; that as a committee we have proceeded through a number of witnesses, and in the opinion of the government are at the stage of proceeding to clause-by-clause; and that this is an important plank of our government, having just received a mandate by Parliament to proceed with extending the Canadian Human Rights Act to first nations people, I would like to put forward the motion that as a committee we proceed to clause-by-clause on Bill C-21.

Canadian Human Rights Act

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

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

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

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