Bill C-21 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act

This enactment repeals section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and provides for a statutory review, within five years after the enactment receives royal assent, of the effects of the repeal. It also contains interpretative provisions as well as transitional provisions with respect to aboriginal authorities.

Canadian Human Rights Commission

[The Speaker, Andrew Scheer]

I have the honour to lay upon the table a special report from the Canadian Human Rights Commission concerning the impacts of Bill C-21, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(e), this report is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

Motions in amendment

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to also take a few minutes to speak to Bill C-9, An Act respecting the election and term of office of chiefs and councillors of certain First Nations and the composition of council of those First Nations. Like my colleague, the leader of the Green Party, we were not asked to submit amendments to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. That is why the Speaker has given us permission to discuss these amendments at this point, the report stage.

Bill C-9 provides an alternative to the regime in the Indian Act governing the election of chiefs and councillors in certain first nations. As I said earlier when I questioned the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, the Bloc Québécois of course fully supports the transparency, accountability and better governance that Bill C-9 provides for.

The problem does not lie in the bill itself or in the improvements that I just mentioned. The problem is the way in which the government imposed its solutions and opinions on first nations. That is what I am going to try to demonstrate, and I am also going to introduce my amendment in the next few minutes.

The Bloc Québécois agrees with the provisions in the bill limiting terms of office for chiefs and councillors to a maximum of four years, stating that the election of a chief or councillor may be contested before a competent court, and setting out offences and penalties. However, we oppose the fact that the Conservative government did not consult the first nations before going ahead with these major changes to the Indian Act. These are unilateral changes. As usual, the government acted paternalistically. When I say the government, I am talking about successive federal governments. The government paternalistically imposes unilateral changes on the first nations when it should know that we must talk, nation to nation, when working with aboriginal peoples.

Everyone agrees that there must be more transparency, not only during elections but also during each elected official's term of office. The government can give us examples of times when band councils or other councils, chiefs, leaders and councillors—as we see in any population—failed to govern appropriately. That is not the issue. First, as the Green Party member said earlier, this bill originated in the Senate. However, before introducing this bill, the government should have done what the Government of Quebec did in 2002, which I will talk about in a moment. The government should have sat down and talked, nation to nation, in order to come to an agreement and propose changes. The government would have no doubt received the unanimous support of the House for the bill had the bill first been approved by first nations.

However, we cannot do anything without considering the first nations rights affected by this bill, the direct impact this bill will have on the structures in the communities themselves and how that can affect the communities. The first nations are not opposed to the changes proposed by the federal government. They want to be consulted and be involved in the decisions that will have a direct impact on them. That is a dialogue as opposed to a monologue.

We are asking the Conservative government to sit down and have a dialogue, negotiate, come to an agreement with the first nations. We do not want it to have a dialogue of the deaf or a monologue in which it tells the first nations what is good for them. This goes back to what I was saying earlier when I described the attitudes of federal governments since the very beginning. They have shown a paternalistic attitude towards the first nations.

I used the example of the peace of the braves, and I want to come back to that. This was a historic agreement signed in 2002 by the Cree and the Government of Quebec, led at the time by Bernard Landry, the leader of the Parti Québécois. The peace of the braves is a good example. There were some economic improvements for many peoples, but there are still many problems. I am not saying it is a good example because everything was fixed. It is a good example of how negotiation can lead to a formal agreement, so that the people and communities involved agree with the changes being proposed and carried out. The Quebec National Assembly recognized the first nations as nations, and the peace of the braves is an agreement between nations, as Bernard Landry pointed out when he was interviewed by a journalist who was reporting on what had become of the peace of the braves several years later.

I would like to remind the hon. members that Quebec made a commitment to involve the Cree in northern development and give them $4.5 billion over 50 years. In exchange, the Cree put an end to certain land claims. A few months later, Quebec signed the Sanarrutik agreement with the Inuit, which is designed to accelerate economic and community growth in Quebec's far north.

The peace of the braves and the agreement signed between Ottawa and the Cree of Eeyou Istchee in 2008 brought prosperity to Quebec's Cree. The 16,000 aboriginal people of James Bay now have some of the highest levels of disposable personal income in Quebec, according to a 2011 article in La Presse.

However, as I said, things are far from perfect. There are still health problems and a housing shortage. There is still an unequal distribution of wealth, despite the fact that some people are better off. Right now, 92% of Cree youth interrupt their schooling before earning their diploma or some sort of certification. As I said, the agreement was not a cure-all, but it is a good example of negotiation. That is the point I wanted to make about the peace of the braves.

I do not understand why governments that, generally speaking, like precedents so much could not have used that 2002 agreement as a precedent to create a bill that is endorsed by the affected first nations.

Now, I want to talk about the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, which long ago developed a consultation protocol that the government is supposed to follow when drafting bills or taking action that affects first nations in Quebec and Labrador.

This protocol includes the duty to consult and accommodate first nations before taking actions that could have a negative impact on their interests. Such actions include the modification or adoption of legislation, policy-making, planning processes, the modification or adoption of resource allocation regimes and the approval of specific projects or resource allocations. A consultation and accommodation report must be prepared.

The protocol also includes the duty to conduct consultation and accommodation follow-up. What is more, as provided in the consultation plan, provision must be made for the establishment, funding and operation of mechanisms for follow-up, mitigation measures and compliance monitoring with respect to the contemplated action.

The first nations have therefore already set out a procedure that should be followed by the other levels of government, including the federal government. It is really unfortunate that the government decided to bypass the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador's consultation protocol. We hope that the implementation of this bill is not harmful to first nations communities.

Members of the House agree that the Assembly of First Nations' protocol was not followed and that the bill will be passed because the government has a majority. That is why the Bloc Québécois is proposing to amend the bill in order to, at the very least, respect the second part of the protocol, which involves assessing the bill's impact on first nations communities. We are therefore proposing the following amendment to clause 41.1:

Within one year after the coming into force of this Act and every three years thereafter, the Minister must prepare a report on the implementation of this Act and its effects on elections of band councils and elections on reserves.

I would like to once again speak about precedents. People might ask why we are proposing this when such a measure has never been implemented before. However, this type of measure has been implemented before in Bill C-21, which pertained to the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and affected first nations. At the time, the government had a minority. The opposition required that the changes be reviewed every five years and the bill was passed by a majority vote. A precedent therefore exists.

In closing, we would have also liked to introduce funding and mitigation measures, but unfortunately, they would have been deemed inadmissible. However, we would like to take this opportunity to urge the government to implement those sorts of measures.

Motions in Amendment

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Madam Speaker, it is interesting that my hon. colleague says the government must respond to the B.C. Court of Appeal decision. I take it that the government's position is that if Bill C-3 does not go through, it will have to provide alternative legislation in order to comply with the B.C. Court of Appeal's decision.

The member also says we have to meet the deadline because of the huge impact it is going to have on first nations people who might be eligible to register in B.C. However, if we talk to the member for Simcoe North about the financial implications of this bill, we do not know how many people are actually going to register. We cannot quantify that. We do not know if it is going to be one or 45,000. We do not know if it is going to be one or 3,000.

The government does not know if it is punched or bored on this particular bill. I wish it would get its story straight so that Canadians and first nations people could at least have a clear understanding of where the government is with this.

I ask the member, what is the interaction between repealed section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and clause 9 of the bill? I ask because government seems to say, on the one hand, that because of Bill C-21 aboriginal people can go to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, but the government, on the other hand, denies them at every turn and wants to limit its liabilities with clause 9.

I would ask the member what the interaction is between those two different provisions.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments and questions, and I am very pleased actually to have the opportunity to respond to him.

First, if it were such a significant item, I would say to the minister that it might have been identified as a separate clause in the bill as it relates to first nation communities.

He is absolutely right. The government has the might of hundreds of lawyers at its disposal, at its will. I think it is all the more important to acknowledge the Herculean effort of someone like Sharon McIvor in using the court challenges program and the resources she had to get this far.

However, I would say to the minister that this was not a concern of his when we were dealing with Bill C-21, the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and I am struck by the irony of having it brought forward in this case.

I am also struck by the fact that we are hearing in regard to the repeal of section 67 and its exclusion of first nations human rights complaints to the Human Rights Commission that the government is challenging every aboriginal community and aboriginal group that is going before the commission in order to get to the tribunal.

Thus, there is a lot of inconsistency here.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, first, I acknowledge four women with the AMUN March . They are marching 500 kilometres from Wendake to Ottawa. These brave women are opposed to Bill C-3. They are demonstrating by their actions just how opposed they are and how they continue to fight for equality for aboriginal women in our country, a fight that has been taken up by people like Mary Two-Axe Early, Ms. Lavell, Ms. Lovelace and Ms. McIvor. The struggle of Ms. McIvor is why we are in the House this morning debating Bill C-3 and, specifically, amendments to it.

However, let us take a very brief moment to find out how we got here. This is a 25 year struggle by aboriginal women for equality. They have gone through the court system. The courts have ruled in their favour, not once but twice, at the B.C. Supreme Court and at the B.C. Court of Appeal.

The government says that it only wants to respond to the B.C. Court of Appeal in the narrowest possible terms. The government had it in its craw, it had the will, to introduce a bill that would speak to the broader issues of discrimination. If it were sincere about discrimination under the Indian Act, it could have taken the measures to broaden the scope of the bill and to once and for all end all gender inequality and sex discrimination under the Indian Act. The Conservative government chose to make it very narrow.

The member opposite said as much. He said that we were one step closer. By his own admission, we are not there yet to end gender discrimination under the Indian Act. Therefore, the government could have taken the steps to do it but it did not.

The member went on to say, and I want to respond to some of what he said, that this was a situation of such urgency. The parliamentary secretary said in committee on April 27, when we put in a provision about reporting to Parliament, that the concern was after two years we just would really be getting going in terms of some of the registration numbers.

The parliamentary secretary by his own admission seems to feel, speaking on behalf of the government, that even if the bill passed, there would only be a negligible impact upon the new numbers that would come forward.

Therefore, the government, by its own admission, has said to each and every one of us that on the one hand it is so urgent, yet on the other hand it does not really know if it will have much of an impact at all. Where is the government when it comes to this bill.

To be quite honest, I think the government likes to play a charade on people. It loves to stand up for individual rights or gender equality, but it is not willing to put the heart or soul in to this to ensure it is done once and for all.

When it comes to Bill C-3, contrary to what the member opposite has said, every witness said that Bill C-3 was not adequate. It did not respond to all the issues of gender discrimination under the Indian Act. When asked, all the witnesses said that if they had the opportunity, they would definitely want the bill amended to ensure that once and for all there was no gender discrimination under the Indian Act.

We tried everything in the House. We put a motion before the House to try to expand the scope of the bill. The government shot it down. We tried to bring amendments forward and they were ruled out of order. Now we are debating amendments at report stage.

I will give an example of what some of the witnesses said, in particular the Quebec Native Women. They said:

—while Quebec Native Women recognizes the need to amend the archaic nature of the Indian Act, Quebec Native Women, as stated earlier, deplores the restrictive vision of the federal government based solely on a patchwork remedy to the specific problem of discrimination brought to light in the McIvor case...

Another quote is:

LEAF supports this demand to remove all vestiges of sex discrimination from the status provisions, and submits that the elimination of residual sex discrimination under the Indian Act best meets the federal government’s constitutional obligations to achieve substantive equality for Aboriginal women and Canada’s obligations under international law.

Sharon McIvor, Pam Palmater, an individual who came before us, CAP and the Assembly of First Nations all said the same thing. They were in unanimity when it came to this point.

I will speak to clause 9, which is one of the proposed amendments by the government. Interestingly, the government never spoke to the specific amendments it proposed. The member went on in some rhetorical terms about how the government stood up for the individual rights of women, and all that sort of thing.

However, when it comes to clause 9, we again hear two stories. The government officials came before us and said that clause 9 was a bit innocuous, that it really did not do much, that it was for greater certainty. Yet when the parliamentary secretary spoke at committee, he said that Bill C-3 could not pass if we clause 9 was not in it. When the vote comes, if clause 9 fails, we will see what the government will do.

Chief David Walkem of the Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs says that we should strike clause 9. On April 20, at committee, he said:

—we're recommending is to strike clause 9 to allow Indian women and their descendants who lost status due to the discriminatory operation of the Indian Act to pursue, through the courts or other negotiation, restitution or compensation for the losses their families suffered as a result of the historical discrimination imposed on them by this legislation, similar to the process followed for people who went to residential schools.

On Tuesday, April 13, CAP, the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, said this about clause 9:

This section is an insult to Indian women and their descendants all over this country. Not only was Canada forced to make amendments to address gender inequality after fighting against the McIvor case for over 20 years; and not only has Canada proposed a very minimalist amendment; now Canada wants to ensure that it does not have to compensate the victims of gender discrimination?

It goes on to say that it cannot now be said that Canada did not knowingly discriminate against Indian women and their descendants.

This is what Dr. Pam Palmater had to say on April 20:

Clause 9 is an offence to Indian women and their descendants who have already waited more than 25 years for justice. It is also counter to both the spirit and the intent of the Charter of Rights.

The Canadian Bar Association said:

Section 9 is a concern, as it would remove the right of anyone to sue the federal government for not providing them with status as a result of the gender discrimination addressed by the Bill. If the federal government can be presumed to have been aware that Bill C-31 was not consistent with the Charter as far back as 1985, and did not act for over twenty years until the McIvor decision reached the BC Court of Appeal, the CBA Section is concerned with the justice of such a “no liability” provision. Further, we caution that including such a provision could make the Bill vulnerable to further Charter challenges.

Again, almost every witness who came before us was opposed to clause 9.

Then the government brings up the wonderful example of the repeal of section 67 of Bill C-21 passed in 2008. It said that this was a wonderful thing, that now complaints could be brought against the government and against Indian Act bands.

Guess what? It has said that there is a remedy for first nations women use the Canadian Human Rights Act as a vehicle. Over 30 complaints have been launched against the federal government by aboriginal people, first nations people, and the Government of Canada has gone before the Canadian Human Rights Commission and said that it has no jurisdiction and that it cannot provide a remedy because it does not provide a service.

Therefore, it tells us that we have a remedy on one hand and tries to deny us that remedy on the other hand. It is hypocritical.

Clause 9 is a no go. We will not support it and we hope all our colleagues in the House will join us. Certainly I know that in committee all of the opposition parties voted to not include clause 9 in the bill.

Bill C-3--Gender Equity in Indian Registration Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. Obviously, we are supporting her motion. The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development examined Bill C-21 to repeal section 67 of the Indian Act. Mr. Speaker, you were chairing the committee at that time. The bill was finally passed after many discussions and a lot of work. The committee worked so hard that the bill went to committee with just one clause and came back with more than nine or ten clauses.

I do not agree with the parliamentary secretary and I say more about that later. Ms. McIvor, in the McIvor decision, was the last woman to take advantage of the court challenges program, which was abolished by the Conservative government. That is one of the reasons we are asking to amend this bill.

I have an important question for my colleague: does she think that other aboriginal people, who will not have access to the court challenges program, since it has been abolished, will be able to defend claims and make it to the Court of Appeal of British Columbia, Ontario or Quebec?

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

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

Madam Speaker, we are discussing an extremely important bill. I, too, am somewhat surprised by my Liberal colleague's position. I do not think that his is the right approach just now, particularly when it comes to the matrimonial rights of aboriginal peoples. This bill has gone by several numbers, of which I will list just two. Bill C-47 died on the order paper last year when the election was called, and now we have Bill C-8.

The Bloc Québécois believes, and I hope the NDP will agree, that this bill should be studied in committee. It is of utmost importance that this bill be debated, analyzed and closely examined with witnesses by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Allow me to explain.

I am aware of the rules of Parliament. By presenting an amendment to delay study of the bill for six months, the Liberal Party knows full well that the bill will die on the order paper. I am absolutely certain that that is not what aboriginal women want. They want respect, and the Bloc Québécois believes that aboriginal women will get respect if we study the matter of matrimonial rights respectfully once and for all.

I hope that my Conservative Party colleagues will not take it for granted that our support for Bill C-8 is firm and unconditional. I want to say right now that we really do not like Bill C-8, not one bit. It does have some good points and measures, but some things in the bill are just not well thought out. If the government is serious about this, and I hope that it is, it will understand that we want to take as much time as we need in committee to properly study this bill, pick it apart and amend it as necessary. This bill must meet the needs of aboriginal women, first nations and aboriginal peoples across the country.

The government will have to explain why it set aside the main recommendations made by Ms. Grant-John, who did an exceptional job of examining this issue. The issue of matrimonial rights has been around for a number of years. With all due respect, the Liberals do not have a leg to stand on when criticizing the Conservatives at this stage regarding Bill C-8. It was the Liberals who introduced the famous Bill C-31 on women's matrimonial rights, the 1985 bill that erased women's rights in their entirety in one fell swoop. They should remember that the bill languished. Although the Conservatives adopted the bill, it originated with the Liberals some time before that.

It is odd because the Liberals know this. An extremely interesting ruling was just handed down by the Court of Appeal. It concerns the rights of aboriginal peoples, especially women's rights. This ruling was handed down on April 6, 2009.

The government will have to take it into account because the British Columbia Court of Appeal ruling overturns several decisions and forces the government to recognize that it imposed a law that discriminated against aboriginal peoples.

In the matter at hand—and we will come to an agreement rather quickly—it is clear that 90% to 95% of the matrimonial rights cases concern women and children in native communities. It is equally clear that the rights of women have been violated. In my opinion, moving forward and adopting the amendment would kill the bill. With all due respect for my colleague from Labrador, and based on my extensive experience, I know that unless the government is forced to act it will not do so. In this case, it is not true that there will be further consultations if we give the government six more months. That is not true. I do not buy it.

We in the Bloc Québécois prefer to move forward, and I hope that my NDP colleagues will feel the same way. I hope that what I am about to say will be well translated and that our friends opposite will understand me clearly. I have just one hope, and that is that they do not seriously believe we are going to pass this bill in a rush and study it quickly in committee. It will take months. I hope they realize that, because if they do not, then there will be trouble. But that is very clear.

I have a few questions. Why is it that Ms. Grant-John's entire report was set aside?

Why is it that none of the recommendations made by the rapporteur, Ms. Corbett, were acted on?

It is odd, because I was looking for support for this bill among aboriginal women in Canada and in Quebec, but both groups said no. I spoke this morning with Grand Chief Picard, who also has problems with this bill. But I will give it a chance.

In my opinion, the Bloc Québécois, probably with the support of the NDP, will be willing to refer this very, very important bill to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development so that it is studied properly in the interest of the rights of women living in aboriginal communities. This problem has existed in aboriginal communities for too long, and we must find solutions. For my part, I believe, with all due respect, that having a minority government is not a bad thing.

We have seen evidence of this. I will give my colleagues opposite the chance to respond. I will quickly give a brief history of Bill C-21, which was passed during the previous session. This bill repealed section 67 of the Indian Act. As a result, aboriginal communities will now be accountable, and complaints can be filed against them with the Human Rights Commission.

Our Conservative colleagues opposite were opposed to all the amendments we had made to the bill. The original bill consisted of just one clause. When it came out of committee, was reported in this House and was passed, it included 12 or 13 clauses. I was very closely involved in the study of the bill, and I can tell you that it was thanks to the aboriginal communities and all the members of the committee that we were able to seriously amend Bill C-21 so that it respected the rights of aboriginal peoples.

I have a problem with hoisting this bill. In my opinion, we need to study it and make amendments, and we need especially to heed the protests of the aboriginal women who were not consulted.

There is a Supreme Court decision about consultation with respect to Supreme Court rulings. If this is the case, I do not believe, with all due respect for my colleagues across the way, that such consultation has taken place. They could have taken a few more months. We will set the process in motion during those months and it will take the time it needs to take. The Bloc Québécois wants to see this bill amended to take the rights of aboriginal women on reserves into consideration.

The situation can be easily summarized. An aboriginal couple marries, has children and accumulates assets on reserve. They might, for instance, own a convenience store, a service station or some other business. The couple separates. The woman leaves the marital home, as usually happens, unfortunately, and leaves the reserve. She settles in town or somewhere else. Then comes the issue of who owns the convenience store, the garage or the business. They are located on the reserve and thus on federal territory. The situation is not clear.

The Bloc Québécois wants to examine this bill. A lot of work has been done on it by the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne, and they have sent recommendations to us. I have read them and I believe that they need to be taken into consideration because a number of Mohawk communities, and probably some others as well, have what is called a matrimonial property rights tribunal. These are in place in the communities and we must respect what is being done in the communities. We need to take steps to ensure that we respect what is already in place, but the bill as it stands is not clear about this. What is more, the government seems to want to have a degree of control over the settlement of matrimonial property rights on the reserves, but I must admit this is not clear. If the regulations do not work, the federal government could change them. I believe I read that. If the government wants to go ahead with this, there is going to be a serious problem.

However, I want to point out that matrimonial rights have a huge impact on communities. Often, the women and children wind up with nothing and are expelled from the reserve, while the men keep everything. I do not want to generalize, but I would say that this is what happens in 80% or 90% of cases. I know, because I live in Abitibi-Témiscamingue and I have a good idea of what is happening in my communities. We must not be blind or ignore what is happening. We need to pay attention and take into account individual and collective rights.

There will be a serious debate about collective versus individual rights. This bill is not clear. It deserves to be debated and examined in greater detail. I will say to my Liberal colleagues, as I said at the start, that the worst that could happen would be that, if the committee is not happy with the responses and if the amendments we propose are not incorporated, we kill the bill. The three opposition parties can kill the bill, obviously. The government will have to understand that it is in its interest to respect what aboriginal communities want, which is not to be pushed around. They want to be heard. The main groups want to be heard and want to have a chance to speak.

I have asked that they propose amendments. We will have to look at the clauses. I know that aboriginal communities and groups, the Native Women's Association and the Assembly of First Nations of Canada may be opposed to the bill as it currently stands.

In life, it is not enough just to be opposed to something. You have to come up with solutions to the problem. When a party is opposed to the bill, I respect its position. But what solutions does it have? What amendments does it propose? This bill also raises the whole debate about incorporating provincial and territorial laws. The problem of respecting women's rights has never been easy to solve, and it will not be easy to solve with Bill C-8.

But if we do not make the effort to sit down all together at the same table to discuss, amend and adapt this bill so that it respects women's rights, we will miss the boat and pay the price. I especially do not want to be pushed around on this issue. I want us to take our time and study this bill carefully, and I want us to listen to the groups that propose amendments that we will study and analyze. I hope that the government does not think that this bill will be passed before the end of the current session. If it does, then we will have a serious problem.

This is a very important bill. Bill C-21 repealed section 67 of the Indian Act. We took the time we needed, and we did things properly. We also passed a bill about specific claims. We took the time to talk to aboriginal communities and aboriginal association representatives. This is a good bill that should satisfy aboriginal communities.

This morning, the committee—and I am in a position to know—passed Bill C-28 without amendment, or rather, with a small amendment concerning syntax. The bill should be back before the House when we return from the Victoria Day recess or, in our case, the fête des Patriotes. We passed the bill, and the Cree people are satisfied. It took 10 years, but now it is done. I am not suggesting that it will take 10 years to pass Bill C-8, but I think that it will take a few months. We have to take the time to listen to aboriginal community representatives. Important things, such as federal legislation on matrimonial property and recognition of the jurisdiction of first nations, must be taken into account. How will we do that?

I will end with a discussion of a principle that I believe in: if one wants what one has never had, one must be prepared to do what one has never done.

We are about to do something that we have never done: respect aboriginal women. That is what we will do as we study the bill in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development over the next few months.

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

moved that Bill C-8, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for Bill C-8, Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act.

We have before us in Canada, an inexcusable and intolerable situation that has gone on far too long. Before I discuss this bill, it is important to have a sound understanding of matrimonial rights and interests.

An inexcusable and intolerable situation has gone on for far too long in Canada. Before I discuss the main planks of the bill, it is important to have a basic understanding of matrimonial rights and interests.

Matrimonial real property, or MRP, typically refers to the family home where both spouses in a marriage or common law relationship live on reserve. For almost all Canadians, provincial and territorial laws protect the MRP rights and interests of both spouses in the event of separation, divorce or death. These laws address a wide range of circumstances. If the family home is sold, for instance, both spouses must share in the proceeds. These laws also authorize a judge to order a spouse to temporarily leave the family home, particularly in cases of domestic violence and physical abuse.

Shamefully, these same laws that all Canadians take for granted do not apply on reserve. Spouses who live in communities governed by the Indian Act are afforded no such protection. This is because the Indian Act does not address the issue, and past governments have failed to remedy this glaring omission through legislation. As a result, relationship breakdowns in first nations communities often lead to homelessness and poverty, particularly for women and children.

Although each victim's situation is unique, we can all envision the following type of unfortunate and sad scenario: A husband and wife and their family live together in a house on first nations land. The marriage breaks down, who knows why, and the husband forces his wife and children to leave the family home. The woman has no legal recourse. She must find another place for her and her children to live. Often she has no choice but to leave the community. She is homeless. She is impoverished. Meanwhile, no court in the land can prevent the husband from selling the home and pocketing the cash.

It is unacceptable that this scenario continues to play out in Canada in the 21st century. Parliament must act. This bill would quickly remedy this legal void.

In highlighting the importance of this Parliament passing Bill C-8, I want to stress four important aspects of this legislation.

First, our Conservative government fully recognizes that first nations are best placed to make choices about the balance between the rights of first nations and the collective property rights. They are in the best position to develop those laws. That is why Bill C-8 describes a process for first nations communities to develop and enact their own laws in this area. That is the first thing. Let us allow first nations to develop the laws that apply in their situation on reserve. I think all sides of the House recognize that.

Second, while first nations develop their own laws, a remedy for vulnerable citizens living on reserve is urgently required. Bill C-8 proposes the immediate application of interim federal protection on reserves similar to those enjoyed by all other Canadians.

Third, the bill was developed after exhaustive study, authoritative research and comprehensive consultation with first nations groups.

Finally, Bill C-8 complements this government's larger initiatives to protect the rights and interests of first nations people. Again, I would point out that Bill C-21, which we passed in the last Parliament, was supported by all sides of the House. For the first time it brought the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act to bear on people living on reserve.

The first element of Bill C-8 provides an enabling process for first nations to establish MRP regimes of their own, regimes based on the cultural and social norms of their communities. To create such a law, a first nation most hold a fair and democratic vote on its proposed MRP legislation that must be approved by the entire community.

Laws that meet these conditions are not subject to review, consideration or rejection by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or by the department. In other words, as first nations develop those laws based on their community customs, they bring them forward and have them endorsed at the community level. I cannot intervene, nor should I, in making sure that those would be the laws of application for that particular community.

The next element of the proposed legislation goes hand in hand with my first reason for supporting Bill C-8. It sets out a federal regime that will immediately protect the MRP rights and interests of first nations spouses and common law partners. The regime would provide residents of first nations communities with access to legal recourse similar to that available to all other Canadians. This would close the unacceptable legislative gap that currently exists. It will protect some of the most vulnerable Canadians who right now have no protection in case of that marital breakdown.

Our outright support for Bill C-8 is also based on the fact that the proposed legislation is founded on a sizable body of sound research and an exhaustive consultation. There are multiple standing committee reports with all parties voicing support, having recommended a swift and enduring legislative solution. International groups, including the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, reached similar conclusions.

A comprehensive consultation process also informs the legislation now before us. In 2006 a collaborative process facilitated by the esteemed Wendy Grant-John and involving the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations saw 103 consultative sessions held at 76 different sites across the country. In fact, over $8 million was provided to the Native Women's Association of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations to carry out a consultative process. We wanted input and we got it.

This government also went to great lengths to create a legislative solution that would satisfy all stakeholders. Our proposal was largely based on the results of the consultations and many of Wendy Grant-John's thoughtful recommendations. A draft legislative proposal was then shared with key stakeholders, including the Assembly of First Nations, the Native Women's Association of Canada, the First Nations Lands Advisory Board and the provinces and territories. Their input resulted in significant improvements to the legislation before us today.

I would also point out that Bill C-47, this bill's predecessor, has been in the public domain for all to see and review for a full year now. It passed at second reading in the 39th Parliament. I think members on all sides of the House wanted to get this into committee for further evaluation and study, knowing that we need to address this legislative gap. That is why it passed in the last Parliament with all-party support.

The proposed legislation incorporates the ideas put forward and addresses concerns expressed during many years of study, analysis and discussion.

Virtually every first nation group in Canada that spoke to this issue during the consultation strongly opposed the application of provincial laws, so that option was discarded. To respond to those who demanded that any solution address the cultural values and traditions of first nation communities, Bill C-8 provides a process for first nations to develop their own culturally specific laws on the issue.

At the same time, the national approach taken in this bill will ensure that the immediate protection provided will be consistent for first nations across the country. In other words, it will apply immediately, but first nations are encouraged to bring in their own laws, and I am sure many of them will do so quickly, developed in their own communities that under this legislation will supersede the national standards in this act. It will have the stand-alone, community based, community endorsed, community ratified solution for that particular first nation. That is as it should be, in our opinion, and that is why this deserves broad support.

Some groups also raised concerns about the implementation of a federal MRP regime. There are two answers to this.

First, as I have mentioned, this legislation takes the minister and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs out of the picture regarding first nations MRP laws on reserves. Instead, this bill recognizes that first nations, not the federal government, are best placed to make these decisions related to MRP.

We have taken many measures to ensure that even during the time when the interim federal protection applies, collective interests are well balanced with individual needs. That is important for first nations. They need to know that the reserve property that is owned collectively is not going to be sold out from underneath them. This cannot happen under this legislation. No one ever intended that and we were careful to make sure that the protection and balance is in this legislation. Again all of it was done with the intent that first nations will develop their own MRP laws that will be community specific and ratified in the local community.

Given that implementation concerns cannot be readily addressed in the legislation itself--we cannot answer all these questions that way--the Government of Canada plans to establish a centre of excellence to support first nations and to deliver training and information sessions to law enforcement and court officials. It will be a place where best practices are maintained. A repository of information and research material will be there for first nations that are in the midst of developing their own laws for their own communities.

These actions touch upon my final point.

Bill C-8 is part of a much larger strategy to improve the quality of life experienced by residents of first nations communities. This strategy involves working in collaboration with first nations organizations and other willing partners to identify and attack the root causes of injustice and inequity.

This strategy has already produced tangible results on a variety of issues and a comprehensive plan developed in partnership with the Assembly of First Nations. A good example is the specific claims legislation that this government brought in. It addresses the unacceptable backlog of hundreds and hundreds of claims. First nations have been looking for some 40 years for laws to give some assurance that these will be settled in a timely fashion.

We worked with first nations. We brought in that legislation. That plan was endorsed by Parliament to establish an independent tribunal to adjudicate these claims. I mentioned earlier Bill C-21 and the issue of the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is another good example of how that kind of application on reserve, specific claims on reserve and a record number of treaty land entitlement resolutions that we have had especially on the Prairies, all point to addressing those long-standing issues in order to address other inequities and inequalities in the system, and certainly that is what we are eager to do.

As I mentioned, this will be, in my opinion, the flagship human rights legislation introduced in this Parliament, certainly by me. It deals with something that has been a legislative gap for far too long. It is something that other Canadians take for granted. It is time we addressed that gap. Some people and some communities talk about human rights. Some other countries talk about the importance of human rights; Canada certainly does, but we are acting on this basic human right.

I believe Bill C-8 offers another historic opportunity to better protect the basic rights of first nations people.

The legislation asks the members of this House two fundamental questions. First, should this country extend the legal rights, recourses and protections enjoyed by all other Canadians, and should we extend that, with this legislation, to first nations communities?

Second, should first nations have the power to develop MRP laws that reflect the cultural and social traditions of their communities? That is the flip side of the same coin.

In my opinion, the answer is yes, we must move to protect the most vulnerable in society, to fill that legislative gap as quickly as possible, to ensure that first nation communities, and especially the vulnerable in first nation communities, have the access to rights that all other Canadians enjoy.

Equally as important, the flip side of that same coin is that we on this side of the House support first nations developing their own MRP laws to address that gap. When they address that gap, it will be approved in their local communities. They will address it in a way that is sensitive to their local situation and their social norms and their cultural traditions.

Once that is done, passed and ratified, then the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs cannot interfere in first nations' proper exercise of their authority to develop that MRP law of their own. That is essential to the flip side of this important coin.

It is my hope that hon. colleagues here today and in the days to come at committee will do the right thing and will do the honourable thing, which I think is to stand up for the most vulnerable in society and support Bill C-8 through all stages in this House and in committee so that first nations can enjoy the same rights as every other Canadian.

When we went through the debate on Bill C-21 in the last Parliament, there was concern about trying to achieve perfection. We talked about whether it was the right time to do this, whether we could have done something more, and whether we could have consulted more. In this case, we have consulted at over 100 different community meetings.

I suppose we could always say we could more. We could spend more money on consultations. We could extend it indefinitely into the future. But at some point we have to come down solidly and say, enough is enough, it is time to extend this right that every other Canadian knows in their heart and has experienced, sometimes unfortunately has experienced it in the courts, but at least they have a way to address this longstanding issue in their community.

I would just ask people to wrap their head around this. What would one say to that first nation lady who is looking for some access to the matrimonial real property that she and her husband have built over the years? She might say, “Unfortunately the marriage has broken down, but I could get off to the next step by getting half of the assets of the matrimonial property and move forward, maybe into another home or into another situation, looking after my children”.

We need to say to that lady or that man, “We are there for you. We will do the right thing in this Parliament of Canada. We will extend to you the same rights as every other Canadian.” We are going to do it starting today, and we are going to do it as quickly as we can.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Vancouver Island North, BC]

Madam Speaker, with regard to Bill C-21, yes, it was a long journey. It did have the effect of amending the Canadian Human Rights Act and it does bring full legal access to the Canadian Human Rights Act on reserves. This marks a turning point in the relationship between first nations and the Government of Canada.

This legislation and other measures we have talked about clearly demonstrate the Government of Canada's strong commitment to protecting the human rights of all aboriginal people in Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I too was part of the discussions that saw Bill C-21 pass, which resulted in the rescinding of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It was a long journey that required many discussions and many amendments, and I was pleased to be part of it.

I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's comments. However, it is vitally important that the government address these responses on the international stage and respond to the CEDAW criticisms that it has one year to respond to. I urge the parliamentary secretary to urge his minister and those he works with to ratify the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Nothing would give aboriginal people more hope than to see the government ratify that agreement.

The government is one of four countries that has chosen not to ratify it, and it has taken the attitude that because it did not ratify it, it does not have to honour it. I urge him to urge his minister to ratify that agreement.

[John Duncan, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to the question from the member for Winnipeg South Centre. I would like to add my regards to Mr. David Matas, a man I have met and respect greatly.

Our government has a strong record of supporting and advancing aboriginal rights at home and abroad. As a leader in human rights, we take our commitments in this respect extremely seriously.

In fact, we recently passed Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, critical legislation which underscores this government's strong commitment to protecting the human rights of all Canadians.

What is more, we have reintroduced in this Parliament the family homes on reserves and matrimonial interests or rights act. This bill would finally resolve the intolerable and inexcusable legislative gap of on reserve matrimonial real property.

Our government recognizes the vital place that aboriginal women hold as the emotional and spiritual centre of their families. We also recognize that to support aboriginal women is to bolster the entire community. However, there are some very real challenges facing aboriginal people both on and off reserve. It is often women and children who are the most affected and the most vulnerable. That is why we are focused on making progress on quality of life issues such as education, drinking water, health and housing.

Budget 2009 provides $1.4 billion over two years for specific initiatives aimed at improving the well-being and prosperity of aboriginal people in Canada.

Aboriginal families and communities will benefit from almost $1 billion in immediate investment toward urgent infrastructure needs on reserves like housing construction and remediation, school construction and improved access to clean drinking water.

Budget 2009 builds on the progress we have made together over the last couple of years, progress that is the result of genuine collaboration between aboriginal women's groups and the federal government. The greatest asset we have going forward is the determination and drive of aboriginal people themselves.

Status of Women

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

Mr. Speaker, we are taking action. We always are very concerned about human rights issues, which is why, for instance, last year we passed Bill C-21 which, for the first time ever, brought the Canadian Human Rights Act to bear on the conditions on first nation reserves across the country.

I would invite the member to study the statements by someone from her own home town, David Matas, an international human rights lawyer from Winnipeg, who viewed Canada's presentation and called it exemplary. He went on to say that it is better than any other country in the whole world.

We made good progress. There is always more to do but we are happy to work on human rights issues here in this House of Commons.

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill S-207, An Act to repeal legislation that has not come into force within ten years of receiving royal assent--Chapter 20

Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Marine Act, the Canada Transportation Act, the Pilotage Act and other Acts in consequence--Chapter 21

Bill C-30, An Act to establish the Specific Claims Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts--Chapter 22

Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord--Chapter 23

Bill C-58, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2009--Chapter 24

Bill C-59, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2009--Chapter 25

Bill C-31, An Act to amend the Judges Act--Chapter 26

Bill C-287, An Act respecting a National Peacekeepers' Day--Chapter 27

Bill C-50, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 2008 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget--Chapter 28

Bill C-60, An Act to amend the National Defence Act (court martial) and to make a consequential amendment to another Act--Chapter 29

Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act--Chapter 30

Aboriginal Affairs

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

Mr. Speaker, here is the reality. While the Liberals' carbon tax would increase the cost of living for northerners, the Conservatives actually increased the northern allowance to help northerners pay the bills.

Last week the PM gave a sincere and meaningful apology for residential schools. Now the specific claims bill has passed the Senate, something first nations have been asking for for 60 years.

Yesterday Bill C-21 passed the Senate. That means for the first time in 30 years, or the first time ever really, first nations living on reserve will have the same rights as every other Canadian. Imagine that, the same rights as every other Canadian.

While the Liberals are busy thinking about how to increase costs for first nations, we are getting the job done by helping aboriginal Canadians today.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, Parliament has been having a very successful week. We started with a successful address to Parliament by the President of Ukraine, Victor Yushchenko. The president gave an eloquent speech that was well received by all parliamentarians and Canadians.

This week the House of Commons has been proceeding on the theme of sound economic management without a carbon tax. We passed Bill C-21 to give aboriginals living on reserves the protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act. We passed our biofuels bill, BillC-33, at third reading and it is now in the Senate. This bill requires that by 2010, 5% of gasoline and by 2012, 2% of diesel and home heating oil be comprised of renewable fuels.

Our bill to implement the Free Trade Agreement with the countries of the European Free Trade Association—the first free trade agreement signed in six years—passed at second reading and was sent to committee.

Bill C-5, which deals with nuclear liability issues, also appears poised to pass at third reading and be sent to the Senate today.

Last night, the Minister of Finance appeared for over four hours to answer questions by parliamentarians on the main estimates of his department.

Yesterday, the finance committee reported the budget bill back to the House. This bill would ensure a balanced budget, control spending and keep taxes down while avoiding a carbon tax and a heating tax on Canadian families. As well, it would make much needed changes to the immigration system, which will help keep our economy competitive. We will begin debate on that important bill, the budget implementation bill, at report stage tomorrow.

Next week we will be on the same theme, focused on the economy week. Through the budget implementation bill, we are investing in the priorities of Canadians. which include $500 million to help improve public transit, $400 million to help recruit front line police officers, nearly $250 million for carbon capture and storage projects in Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, and $110 million to help Canadians facing mental health and homelessness challenges.

Those investments, however, could be threatened if the bill does not pass this session due to opposition obstruction and delay. Today we again saw evidence of such procedural delay tactics from the opposition in the form of a concurrence motion. All opposition parties joined together again to ensure that important legislation to strengthen key Canadian economic sectors could not be debated in the House earlier today.

I want to state clearly that this government is absolutely committed to ensuring the passage of the budget implementation bill this session.

In addition to debating it tomorrow at report stage, we will debate the bill next Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, if necessary.

We will also debate: Bill C-7 to modernize our aeronautics sector, Bill C-43 to modernize our customs rules, Bill C-39 to modernize the Canada Grain Act for farmers, Bill C-46 to give farmers more choice in marketing grain, Bill C-14 which allows enterprises choice for communicating with customers, and Bill C-32 to modernize our fisheries sector.

With regard to the question of the remaining opposition day, as the House knows, we have had all but one of those opposition days already during this portion of the supply cycle. The last opposition day will be scheduled sometime between now and the end of this supply cycle. We do know that we are scheduled to rise on June 20.

With regard to the very helpful suggestions of my friend with regard to the apology to our first nations communities for the residential schools issue, plans are underway for that. I am happy to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to take the very helpful suggestions into account and, if necessary, we would be happy to take up the matter at our usual House leader's meeting.

Bill C-21--Canadian Human Rights Act

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practices of the House, a member from the Liberal Party and a member from the New Democratic Party may speak for not more than 10 minutes on report stage Motions Nos. 1 and 2 of Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, after which Motions Nos. 1 and 2 shall be deemed adopted, Bill C-21 shall then be deemed concurred in at the report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-34, the enactment of the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement.

I listened with great interest to some of the debate on this legislation. I stand rather reluctantly, I guess, because this is like déjà vu for me. I am hearing the same statements and arguments being made that were made for the Nisga'a treaty. We have people asking why people should still be bound by a 132-year-old Indian Act and yet we are trying to give an opportunity for bands to get out from the Indian Act, move forward and create a more positive future for their people. Each time a Parliament has tried to get Indian bands out of the rules of the Indian Act, we see resistance everywhere, even from some of the people who are affected by the land claims agreements.

I know we will never have one land claims agreement that every member will agree with. It saddens me greatly that people are looking for only negative consequences of these agreements.

Again I go back to the days when we were trying to get the Nisga'a treaty passed in this House. We heard many arguments from the same members who are speaking against this one in the House of Commons and yet, democratically, this agreement was passed by its members. If a bill is passed or an agreement is ratified by its members democratically and the majority approve it, then people argue that it was not done fairly, that it was not done in a way that passed the scrutiny of fairness. It is difficult to convince naysayers because they will never agree that this can benefit people.

I have been to some of those communities where they have absolutely no hope of getting out from the oppression of poverty. We have heard sad stories from across this country about what is happening on reserves that we would not tolerate anywhere else in the world.

We have people fighting in Afghanistan to create opportunities for the people there to receive good education and for women and children to participate in education, opportunities that we in our own country would never consider denying anyone. People in our Canadian Forces are dying fighting for the rights of the people of Afghanistan and yet here in Canada we continue to hold people under the thumb of the Indian Act and allow them to live in poverty, with no hope for the future. They live in conditions that we would not tolerate anywhere else and yet we find ourselves in the House of Commons today debating the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement that would give opportunity for a band to move forward, to take advantage of economic opportunities and create hope for their children.

Some people have asked what we see in this agreement that would lead to the social improvement of the people. I have said this before and I will say it again. We cannot bottle the hope that we give people. We cannot put a dollar figure on the improvement in people's well-being when it is in their heart. We cannot say that it will cost x number of dollars to see someone finish high school and become a contributor to their society instead of landing in jail and becoming a statistic or becoming a statistic in suicide.

We can count all the negatives that happen to people. We can do statistics on how much money we are spending on welfare. We can see numbers for the amount of money spent for children in care among our aboriginal people and yet we cannot put a dollar figure to the positive lives that we have been able to see from the different land claims that have been achieved in this country.

As a beneficiary to our Nunavut land claims agreement, I can tell the House what that means for me, for my parents and other people I encounter in our communities. However, I cannot give the dollar figure and the statistics of what that means for people in that they are finally able to be part of the decision making process that governs our lives.

As Chief Kim Baird said, ”every land claims agreement is a compromise”, but it must be if we are going to get all parties at the table agreeing to a settlement or an agreement. At the end of the day, we all need to be able to walk away from that table feeling that we have made some contribution and that everyone worked together to come up with the best agreement that people can ratify, support and move on with their lives.

Many people do not realize just how much the Indian Act controls people's lives, which we would never be allowed to happen anywhere else. Just because it has been around for so long and people have started to accept it as a normal way of life, does not excuse the governments of the day for not improving how we deal with aboriginal lives on reserve. We are dealing with different pieces of legislation. We have Bill C-21 , which tries to remove section 67 of the Human Rights Act. We have the legislation that is before us now. We already spoke to Bill C-30. Those are all the different pieces of legislation that try to make improvements to an Indian Act that has controlled the lives of a group of people who were one of the first peoples of this country.

I have a story here about this agreement that was written in the Canadian Geographic. One of the stories talks about how, when the provincial government broke ground for its ferry terminal in 1958, the first anyone knew about it was when a foreman knocked at the chief's door at six in the morning asking where his crew should park their trucks. This was a statement by Kim Baird, the current chief of the Tsawwassen. Because there was a long house in its path, the government contractors unceremoniously tore it down.

This might not seem that significant to people, but I ask members to visualize someone coming through our communities and tearing down a longhouse or a very important part of a community and the uproar that would happen today if any of us saw that happen in one of our communities. It is very difficult to speak of.

I have stories from my own history of people coming in and deciding that they knew better than we did how to run our lives. They just took control and took action that we would never tolerate today. Those different standards for many situations are not tolerable today but were acceptable in the past.

However, to completely break down people and expect them to rise above all of that without any assistance is asking too much of people.

We see natural disasters happening all over the world, where everything in a community is destroyed. The generosity of people in helping rebuild those communities is something that we can all strive to help with. The human part of us always wants to help those whose lives have been devastated by circumstances beyond their control.

Why we would not apply that same generosity to people who live among us in this country is beyond me. If only most of us really knew what conditions people live in. Then we would not just hear about it, have it fly over our heads and say that we have heard about this for so many years that the story is getting old. We would not be saying that we should move on to something else.

It is very sad and troubling that we have to keep advocating on behalf of people who want to control their own lives. It is very sad that we have to see obstacles all the time when people want to accept responsibility for their communities, move on, make their own decisions and create a future for their people.

The history of this country is built on people overcoming great adversity. The history of our country is that people have had to overcome great challenges to build this country up to where it is today. We aboriginal people are no different. We want to overcome our history and become contributors to society and to this country and its economic development.

We want our children to finish high school, go on to post-secondary education, provide for their own families and live in healthy, safe communities. This is no different from any person born in this country or who comes to this country as an immigrant.

If we do not provide the basic and I feel fundamental assistance to people who want to rise above the poverty and the social challenges in their communities, I do not know what more to say to convince people. We have to support people who want to move on.

I know there are many details that I am sure my colleague across the way will ask me about in trying to convince me why we should not support the legislation. However, at the end of the day it is about people who democratically voted to support an agreement that they know will create some uncertainty for their members and may give them uncertain times in the future, but it does provide certainty in the realm in which they can work.

The Indian bands that are operating under the Indian Act cannot even go to a bank, ask for loans and carry on with economic development opportunities in their communities. They cannot participate in any of the benefits that are happening on the very lands to which they have an attachment, because there is no obligation for many of these private companies--or even provincial governments--to come to an impact and benefit agreement with them.

It is very sad that the people who most need the economic development opportunities and who most need the jobs and the training do not benefit from the prosperous activities happening on the very lands that are in question.

That is why we went ahead with Bill C-30. That will take care of some of the specific claims, which will help bands come to some economic opportunity, or it will settle claims where they feel they have been wrongly treated, although I am having difficulty with the words for this. However, I know that in the specific claims process people will be able, hopefully, to settle the very issues that are hindering them from moving forward.

I am in support of the Tsawwassen First Nation final agreement because I see it as one way of settling some of these long outstanding issues that have plagued many first nation bands across this country. I have been a member of Parliament for almost 11 years. I have seen great strides in bringing to a close some of the longstanding issues. I have seen many land claims agreements signed and put into place in the time that I have been a member.

I am very proud that all Inuit in Canada have now settled their land claims. Of course, this is not the be-all and end-all or the only solution for improving the lives of aboriginal people in this country, but it is a fair step that we can move forward from.

I am not saying that since we have signed our Nunavut land claims agreement every problem has been solved, but it certainly has given hope and an opportunity to people who feel that they now have a role to play in helping make decisions that concern their lives.

Yes, it was a compromise, as is this very agreement that we are talking about for the people of Tsawwassen. No, it is not going to solve every problem for them, but it gives them a framework that they can work in and they will know that they have the legal opportunity to help make decisions in their area that affect the lives of their people.

I urge people to support this bill so it can be sent to committee. I look forward to hearing from witnesses there. Hopefully we will move this file forward to the Senate and see a conclusion for the long hours of work that people have done on this agreement.

Business of the House

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, in keeping with our theme for this week, which is strengthening democracy and human rights, today we will continue to debate Bill C-47, which is a bill to provide basic rights to on reserve individuals to protect them and their children in the event of a relationship breakdown, which are rights that Canadians off reserve enjoy every day.

We will debate our bill to give effect to the Tsawwassen First Nation Final Agreement, Bill C-34, and Bill C-21, which would extend the protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act to aboriginals living on reserve.

We will also debate Bill C-29, which is our bill to close the loophole that was used most recently by Liberal leadership candidates to bypass the personal contribution limit provisions of the election financing laws with large personal loans from wealthy, powerful individuals, and Bill C-19, which is our bill to limit the terms of senators to eight years from the current maximum of 45.

Next week will be honouring our monarch week. Members of Parliament will return to their ridings to join constituents in celebrating Queen Victoria, our sovereign with whom Sir John A. Macdonald worked in establishing Confederation, and honouring our contemporary head of state, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II.

The week the House returns will be sound economic management without a carbon tax week. The highlight of the week will be the return of the budget bill to this House on May 28.

This bill proposes a balanced budget, controlled spending, investments in priority areas and lower taxes, all without forcing Canadian families to pay a tax on carbon, gas and heating. Furthermore, the budget implementation bill proposes much needed changes to the immigration system. These measures will help us ensure the competitiveness of our economy. I would like to assure this House that we are determined to see this bill pass before the House rises for the summer.

We will start the week by debating, at third reading, Bill C-33, our biofuels bill to require that by 2010 5% of gasoline and by 2012 2% of diesel and home heating oil will be comprised of renewable fuels, with our hope that there will be no carbon tax on them.

We will debate Bill C-55, our bill to implement the free trade agreement with the states of the European Free Trade Association.

This free trade agreement, the first in six years, reflects our desire to find new markets for Canadian products and services.

We will also debate Bill C-5 dealing with nuclear liability issues for our energy sector; Bill C-7 to modernize our aeronautics sector; Bill C-43 to modernize our customs rules; Bill C-39 to modernize the Canada Grain Act for farmers; Bill C-46 to give farmers more choice in marketing grain; Bill C-14, which allows enterprises choice for communicating with their customers through the mail; and Bill C-32 to modernize our fisheries sector.

The opposition House leader raises the question of two evenings being set aside for committee of the whole. He is quite right. Those two evenings will have to be set aside sometime between now and May 31.

With regard to the notes that were quoted from by the Prime Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, they were their notes and referred of course to announcements that clearly have been made about the need and the imperative of restoring our military's equipment and needs in the way in which the Canadian government is doing so.

Family Homes on Reserves and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-47. In the debate on this bill yesterday, there were a number of very good points raised by the member for Nunavut.

This bill is an act respecting family homes situated on first nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves.

The debate has brought a lot of very important dimensions to the crisis that exists on first nations reserves. This legislation is necessary because there is no legislation now to which people can turn. These are the representations of the member for Nunavut, who has been one of the most stellar champions of aboriginal affairs, of first nations peoples, Métis and the Inuit. During her speech, she referred to a couple of stakeholder representations, which I want to review simply to provide a context as to why I have risen to speak.

The Native Women's Association of Canada expressed its views in a press release criticizing this legislation. It expressed its frustration with what it refers to as the government's unilateral action on the bill. The discussion has to do with legislative initiatives and unlegislated initiatives. It is the unlegislated initiatives part that is the source of some of the concern expressed by the Native Women's Association of Canada.

Bev Jacobs, the president of the NWAC, stated in her press release of March 4, 2008:

There is nothing in the legislation that addresses the systemic issues of violence many women face that lead to the dissolution of marriages nor is there any money available for implementation. In the end, we end up with a more worthless piece of paper.

That is a very strong statement.

We just dealt with a report from the Standing Committee on the Status of Women relating to some of the issues, particularly with regard to the violence against many women and also some of the other areas, such as housing, poverty, governance, access to justice and general violence. It is very important to ensure that Canadians understand and our first nations also understand that we are sensitive to this. I have not seen that in regard to the representations of the government. As I listen to the questions asked by government members on Bill C-47, the government seems to be fairly dismissive. The attitude of the government is that we should just pass the bill, that it is a good bill and the government does not have to do anything else.

The government must listen to the stakeholders, those who are seeking some relief in dealing with a serious crisis within the first nations communities.

Also, there is a very significant letter dated April 8, 2008 from the office of the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil Fontaine. When I read it, I was somewhat concerned about the allegations that were made in the letter. The position generally is that this bill is flawed in both process and substance and that while its assessment of the bill is not finalized, the Assembly of First Nations will want to make further representations. This letter is extremely important. It was very helpful to me in understanding the view of the stakeholders, and it does include the preliminary analysis of the Assembly of First Nations.

Even in the text of the letter, with regard to Bill C-47, Mr. Fontaine said:

While it was a positive and practical step forward to engage in dialogue with the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and the Native Women's Association of Canada in the development of this legislation, the approach falls far short of First Nations' direction that the Crown should fully engage with First Nations in developing policy and legislation that affects First Nations.

The substantive foundation of the concerns that they have has to do with the consultation process. I recall that in her speech to the House, the member for Nunavut commented on that aspect. She said:

--if we want to see real solutions in our aboriginal communities, there has to be real partnership and collaboration, and that they not be token gestures.

The concern is if there is a perception of tokenism, of consultations which are going through the motions but which are not really sincere, it is a recipe for disagreement and maybe discontent. Parliament has a serious responsibility to consult with stakeholders regardless of which piece of legislation with which we are dealing. When we make laws, we are affecting people in one way or another and those people need to be heard.

According to the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, it appears that has been a problem not only with regard to Bill C-47, but generally with regard to many of the issues that have come before Parliament.

Mr. Fontaine went on to say:

Furthermore, the fact that direction provided through this dialogue does not appear reflected in the tabled Bill, leaves us to conclude that the dialogue was of limited value in promoting and implementing a reconciliation approach regarding First Nations aboriginal and treaty rights and Crown sovereignty.

I take this as a very serious alert for parliamentarians and for the government with regard to Bill C-47. We have to step up and take this a lot more seriously and determine whether or not there are appropriate steps to address these legitimate concerns that have been raised by Chief Fontaine.

He went on to say:

In regards to the process of engagement, the AFN has clearly stated, on numerous occasions, and in formal correspondence, the position of First Nations in this regard. In addition, the AFN and First Nations through the dialogue process, detailed alternative approaches and measures to address the issues arising in relation to matrimonial real property on reserve. Indeed, the federal government had many, many opportunities to address these matters properly and effectively.

He went on to say:

Unfortunately, the advice and direction of AFN and First Nations has not been heeded and I must point out that the First Nations assessment of the proposed legislation will likely be that it is unconstitutional in law and of no value to First Nations individuals or governments in practice.

When I read that it made me want to know more. I want to hear more. Should the bill go to committee for review, the questions that were raised in the consultation process and which apparently were not heeded by the government in proposing the legislation, need to be considered. We need to remediate that situation. We need to make sure that the stakeholders, regardless of their basis, are heard and that the issues raised are frontally and effectively addressed so that all understand. Regardless of which side one is on on a particular issue, there is always room for due respect for the opinions of others, but that does not seem to have been the case in this regard.

The bill contemplates an approach that will not provide any effective remedies for individuals seeking redress. That was the intent of the bill and is the intent of the bill. It is why the member for Nunavut, when she spoke before the House yesterday, made this argument over and over again. Yet when the parliamentary secretary rose on questions, he was dismissive of her question and made the assertion that the bill should be passed, that we should move forward because there were other things to do.

We have things to do. We have to get Bill C-47 right. The objectives of this place are to have full debate and to properly identify those issues which should be addressed.

The first nations wanted to articulate, as laid out in Chief Fontaine's letter, the principles that should guide the search for solutions and the standard upon which proposed solutions should be evaluated. He went on the list about a dozen. He lists strengthening first nations, families and communities, fairness, respect for traditional values, protection of aboriginal and treaty rights, no abrogation or derogation of first nations' collective rights, protection and preservation of first nations' land for future generations, recognition and implementation of first nations' jurisdiction and community based solutions.

I had the opportunity to be a member of the Standing Committee on Health when we dealt with aboriginal health issues. The committee travelled to a number of reserves to consult with stakeholders and to determine some of the non-legislative areas of which we should also be cognizant.

It was clear to me that there were substantive differences between reserves. Some are in much better shape than others. One thing I noticed was some of the fundamentals, like clean water and a sewage system, were not present.

There were a number of health issues in program areas. I remember I went into a modest community centre on one reserve. In the basement was a large lineup of people and I wanted to know why. I found out that people were lining up to buy cases of cigarettes for resale. However, next to that was the jail. It is hard for Canadians to understand the realities of the lives of first nations and the challenges they face.

As a consequence of that review, we found that the problems which existed on first nations reserves, which exist throughout Canadian society, were multiple times more in terms of severity as well as the occurrence levels, whether it be substance abuse, or domestic violence, or problems with children or social problems, et cetera. These are areas which Canadians demand that Parliament address in an appropriate fashion.

I thank Chief Fontaine for his letter of April 8 and the preliminary analysis. I will not go through this, but it is available and if members do not have a copy, I would be happy to provide it for them.

I want to comment generally on the bill. The Liberal Party supports the bill to go to committee. Like many bills where second reading occurs, we are often approached by stakeholders and constituents who suggest the bill should simply be defeated at second reading. This happened with regard to animal cruelty legislation. It is happening with regard to Bill C-51, which has to do with natural health products.

Canadians and all interested parties should understand that when a bill comes before the House at second reading, we have representations in an informal way from those who are interested parties. We have our own knowledge, some of our own research and some historic research.

What we do not have at second reading is the present assessment and the current input of the experts. We do not have the formal position of the stakeholders on both sides or all sides of the argument. What we do at second reading is debate, in principle, the aspects of the bill and whether there are any major problems.

Members know that when we pass a bill at second reading, we pass it in principle and get it to committee where there can be, as necessary, full consultation and public hearings to allow the stakeholders to come before the committee to articulate very clearly the positions and concerns they have to proposed amendments, et cetera. Some of the best work in Parliament happens at committee, where it is not just a handful or 12 members of Parliament who make the decisions. They are there participating in a consultation process with the necessary expertise, not only from the government and the officials of the department, who will answer the questions of the members and explain the bill in great detail, but also with those stakeholders, which is extremely important.

I am quite sure the bill will pass at second reading. However, I am also quite sure throughout this place there will be a strong representation that we should have very comprehensive public hearings and hear from the stakeholders to identify how we can deal with those matters which may not have been reflected in the bill, even though they may have been raised under preliminary consultation with the principal stakeholders.

There are many stakeholders in regard to the bill. We can never forget that this is a matter of human rights for women and children living on reserves. The whole objective of the bill is so they can have safer and healthier lives and therefore happier lives. Those are fundamental objectives. Who is against that?

How we deliver that will be the issue. Legislating certain things will help for those matters which require a legislative solution because we need a law to guide it. We cannot achieve the full impact and the benefit of the law without having the non-legislative component and the initiatives, the support and the funding necessary to provide an environment in which those laws can operate in a fair manner.

While we support the intent of the bill, we do not support the unilateral process the government has taken in introducing the legislation. We were instrumental in making critical changes to Bill C-21 to ensure that aboriginal Canadians would have the time and the capacity they needed to deal with changes. We continue to push the government to address issues such as the human rights needs of aboriginal Canadians, education, jobs, poverty, water and health, which are much the same kinds of conclusions that we reached in the health committee I back in 1994, which was when the new Parliament started.

It was an education for me, as an urban Canadian with very little exposure prior to coming to Parliament, about the challenges faced by our first nations and their people, the Métis and the Inuit.

The bill itself establishes a federal matrimonial real property regime, combined with the mechanisms for first nations to develop their own matrimonial real property laws.

By way of background, in 1986 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that when a conjugal relationship broke down on reserve, courts could not apply provincial or territorial family law because reserve lands fell under federal jurisdiction. We can see the need to address that condition.

As a result, aboriginal women living on reserves have not enjoyed the same rights as women living off reserves. That is an important matter to be resolved. They are not entitled to an equal share of matrimonial property at the time of the marriage break down. Matrimonial real property refers to the house and the land that the couple lives on while they are married or in a common law relationship.

The government began preliminary consultations on this matter, but it focused on recommendations made by committees. The next step was to move to the legislation solution. As I had indicated, this is not simply a matter to be addressed by legislative proscriptions. It also requires a non-legislative approach.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my Liberal Party colleague for her presentation on Bill C-47. She is obviously well versed on this subject given that she has sat on the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for a number of years.

I would also like to point out that she was part of the previous government when an agreement was made with first nations stating that each time legislation concerned them and could change their way of life, the government had to consult them.

In this regard, be it with Bills C-44, C-21, C-30 or C-47, is the current government consulting and respecting this agreement?

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

Mr. Speaker, the member for Yukon is absolutely right. The Native Women's Association of Canada, the native women's associations of Quebec and Labrador, and the Assembly of First Nations Women's Council have all spoken out quite strongly about the deficiencies in Bill C-47. The Native Women's Association of Canada undertook some work which resulted in the report,“Reclaiming our Way of Being: Matrimonial Real Property Solutions”. Again, much of what was recommended was simply not included in the bill. It is so disrespectful to ask people what they think and then disregard it without even a simple explanation about why those recommendations were not included.

On the resources issue, we have seen this time and time again. I talked about the 1985 Bill C-31 where there were not adequate resources to make sure that people who were being reinstated to the communities actually could move back to their communities. It is the same issue with Bill C-21, the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Where were the resources for the Canadian Human Rights Commission to actually undertake to work with first nations communities to make sure that people had the resources and understood what this new piece of legislation might mean?

At committee yesterday, the Auditor General's office talked about stovepipe solutions. This piece of legislation is another stovepipe solution that does not look at the broader socio-economic status on first nations reserves, whether it is housing, whether it is education, whether it is support for mediation, alternative dispute resolution. Without those kinds of resources we have a piece of legislation that is just a small part of the puzzle. Without the support for that, it simply is not going to be effective.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-47, An Act respecting family homes situated on First Nation reserves and matrimonial interests or rights in or to structures and lands situated on those reserves.

The NDP will be supporting this bill and getting it to committee. I hope that the committee will have an opportunity to study the bill extensively and to call witnesses who reflect some of the concerns that we are certainly hearing.

Much has been said already about the report from Wendy Grant-John that was presented in the spring. Sadly, there was no response from the government to this report. I want to quote from one particular section of this report because I think it lays a foundation for any further discussion. She states:

Matrimonial property law is intended to provide guidance in resolving conflicts between spouses concerning the disposition of property. Matrimonial real property issues affect the interests of men, women and children. Accordingly, First Nation citizens are concerned that any legislative and nonlegislative responses should promote social cohesiveness while also providing fair and equitable treatment of spouses. First Nation people do not wish to see federal legislation that again divides community members. They feel that this would occur if the federal government acts in a way that would reinforce old stereotypes e.g. that all First Nation governments are antagonistic to the protection of individual human rights or that matrimonial property is a “women’s” issue. It is important to understand that when people say matrimonial property is not a women’s issue they are not denying that there are particular impacts on First Nation women. Rather this means that it is an issue that affects the entire community and communities must determine solutions.

We heard the minister earlier speak about the fact that this was a consultative process and that we should really just all adopt the bill.

Contrary to what the minister was saying, we have actually had a number of people speaking up quite strongly around the bill. Wendy Grant-John is a well-respected first nations woman. She has extensive experience and put together an extensive report. However, this is where the crunch comes. A press release issued by the Native Women's Association of Canada, March 4, states:

'Consultative Partnership' a Sham

The Government of Canada has acted unilaterally in trying to resolve the issue of a lack of matrimonial real property laws that apply on reserve. Despite engaging in a discussion process with relevant National Aboriginal Organizations, the federal government introduced legislation, The Family Homes on Reserve and Matrimonial Interests or Rights Act, that does not have the support of the Native Women’s Association of Canada...President Beverley Jacobs noted, “we have not experienced our relationship with the federal Department of Indian Affairs as being one of partnership or even consultation but rather it feels like another experience of colonialism”--

The Office of the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations also spoke up about the process and stated:

While it was a positive and practical step forward to engage in dialogue with the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) and the Native Women's Association of Canada in the development of this legislation, the approach falls far short of First Nations' direction that the Crown should fully engage with First Nations in the developing policy and legislation that affects First Nations.

Furthermore, the fact that direction provided through this dialogue does not appear reflected in the tabled Bill, leaves us to conclude that the dialogue was of limited value in promoting and implementing a reconciliation approach regarding First Nations aboriginal and treaty rights and Crown sovereignty.

I believe that when we start on a process, ask people for their input, and then slam the door on them, that is a disrespectful process. Other members have spoken about the importance of having a bill that addresses matrimonial property. I quoted from Wendy Grant-John's report where is speaks about the fact that matrimonial property affects women and children disproportionately. However, it also affects men.

In fact, when meeting with a Six Nations representative, what he said to me was that in a first nations community, and I know this to be true, when there is a family breakup, it not only affects the man, the woman and the children who are involved in that relationship but it affects the aunts and the uncles, the grandmothers and the grandfathers, and the cousins, and it spreads throughout the community.

So, matrimonial property is a very important element that has to be considered in the context of the social impact it has on the entire community. However, I want to provide a bit of historical background, and again, this is from Wendy Grant-John's report. I will not go through the whole piece because it is a lengthy history, but she talks about the historical timelines that have led us to the place where men, women and children on reserve simply do not have a process that recognizes their cultural and social traditions. She states:

Prior to Colonization:

First Nations cultural norms, kinship systems and laws determine outcomes of marriage breakdown

Matriarchal kinship systems and egalitarian values were common

She goes into the colonial period where she talks about the notion of individual property rights and male domination in property and civil rights introduced by colonial governments, and efforts to assimilate first nations people, with the hopes of ultimately eliminating reserves altogether.

Then she goes through the lengthy history of denial of rights to men, women and children on reserves, whether it is the fact that women cannot vote at band councils or aboriginal people in Canada simply did not have the right to vote until the 1960s.

She goes through the whole history of the denial of rights and then addresses the 1985 Bill C-31, which attempted to reinstate women who had married non-aboriginal men. What a fiasco that bill has been, whether it was the fact that adequate resources were not put in place to address the impacts that bill would have on reserve, one of them being housing, or whether it was an illumination of status built into that bill, the second generation cutoff, which is continuing to play itself out, and nobody in the House has taken the time to address it.

I want to skip to the 1990s and bring it into the present day. Ms. Grant-John, in her report, outlines the following:

Several commissions of inquiry in Canada draw attention to the issue and the need for some action--

Eight UN human rights bodies express concern about the issue of matrimonial real property on reserves.

Litigation on lack of protection for matrimonial real property rights is launched by First Nation women organizations.

In 2003, the Senate Standing Committee issued its report--

In 2005, the House of Commons Aboriginal Affairs Committee issued a report--

In 2006, the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women takes up the issue--

Once again, we had lots of reports and no action.

In addition, I want to quote briefly from one of the United Nations bodies, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. This is the report from March 2007. In that report, it again censures Canada. It talks about the fact that it regrets the lack of substantial progress made by the state in an effort to address residual discrimination against first nations women and makes a recommendation which states:

The Committee urges the State party to take the necessary measures to reach a legislative solution to effectively address the discriminatory effects of the Indian Act on the rights of Aboriginal women and children to marry, to choose one's spouse, to own property, and to inherit, in consultation with First Nations organizations and communities, including aboriginal women's organizations, without further delay.

One of the critical points, of course, is urging the government to adopt legislation but it also talks about the consultative piece.

In that same report, there are any number of human rights violations outlined, including the repeal of section 67 of the Human Rights Act. Of course, Bill C-21, which was before the House, went to committee. The committee amended it after hearing substantial testimony from first nations witnesses from coast to coast to coast. The committee listened very carefully to what was being presented and made some amendments. We are still waiting for the bill to come back to the House.

Again, it is another example of the government's complete disregard when it hears evidence that it does not like. It just disregards the evidence and decides to shelve the bill. We are still waiting for Bill C-21 to come back. In this particular CERD report, it also talks about resources. I will not read the whole thing but in part it states:

--the Committee remains concerned at the extent of the dramatic inequality in living standards still experienced by Aboriginal peoples. In this regard, the Committee, recognising the importance of the right of indigenous peoples to own, develop and control and use their lands, territories and resources in relation to their enjoyment of economic, social and cultural rights, regrets that in its report, the State party did not address the question of limitations imposed on the use by Aboriginal people of their land, as previously requested by the Committee. The Committee also notes that the State party has yet to fully implement the 1996 recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples--

Again, Canada is being censured in an international forum for its lack of progress on the living conditions on reserves.

Wendy Grant-John's report had made a number of specific recommendations. This piece of legislation before the House, Bill C-47, simply fails to address a number of the recommendations, whether it is on first nations jurisdictional rights, comparable rights and remedies, customary practices, alternative dispute resolution, the resources required to implement this bill or on the duty to consult.

It is well and good to talk about going out and consulting, but we have to do something with the information that we hear.

I just referenced the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report from 1996, and I want to refer to volume 3, Gathering Strength. This is an important context for the rights of first nations to self-government and to be treated on a nation to nation perspective. Property rights is an intrinsic part of the rights to self-determination.

In the RCAP report it says:

Acknowledging that it may be some time before full self-government and a new land tenure system for Aboriginal lands are in place, we recommended in Volume 2, Chapter 3 that, in the transition phase, Parliament pass an Aboriginal Nations Recognition and Governance Act to make explicit what is implicit in section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982—namely, that Aboriginal nations constitute an order of government within the Canadian federation and can exercise law-making authority in areas they deem to be core areas of their jurisdiction. Such legislation would make resources available to proceed with rebuilding Aboriginal nations in anticipation of nation-to-nation negotiations for the full implementation of a new relationship.

It goes on to talk about the fact that the solution is obvious, and it is talking about the matrimonial matters for Indian persons living on reserve. It states:

Aboriginal communities should be able to legislate in this area. Federal and provincial governments should acknowledge the authority of Aboriginal governments to adopt laws with regard to the matrimonial home and to establish their family law regimes compatible with their cultures and traditions.

This is from the 1996 RCAP report, a document that the Assembly of First Nations in the past has reported on and has said that the past Liberal government and the current Conservative government have simply failed to move forward on the bulk of the recommendations. We see it again in the current piece of legislation before the House.

Others have made a number of recommendations as well in terms of what should be included in Bill C-47 and in reclaiming our way of being matrimonial real property solutions. It is an extensive and respectful report. It talked of elders, women and many communities from coast to coast. It outlines a number of issues, including violence against women and other transitional provisions. However, I want to read one quote from the report about the Native Women's Association of Canada. It said:

NWAC presented recommendations about non-legislative approaches and solutions that would assist women and their children following the end of a marital or common law relationship. While MRP is sometimes narrowly defined as relating only to the matrimonial home, the situation of individuals experiencing this issue brings in a wide variety of related issues. The individuals who attended our sessions spoke of membership, status, and the negative effects of Bill C-31 on individuals and communities. They talked about housing on reserves, including availability, safety, adequacy, repair, and overcrowding.

Earlier we heard the parliamentary secretary ask that if housing were fixed would everything be okay. Of course not. In my question for the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, I referenced the Auditor General's report on first nations child and family services program. In that report, under exhibit 4.1, she specifically talks about the fact that if we do not address the socio-economic conditions:

Many First Nations face difficult socio-economic conditions. Some communities are in crisis. According to First Nations, these conditions present different challenges for First Nations than for mainstream society, but are not taken into account in the child welfare system. There is also a need to address the underlying causes of child welfare cases.

I would argue that the same statement also applies when we talk about matrimonial real property. In Ms. Grant-John's report, in her summary of conclusions and recommendations, she also says that:

If First Nation governments are to be looked to, to provide rights and remedies comparable to those available under provincial and territorial laws, while taking into account the distinct nature of the land regime in First Nation communities, there must be a comparable scope of recognized jurisdiction, resources, capacity and institutional development. Otherwise First Nations would be placed in a catch-22 situation–they would be held to the same standard as provincial governments but not have the resources and capacity to achieve it

Without resources and capacity to achieve some of these things, it is simply an untenable situation and it is the same thing that we saw in the old Bill C-31 from 1985.

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in article 18, says:

Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions.

We have heard the minister say that there was a consultative process. Many of us would argue that it was not a consultative process. Recommendation 18 in Ms. Grant-John's report talks about the elements that need to be in place for a consultative process. She says:

The Department should develop, as soon as possible, specific policies and procedures relating to consultation in order to ensure that future consultation activities can identify and discharge any legal duty to consult while also fulfilling objectives of good governance and public policy...

Then she names six elements that need to be in place. I will not go over these six elements, but they include things such as timely manner, relevant information, an opportunity for first nations to express their concerns, listening to, analyzing and seriously considering the representations, ensuring proper analysis by the Department of Justice of section 35 issues, seriously considering proposals from mitigating any potential negative impact and establishing a protocol for the development of legislative proposals. Much of that is absent in this legislation.

There are other examples in North America. I will cite an example from the United States, where there is a recognition of customary law, of tribal law. This comes from the Harvard study on economic development. This piece was “Lessons Learned from the U.S. Experience”. In this summary it says:

Upon examination, we conclude that the resolution of real property disputes under tribal law and by tribal courts has tended to be more successful than dispute resolution under the alternative regime.

It goes on to say:

In essence, this lesson reiterates several of the observations above. Because they possess complete jurisdiction over all the real property likely to enter the divorce disputes—

Some of the rules are a bit different because they are talking about trust and non-trust property.

—and because they tend to be more knowledgeable of the laws that govern such property and the possibilities for its disposition, tribal forums applying tribal laws are able to make complete settlements that are also generally perceived as fair.

It goes on to talk about the fact and says:

While Native nations that lack rules and systems to govern the division of matrimonial real property can rely on various examples and models to develop this legal infrastructure, they nonetheless face a number of decisions about what will work best for their citizens. Limitations on tribes' financial and human capital also may slow the development of appropriate laws and dispute resolution mechanisms. Thus, decisionmaking about rules and systems takes time, and the time it takes is unpredictable—each Native nation will move at its own pace on these issues, according to its own processes, and subject to its own constraints.

These are examples where first nations have been able to develop laws that do respect the rights of men, women and children on the reserves, that take into account the customary traditions, that allow for mediation or alternative dispute resolution and that involves some of the community traditions. If nations in the United States can do this and come up with laws that respect those human rights, surely we could also look at implementing the same piece in Canada.

The NDP will support the legislation in getting it to committee. However, I expect that we will hear from groups from coast to coast to coast on their concerns around it. I am quite certain amendments will be proposed to address some of the shortcomings in the bill. I look forward to a healthy discussion. Hopefully, once the bill comes back from committee to the House, if it gets through that stage, the government will move forward on proposed amendments, unlike Bill C-21.

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

Mr. Speaker, along with Bill C-21 the bill before us is probably one of the most important bills with respect to aboriginal affairs the government has introduced.

There was Bill C-30, which I believe was passed unanimously by the House. That bill fulfills and will fulfill, I hope, all conditions, including consultation, and will allow the first nations to go forward with their land claims.

However, today we will be focusing on Bill C-47. Allow me to take a moment to quote from an extremely important document that we received from the Native Women's Association of Canada. This document reports on the government's study of matrimonial rights. The title speaks for itself: Reclaiming our Way of Being: Matrimonial Real Property Solutions. This document was prepared by native women and I would like to begin by quoting a phrase that truly recognizes the problems:

The key is restoring equality and only then will Aboriginal women regain and occupy their rightful place as equal partners [all these words are important] in Aboriginal society—we used to be raised as equal to men but when the Indian Act came along, the Europeans said women are property of the men.

In my opinion, the debate surrounding Bill C-47, which is now before us, revolves around the following statement by a native woman found in this extremely important document entitled Reclaiming our Way of Being:

I want back the respect that my grandmothers and ancestors had—people listened to them; let’s put women back to their rightful place of respect.

The entire debate will revolve around Bill C-47. This excellent document looks at what led native women to look at their rights, in particular matrimonial real property rights. I would also like to refer to another document.

This all started when the Supreme Court had to rule on two extremely important cases: Derrickson v. Derrickson, and Paul v. Paul in 1986. The debate on matrimonial real property has been going on since 1986. We will try to make progress on this issue with Bill C-47, but in both decisions in 1986, the Supreme Court ruled that, since reserve lands fall under federal jurisdiction, as a result of subsection 91(24) and so forth, provincial legislation cannot apply to modify any individual interest in reserve land.

In plain words, women living on a first nations reserve are not equal to women living off reserve. It is not complicated. This is precisely what the ruling under the Indian Act states and is repeated in the document I was just reading.

Aboriginal women are submissive, they have to be submissive, and if Bill C-47 is adopted, a change in mentality will be necessary. I am not sure whether today, May 13, all aboriginal communities in Canada are aware of this Bill C-47 that we will be studying soon in committee.

In the Supreme Court rulings in Derrickson v. Derrickson and Paul v. Paul in 1986, the reason for the limited application of provincial and territorial legislation and the reason that the Indian Act was not mentioned in terms of matrimonial property, was that most of the first nations communities on reserve are denied protection and significant recourse. For example, the courts cannot invoke provincial and territorial legislation to issue an order for possession concerning a matrimonial home, to order the sale or sharing of a matrimonial home on the reserve to execute a compensation order, or to prohibit the sale or encumbrance of a matrimonial home.

That is precisely the problem. The problem Bill C-47 seeks to address is an extremely important problem that affects—we must be honest here in this House—90% of aboriginal women living on reserve. We have to listen carefully to these women. What do these aboriginal women have to say? The Bloc and I have a small problem. In fact, this could become a very big problem if we do not listen to aboriginal women.

In 2006, through the then-minister of Indian Affairs, who is now the Minister of Industry, the government said that it would consult aboriginal women. Wendy Grant-John, an extremely respectable woman, was appointed, and she travelled around, holding consultations and meeting with many aboriginal women before submitting her report. That is when things started to go wrong.

Earlier, my Liberal Party colleague from Winnipeg South Centre said something important. The government does not seem to have listened, and that is troubling. In her report, Ms. Grant-John made a number of recommendations. Here is what the Assembly of First Nations Women's Council says about the bill:

The bill will ultimately force First Nations Women to seek remedies in provincial courts. This is neither timely nor financially viable for many First Nations women in remote communities.

That is one of the biggest problems. The government would be creating two classes of aboriginal women: those who live on reserve and those who live off reserve. Those who live off reserve—women in Montreal, Calgary or any Canadian city—have to go to civil courts. Superior courts can order violent spouses to get out and leave the house to the aboriginal woman and her children. In several cases that have gone before the Superior Court of Quebec, among others—I will focus on Quebec because that is where I am from—aboriginal women living off reserve have had these rights, while aboriginal women living on reserve have not.

I would like to give a quick example. Aboriginal women from Akwesasne, from Kahnawake, from Pikogan, or from Kitigan Zibi who live near large cities do not have the same rights as aboriginal women living in Maniwaki or in large cities like Montreal, or even in Amos over in Abitibi. That is a problem. Furthermore, this problem will get even worse if we do not do what must be done to resolve it.

The women who live in remote reserves have even fewer rights now, particularly in Kashechewan and Winneway. It is not guaranteed that they will have more rights after the passage of Bill C-47. Therein lies the debate, or at least part of the debate. One problem brought up by aboriginal women is the following:

During consultations...women asked that Matrimonial Real Property rights be developed from their own cultural values and traditions, not under provincial or federal rules they had no part in crafting.

This means that aboriginal women should be invited to the committee; we should listen to them explain how matrimonial real property rights can be developed, taking into account the cultural values and traditions of aboriginal women. I think that will be an interesting part of our work.

Aboriginal women also say that:

Rather than recognizing First Nations authority, the Bill constrains how First Nations rules are to be made in a complicated process yet offers no support for First Nations in doing this work. In the end, the Bill will impose a complex, bureaucratic system, with no support or consideration for implementation.

That is an important point that the committee will have to consider. Passing and implementing Bill C-47 should not create more problems for aboriginal women than the ones that already exist—and there are many. I repeat in this House, 90% of aboriginal women on reserves are affected by this bill that could be passed in this House.

Lastly, aboriginal women have this to say:

For Matrimonial Real Property Rights to be meaningful, women told us the government must ensure there is adequate safe and accessible housing.

Therein lies part of the problem. The government should have listened to aboriginal women. The government, too, can read this document in which aboriginal women say they want to reclaim their way of being, which is extremely important, and in which they make a whole series of recommendations to solve the problem of matrimonial real property.

If we want to implement a bill such as Bill C-47, a debate in committee will be important, but would we not do well to also address the problems affecting the first nations, problems pertaining to violence, justice and education in communities? All these issues are part of a whole. We cannot deal with the issue of matrimonial real property without looking at all aspects of the reality of aboriginal communities on reserve today.

I invite any members of this House who have not already done so to view the film by Richard Desjardins and Robert Monderie entitled The Invisible Nation, which concerns the status of aboriginal people. Members can rent the film or ask the National Film Board to send them a copy. Extreme poverty and lack of education in communities often lead to violence. Sadly, women and children are most often the ones who pay the price for this violence.

Bill C-47 concerns a basic issue that we need to look at. I have a particular case in mind, although I will not name the parties. When I was a lawyer, we wondered about this case. An aboriginal couple living on a reserve opened a gas station and convenience store on the reserve. The couple fought, and the woman had to leave. Nearly 10 years later, the gas station and convenience store are still in operation and bring in more than $1 million for the father of the woman's children.

There was an attempt to proceed to judgment, and a person can try, but judgments cannot be executed on reserve. This is precisely what Bill C-47 is trying to change. We really hope that happens.

There are some important points in this bill that we cannot ignore. One thing is sure: the government is finally tackling a glaring need, that is, respect for aboriginal women on reserves. But even more needs to be done. The bill must be adaptable to the needs of the first nations. It must be studied very carefully. In fact, certain mechanisms will allow first nations to develop and implement their own laws, and take action on matrimonial rights and interests, but this poses a problem. As I was saying, a drastic change in mentality is necessary, since a balance must be struck between the authority of the chief and councils on matters of matrimonial property.

With all due respect, I must say here today that the work needs to be done not only by the government or here in this House. Many first nations, quite a number really, must take charge of their own affairs. First nations councils must make important decisions in favour of aboriginal women and children in those communities. Anyone can say that women and men are equal, but in many aboriginal communities, still today, on May 13, 2008, this is simply not the case and is far from the reality. Thus, we hope this will change.

Clearly, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of referring this bill to committee for study. It is an important bill. There is work to be done. I will mention only a few points, since time is running out. To date, there has been a serious lack of information. What is the action plan? How will this bill be implemented? How will the government go about implementing this bill once it passes? What measures and resources can the government offer to implement this bill?

We have been told certain things, but I do not wish to go into the legal details of the consultations in general. At present, native women in Canada know that the bill is coming. But what will they do if a court orders the man to leave the home when there is no housing in the native community? Or, what will a native woman do if she decides to leave the home to the man because it is crowded and not appropriate for her and her four children, but there is no housing in the native community? She will find herself on the outside. That is currently one of the major problems.

I do not wish to speak again about Pikogan, but I can talk about Timiskaming and several other communities where we see native women leave the reserve with children because, quite often, they are abused. Often they are harassed. The chiefs should take charge of their communities and the band councils should accept that this bill will be implemented and that they should be prepared for its implementation. One of the problems is the lack of housing.

I see that I have less than one minute and so I will close with one remark. Once the bill has passed and if the present housing stock is not increased, it may be a futile exercise.

Nevertheless, one thing is certain: something has to be done. Is Bill C-47 what native women have been awaiting for over 30 years?

No matter, we will vote for this bill so that it is studied in committee. I hope that native women will make their voices heard at the committee and that they will be heard in their own communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise to speak to Bill C-47. It is an important bill, one that certainly deserves consideration. It is a bill that is a matter of human rights for women and children living on reserve. Members of my party are the party of the Charter of Human Rights and we support the measure to extend matrimonial real property rights to first nations.

While the opposition supports the intent of the bill, we do not support the flawed process taken by the federal government to introduce the legislation. We will support moving the bill to committee so we can hear from many concerned stakeholders, many of whom we have heard from already, and legal experts.

I want to emphasize, just picking up on the minister's remarks, that we do not view the representations at committee as consultations. We view them as part of a process of improving legislation that has been brought before the committee.

We were instrumental in making critical changes to Bill C-21 to ensure that aboriginal Canadians would have the time and capacity they needed to deal with the changes. We will continue to push the government to address human rights in all its manifestations, to address the needs of aboriginal Canadians, issues such as education, jobs, poverty and health.

I will take the liberty to go over a little of what the minister has spoken to already.

As we know and have heard, the 1986 Supreme Court of Canada ruled that when a conjugal relationship broke down on reserves, courts could not apply provincial, territorial family law because reserve lands fell under federal jurisdiction. We have also heard that, as a result, aboriginal women living on reserve have not enjoyed the same rights as women living off reserve. They are not entitled to an equal share of the matrimonial property at the time of marriage breakdown. Matrimonial real property refers to the house or the land that a couple lives on while they are married or in a common law relationship.

Since the 1986 Supreme Court ruling, the gap in the law has had serious consequences. When a marriage or relationship ends, the courts have no authority to protect the MRP interests of spouses living on reserves. As a result, spouses living on reserve cannot ask the court to grant an order of temporary or permanent possession of the home or to partition and sale of a home if it applies to enforce an order or preclude a spouse from selling or mortgaging the family home if it applies without the consent of another spouse.

We know approaches to addressing the legislative gap respecting MRP have been under consideration for some time, and the minister has outlined some of the reports and phases. In recent years we know that three parliamentary committees have recommended a legislative mechanism to resolve the issue, and we support one, but we support one brought in appropriately.

Yesterday, we debated Bill C-30, the specific land claims bill, legislation that was done in collaboration with the Assembly of First Nations, a bill that was a compromise, albeit a good first step. Now we are here today debating a bill that the government claims was done in consultation. It said that it worked in collaboration to bring forward a bill. An INAC website states:

The Crown’s consultation process was comprehensive. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada consulted with the provinces and territories and other interested organizations and communities not represented by either Assembly of First Nations or Native Women’s Association of Canada. The Assembly of First Nations or Native Women’s Association of Canada facilitated input from First Nation representatives from across the country. Representatives from the Department accompanied the Assembly of First Nations and Native Women’s Association of Canada at sessions they facilitated.

It is one thing to conduct consultations, but it is another to put forward a bill that does not reflect the outcomes from that consultation.

The government will work in collaboration with first nations when a bill is a voluntary measure, like the specific claims bill, and we applaud it for that, but it will close doors when it is a mandatory measure and it will impose policies on first nations people without taking their input into consideration.

Early reaction to the bill would lead one to believe that the government had the bill drafted even before the consultations took place. When some of us raised that at the time, we were told it was not so, but one cannot help but be skeptical.

On the same day the on reserve matrimonial real property legislation was introduced, it was denounced by the Native Women's Association of Canada, one of the organizations with which the government conducted its so-called consultations. It immediately came out to say that the consultative partnership the government had boasted about was a sham. How could legislation, which was worked on in consultation with affected native organizations, be called a sham?

The president of the Native Women's Association went on to say:

—we have not experienced our relationship with the federal Department of Indian Affairs as being one of partnership or even consultation but rather it feels like another experience of colonialism, or at best piecemeal, individually based solutions that will not result in real equality for the women we represent.

The Conservatives appear simply not to get it. They have not learned from their mistakes in their introduction of Bill C-21. They continue to show disrespect. They continue to act unilaterally. They continue to be paternalistic. Even the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations expressed regret in the government's process. He said:

—the fact that direction provided through this dialogue does not appear reflected in the tabled Bill, leaves us to conclude that the dialogue was of limited value in promoting and implementing a reconciliation approach regarding First Nations aboriginal and treaty rights and Crown sovereignty....the federal government had many, many opportunities to address these matters properly and effectively.

Both these two organizations have major concerns about the bill. The Assembly of First Nations has, in a letter to the minister, even commented that the bill may not survive a constitutional challenge.

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to speak to Ellen Gabriel, president of Quebec Native Women's Association. It too has concerns with the legislation, concerns surrounding consultation, among many others, which I will address a little later on.

When the government first set out on its process to study matrimonial real property, we on this side of the House were optimistic. It seemed like the former minister had set out a process in a positive direction.

In June 2006 the Indian and Northern Affairs minister at the time, as we heard, appointed Wendy Grant-John as the ministerial representative to facilitate a consultation piece on matrimonial real property.

Ms. Grant-John is a most distinguished, respected aboriginal leader in her community. We have heard that she served three times as chief of the Musqueam First Nation, and was the first women elected regional vice-chief to the Assembly of First Nations. She had previously worked at Indian and Northern Affairs as a regional director general. She has had an honourary doctorate, and her list of accomplishments go on.

The report by Ms. Grant-John on matrimonial real property issues describes the result of a three phase consultation process, which we heard about from the minister. The primary objective of this process was to provide a recommendation to the minister regarding a viable legislative option to address matrimonial real property on reserves. The process was to comply with the Haida case.

No one expected all applicable parties would agree on everything. It was expected compromises would be made and if there was not a consensus, it would be the representative's mandate to make recommendations, informed by the discussions of the applicable parties. Fourteen key themes came from the discussions, and I will not go through them because I am watching the clock.

As I said earlier, we support the intent of the bill, but we do not support the process taken by the government in its introduction of the bill. We need to get it done right, and that is what I hope the committee will do. The bill does not reflect the ministerial representative's report. It does not reflect the will of aboriginal women. It is a flawed legislation and something that cannot be taken lightly.

The government introduced the legislation, in spite of recommendations of all aboriginal groups. Many problems have been addressed by aboriginal groups and by aboriginal women.

Some problems with the bill include, as indicated by the Native Women's Association: a complete lack of information about the implementation plans and measures that are in the proposed legislation, including timeframes, resources for measures specified in the bill and resources for first nations to implement the legislation; and a lack of information regarding the provision of resources to first nations to enable them to develop their own laws for MRP and to develop capacity to implement either Bill C-47 or their own laws.

Bill C-47 would provide a widowed spouse with only 180 days to remain in a family home following the death of her partner, a time too short. The lack of adequate and appropriate housing in many first nations communities means that the measures contained in Bill C-47 will not assist women and children to obtain alternative housing in the community following the breakdown of a marriage or a relationship. This will continue the status quo, which is many women and children must leave their first nations community following relationship breakdown to find housing and therefore lose access to their family, social networks, culture, language and the services provided on reserve.

The legislation refers individuals to court processes and will likely result in court cases to clarify ambiguous measures. This places remedies contained in the bill out of reach of aboriginal women who cannot access the legal system due to lack of information, poverty or geographic isolation.

NWAC's position is that properly addressing MRP requires both legislative and non-legislative solutions. Non-legislative measures are needed, NWAC suggests, to address the issues and underlie any legislative solutions such as housing, poverty, governance, access to justice and violence, the issues about which we all know.

Like the others, the Quebec Native Women Inc. also expressed concern with the serious housing shortage on reserve. Will there be measures to find housing on reserve for the person against whom an emergency protection order has been made? We know aboriginal women are at greater risk to become the victims of domestic violence. In situations such as these, the frustration can lead to even more violence.

The Quebec Native Women Inc. have also raised the fact that Quebec is a province that applies both the civil code as well as common law. The legislation does not reflect this and therefore does not reflect the interest of native women in Quebec.

As mentioned earlier, the AFN has said that the proposed legislation may well be deemed unconstitutional. It stated:

This is largely because of issues relating to the rejection of delegated power, the lack of capacity for First Nations to effectively use the limited law-making authority and the lack of access by individuals to the provincial court system.

AFN believes there is a need for a “broad and comprehensive approach”. It said:

Such an approach would deal with important related matters concerning land management, dispute resolution capacity, housing, child welfare, shelters, policing membership...and would be based on the implementation of section 35, Constitution Act, 1982 compliance measures.

This is not the first time the government has head these views proposed. It just simply has not listened.

In a letter to the minister, the national chief also pointed out:

The shared view among First Nations across the country was that certain principles should guide the search for solutions and the standard upon which the proposed solutions should be evaluated:

strengthening First Nations families and communities;

fairness

respect for traditional values;

protection of Aboriginal and Treaty Rights;

no abrogation or derogation of First Nations collective rights;

protection and preservation of First Nations lands for future generations;

recognition and implementation of First Nations jurisdiction; and

community basis solutions.

This approach falls short on all of these points. They were simply bypassed by the government.

This bill also will force first nations women to seek remedies in the court. This is neither timely nor financially viable for many first nations women in remote communities, as expressed by the Assembly of First Nations Women's Council.

Time after time we have heard aboriginal women's groups call for real investments in adequate safe and accessible housing on reserves. Still the government continues to ignore the will of first nations women. How can the government claim that it stands for the rights of these first nations women if it does not listen?

As mentioned earlier, in reading the ministerial representative's executive summary, many of the same issues were raised. First nations people expect the federal Crown to fully respect its fiduciary duties in respect to first nations land, treaty and aboriginal rights. In the discussions held, there was a very strong preference for recognition of first nations jurisdiction to fill the legislative gap identified, a minimal role for federal legislation and a virtual universal opposition to the introduction of provincial laws, by incorporating them in a federal law, to deal with this issue. Participants in both AFN and NWAC discussions have said that first nations people want to see matrimonial real property that incorporates first nations views of land and family.

There are so many points to touch on, but quite simply, the government has not listened to the first nations women, yet at the same time the government says it stands up for their rights. Why does the government think it knows best for aboriginal people, particularly aboriginal women?

The Liberal opposition believes matrimonial property rights should be extended to first nations communities, particularly to protect the interests of first nations women and children, but understand it has implications for the whole community. We understand that these rights should not be imposed.

When consultations take place, we know they should not be ignored. We also know there should not always be consensus, but we also know what it means to work in collaboration. After all, for 18 months the previous Liberal government worked with aboriginal people to bring forward the Kelowna accord, something that would address many of the issues that first nations, Inuit and Métis people face today. Notably, it would have addressed the issues related to housing. It offered hope, but hope was taken away when the government needlessly scrapped the accord.

Now the government professes to champion aboriginal issues. With actions taken with legislation like Bill C-21 and now Bill C-47, and little or no investment in three budgets, and with conditions in first nations communities worse today than they were a year ago, it is no surprise that we are about to see a second day of action.

I want to reiterate the position of my party. We want this legislation to go to committee. We believe that addressing the matter of matrimonial real property rights is important. We believe it is particularly important to do it in real collaboration, in real consultation with aboriginal women's groups, to listen to them, to hear their concerns, to incorporate their concerns into the legislation, not to tell them that we know what is best for them.

We want this legislation to go to committee. We want to hear from the experts. We want to hear from the stakeholders. We will take the opportunity to make this a better piece of legislation.

[Chuck Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a fair question.

The non-derogation clause is in several other pieces of legislation and in fact was added in committee to Bill C-21, as the member knows, on the extension of human rights of general application to first nations living on reserve. The committee added it as one of its amendments.

I am not a lawyer, but the legal advice is that because the Constitution covers all Canadians, the non-derogation clause does not change the essence of the bill. It will always be interpreted in light of the Canadian Constitution. The Canadian Constitution is clear about aboriginal rights and title. It is clear about what that means. The courts always will interpret legislation or interpret a court case based on constitutional reality. As the member knows, we have any number of cases that work their way through the legal system that might be challenged, and always the court will hold up the Constitution beside the document and make sure that it is consistent.

A non-derogation clause attempts to ensure that we pay attention to the Constitution when we look at the bill, but of course the courts do that anyway. In our opinion, it does not really strengthen the bill. There may be some discussion about that and I would be interested to hear what others may have to say, but the courts always must be cognizant of the Constitution, sections 35 and 92 and other sections that apply, and in our opinion, it does not strengthen the bill to add the non-derogation clause.

Specific Claims Tribunal Act

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today to Bill C-30, the specific claims tribunal act.

I want to acknowledge the Algonquin people, on whose lands we find ourselves and who are the traditional people of this particular territory, and thank them for their welcoming way, not only for today but for many generations.

I stand today as an aboriginal person, a person descendant from the Inuit peoples of Labrador and from my European forebearers. I am proud of my heritage. I fought for many years to protect our rights and interests to our traditional lands in Labrador, and that fight continues.

At its heart, one could argue that Bill C-30 is about the resolution of claims and the whole issue of reconciliation between the Crown and aboriginal peoples, or the reconciliation of aboriginal peoples and the Canadian Federation itself. If we are to have true reconciliation of claims and true reconciliation, there needs to be an element of trust and an element of respect by all parties involved in the process.

I, as an aboriginal person, have serious doubts about the real agenda of the Conservative Government of Canada. I do not personally have a lot of trust in the Conservative Government of Canada to protect my rights as an aboriginal person, to uphold its fiduciary obligation to aboriginal peoples or to move forward in a meaningful way where real reconciliation can happen.

In that vein, we need to look at the context in which I say this and in the context by which Bill C-30 has come about, and in which it finds itself and how it is positioned in the policies and in the direction of the Conservative Government of Canada.

Let us look at some of the context.

Upon coming into office, the Conservative Party killed the Kelowna accord. The Kelowna accord was as real and solid as any other treaty that was negotiated between aboriginal peoples and the Crown. The Kelowna accord came about after 18 months of consultation. People may wonder where it is. People may wonder whether all the premiers of all the provinces and territories got together in Kelowna for something that did not exist. People may wonder whether all the leaders of the major aboriginal groups across Canada got together in Kelowna for something that did not exist. People may wonder whether people signed on to the Kelowna accord with a great degree of hope for the future because it did not exist. It did exist.

We have heard a lot of talk south of the border about hope and about the Obama factor. Within the aboriginal communities, the aboriginal societies and our communities there was hope in Kelowna. Kelowna represented hope and it was a wholesale approach to resolving the issues of aboriginal people. It was about housing, education, governance, accountability and solving land claims. It was about economic development. This is what Kelowna represented and still represents.

This House passed the Kelowna accord and it went to the Senate, not because it did not exist but because it was real and it still is real in the hearts and minds of aboriginal peoples across this great country.

However, the Conservative government killed that collaborative approach, that consultative approach and that sense of hope that aboriginal peoples found in Kelowna. It was not a top down approach. It was not something that came from the Government of Canada singularly. It was something that people brought to the table in a way that was respectful and in a way whereby the voices of different aboriginal peoples of Canada could be heard and acted upon.

That was one of the first indications that the aboriginal peoples of this country had something to fear, that they should not necessarily place their trust in the government. Then we moved to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The Conservative Government of Canada chose, as only one of four countries, to reject the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

Why all of a sudden is the government picking and choosing what fundamental pieces of rights legislation it will support? It almost beckons to a discussion that was raised in the House today where the government now chooses which Canadians it will stand up for, which Canadians it will protect from the death penalty. It picks and choose. It seems like there are As and Bs. One either makes the A list with the Conservative government, where one is in, or one makes the B list with the Conservative government and one is not in.

It may uphold some types of rights legislation or declarations but in other cases it will not. It is on a case by case basis, as it goes.

I would argue that we have an obligation to uphold the rights of indigenous peoples within the world and it has an impact upon the indigenous rights of Canadians.

We have yet another example of where the reputation of the government is tarnished, not only here at home but also abroad. Aboriginal people and other Canadians talk to our sisters and brothers in the world and they tell us the same thing. Our government is tarnishing the reputation of Canada by its picking and choosing which pieces of legislation it will support when it comes to rights, and, in this particular case, indigenous peoples. That is the second, I would argue, real tangible sign and action the government has taken that has lead to the distrust of aboriginal peoples with the Conservative Government of Canada.

Then we had this piecemeal fashion where the government said that it would give aboriginals some money for housing. It dished out some money for housing and it went carte blanche to various jurisdictions without any guidelines or accountability. It talks about accountability but some housing money went out. It was hardly new money. It was money that was already announced. We see little or no new money for education, for social services, for health or for economic development.

We can see where the sense of distrust in the government on the part of aboriginal peoples is emboldened, not by the actions of the aboriginal peoples themselves but by the actions of the government. It is inviting the sense of distrust.

We have an example where I sincerely feel that the government sometimes likes to put something up in the window that tells the people of Canada that it is fighting for aboriginal peoples and that it is fighting for their rights but without any sincerity.

When it comes to Bill C-21, which is the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the government wanted it to go through fast. It did not consult with aboriginal peoples and it did not listen to their voices. It did not understand the impact that this particular bill would have on aboriginal people. The government says that it just wants to get the bill through so aboriginal people can be treated equally. It says it wants them to have the same rights as all Canadians.

Sometimes the government argues about equality but the argument really is about sameness. When we talk about sameness, we take away from the unique constitutional rights that aboriginal people hold as individuals and as a collective. It actually diminishes in certain aspects the uniqueness and the constitutional aboriginal rights of aboriginal peoples.

The government tries to make everyone the same. Sameness is a very veiled word for assimilation; for making them like us.

Even though the government touted Bill C-21 on the repeal of section 67, when the committee listened to what the rights of aboriginal peoples are really about we made amendments and brought it back to the House. Now the government will not move forward on the repeal of section 67, so one has to doubt the sincerity of the government when a piece of legislation truly reflects what aboriginal peoples aspire to and need.

I have another example of how I feel distrust has been sown by the Conservative Government of Canada with aboriginal peoples. The government decides who to consult and who not to consult, when to consult them and when not to consult them, and what to consult aboriginal people on and what not to consult them on.

The law is clear. There is a constitutional responsibility, a duty on the part of the government, to consult aboriginal peoples when their interests may be harmed or they may be imperiled. This is not a discretionary thing. This is not picking the A list and the B list of who should be consulted and when. The government has a duty, a legal obligation, to consult. This again adds to the distrust that aboriginal peoples have in regard to the actions of the Conservative Government of Canada.

Specifically on Bill C-30, the government said it did not have to consult because this is voluntary. Aboriginal organizations can opt into it and choose this process or basically not be a part of this particular process. However, the government said that it had been collaborative in drafting this particular piece of legislation, that it talked to the first nations of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations in particular as a representative body.

Thus, on a piece of legislation that is voluntary, the government is going to work collaboratively, but on legislation that is not voluntary but imposed, it will not work collaboratively or engage in consultation. It would seem that the reverse should be true in many regards. This is another reason why there is a sense of distrust on the part of aboriginal peoples with regard to the actions of the Conservative Government of Canada.

That is why, in the two full years that the Conservative government has been in power, we have seen two days of action by aboriginal people. We have to manifest our sense of distrust, of fighting for fairness and of trying to get the government to listen by taking to the streets, organizing, marching, shouting and engaging in peaceful protests around the country. That is what aboriginal peoples have to do.

It is within this context that Bill C-30 has come forward. I would only hope that the efforts being made through it are sincere. People and groups have raised concerns. We know that it is not a perfect piece of legislation. From infallible people come infallible things, I guess. None of us are perfect so there is probably never going to be a perfect piece of legislation. This is a compromise.

However, some of the drawbacks within this piece of legislation bear repeating. For example, are we going to unduly burden aboriginal groups and organizations in conducting further research with the time it would take in terms of personnel and human resources? The outcome would be no different. They would not be compensated for it.

There are those who argue that one judge with no right to appeal is not an adequate approach. Maybe a panel of three judges would have been more adequate. There might have been some recourse for appeal on certain aspects of the claims.

Land is so very vital to aboriginal peoples. Many aboriginal peoples, and many within my own family, say that we cannot be separated from our lands. They say that to separate aboriginal people from their lands is akin to robbing them of their rights and their ability to have a future. They say that the provision of lands, that need for us to be on our traditional lands, is about one's very survival as a culture.

This bill does not provide for any provision of lands. Even though we can raise a claim against the government that our lands were taken illegally, that they were stolen, that we may have been defrauded of those lands, this bill does not provide for lands in return. It only provides for money. There is a saying about that, of course, which is that long after the money is gone and we do not have our lands, what do we have left? This is a serious concern that has been raised at committee.

Then there are the limited grounds on which we can raise a claim. For instance, we cannot raise a claim based on aboriginal rights or title. We cannot raise a claim based on a loss of culture or language. We cannot raise a claim against the government under this specific piece of legislation on those grounds, but after the tribunal makes its decision we have to release the government from us ever raising a claim on the very grounds by which we cannot launch one.

Once the tribunal makes a decision and its decision is accepted, that particular group will never be able to raise a claim against the government based on aboriginal rights and title or on the loss of language or culture. While we can be compensated for only a narrow set of grounds on which the claims are raised, we have to release the government from a broader set of grounds for which there is no compensation.

It is akin to the issue that was raised in the Indian residential schools negotiations. It was a stumbling block for a while. Under the Indian residential schools agreement, the government will compensate only for physical and sexual abuse. That is still the case: only for physical and sexual abuse. Earlier in those negotiations, the claimant had to release the government from ever bringing a claim against it for physical and sexual abuse, loss of culture and language. That was a stumbling block.

However, the government adjusted itself. It listened to what aboriginal people had to say. Many people and many organizations would not sign on. Now the release under the Indian residential schools agreement is only for physical and sexual abuse, the same grounds on which we can be compensated. One is parallel to the other.

This was raised at committee. The chair ruled that the amendment to make the two parallel was out of order. I think it is important to put on the record that it is still a concern for people.

I talked about trust and the sincerity of the government. I am hoping and praying that this is not only a showcase piece. I will end by saying that time will tell how sincere this government is. We will have this particular piece of legislation. This will come into force and we will have a new act, but the question remains: what action is the government going to take to ensure it is implemented with the proper money and resources within the relevant departments to make sure that claims actually do get resolved? In that way, maybe the government can win back some of the respect and trust of aboriginal peoples.

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

Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Bloc Québécois, I joined my colleagues in voting in favour of consideration of this bill for which, as usual, this government did not consult first nations, despite the many reminders it was given during consideration of Bill C-44.

We also had some concerns about some of the consequences to the first nations communities in Quebec and to certain municipalities, not to mention our concerns about the flexibility of the Government of Quebec's involvement.

The lack of consultation caused some disagreement about the procedure and some of the claims that could otherwise have easily been settled in respectful meetings with the nations.

Establishing a specific claims tribunal that makes binding decisions is a progressive step compared to the usual legal games the first nations have been subjected to so far. However, improvements could have been made to how quickly the claims are processed. It will be a shame to have to come back to this in a few years in order to complete this exercise, which requires a lot of energy, time and money from the taxpayers and from the first nations, when there are other matters to deal with.

The current 784 claims could be processed more quickly and a number of others might be added to the ongoing process, even though the Indian Claims Commission itself has not accepted any new claims since the end of 2007.

Of course there has been consultation, but only after much insistence. Furthermore, it is important to note that a number of communities were not consulted because there was not enough time. There has never been enough time to resolve first nations issues.

The most worrisome thing in all this is the possible accumulation of small agreements here and there into increasingly complex legislation. That is caused by this patchwork approach that has no continuity and will only serve as an excuse not to sign the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People that has been signed by 144 countries.

A number of world leaders are putting Canada in the hot seat and in an embarrassing position on the international stage, which shocks us as representatives of the Quebec nation in particular, to be associated with this country that we do not identify with at all when it comes to its culture, its economic vision or its recognition of individual and collective rights and freedoms.

Despite the repeated calls for consultation that have been made to this government as Bills C-44, C-21, C-30, C-47 and C-34 have been tabled, the government has remained indifferent to what the vast majority of United Nations member states want.

It is truly shameful to see this government in the very small minority that is opposed to this declaration, and it is even more shameful to see members of the governing party from Quebec who lack the courage to go against such a vision.

Hon. members will certainly understand why Quebec is in such a hurry to join the community of nations and why the various communities distrust this government's interference in the legal system.

That is why the chief of the AFN reacted so strongly to the speech the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development gave at the United Nations. I want to quote the various statements the minister made at the United Nations. In a press release, the Minister of Indian Affairs said:

The Government of Canada continues to address a number of key areas for First Nations, Métis, and Inuit peoples, including fundamental human rights through Bill C-2... For 30 years, section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act has exempted First Nations communities governed by the Indian Act from human rights protection. We believe this has gone on too long—

I would like to digress a moment and remind this House that Bill C-44, which sought to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, was vehemently denounced by all the first nations, as well as by the AFN women's council. The first nations were not prepared to welcome a law or be excluded from the Indian Act when they did not have the means to enforce the Human Rights Act, with all the duties it imposes on the various communities.

Canada has long demonstrated its commitment to also actively advancing indigenous rights abroad. But that is not what happened at the United Nations. The minister also highlighted a number of areas where the Government of Canada is making substantial progress: education; resolving specific claims; safe drinking water; protection for women and children; and matrimonial property rights on-reserves

In addition, the minister talked about the important step in the Government of Canada's commitment to the Indian residential school settlement agreement, with the naming of Justice Harry LaForme as the chair of the truth and reconciliation commission. This may be the only good thing this government has done to date. The minister said this:

“Canada remains committed as ever to deliver real results for our Aboriginal population...We believe in moving forward for all Canadians with results that are not simply aspirations or non-binding.”

In response, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil Fontaine, had this to say:

The Conservative government’s sustained opposition to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has tarnished Canada’s international reputation and branded Canada as unreliable and uncooperative in international human rights processes. It is clear that the Conservative government’s domestic political agenda is taking precedence over the promotion and protection of human rights for Indigenous peoples in Canada and worldwide. The federal government’s stance is a particularly regressive and limiting basis upon which to advance fruitful Indigenous-state relations in Canada and abroad. It seems that this government has been unwavering in their resolve for a weak Declaration and weak human-rights standards in Canada despite their rhetoric to the contrary.

The Conservative government’s opinion regarding the UN declaration is contrary to widespread legal expert opinion. In an open letter issued yesterday, more than 100 legal scholars and experts noted that there was no sound legal reason that would prevent Canada from supporting the UN declaration. The same conclusion was drawn by human rights and legal experts, ... and experts within the UN system have echoed the same opinion. As a result, Canada is becoming increasingly isolated on the international stage for adhering to an unsubstantiated position against the declaration and for using their position on the Human Rights Council to achieve their own political goals in Canada. Canada cannot cherry pick which international human rights instruments they will choose to respect. These short sighted decisions have serious long term implications for Canada's international standing on human rights.

Moreover, the Conservative government's decisions have failed to address fundamental fiscal inequities in education, housing, health and other social and economic conditions that are the source of the poverty in first nations communities, despite this government’s claims “about getting the job done”. The National Day of Action on May 29 will draw national and international attention on the shortcomings of the federal government to make meaningful investments or address the serious quality of life issues our communities and people face. Such important policy decisions must be made in consultation and with the consent of first nations.

The UN Declaration is a foundational document that sets out “the minimum standards for the survival, dignity and well-being of Indigenous peoples” (Article 43). With an overwhelming majority of 144 states and only 11 abstentions, the UN General Assembly adopted on September 13, 2007 a Declaration which upholds the human, political, spiritual, land and resources rights of the world's Indigenous people. Only Canada, New Zealand, Australia and the United States voted against the Declaration. Australia has since reversed its decision and has declared its support of this unique human rights instrument to advance Indigenous rights in Australia and abroad.

That is what the first nations national chief thinks of our minister's statement at the United Nations.

Immediately after that, Chief Conrad Polson, from Timiskaming, submitted a text to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. A press release from the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador explained:

Speaking on behalf of the chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador (AFNQL), he delivered a message about the precarious funding conditions of First Nations education in Canada.

Year after year, the Canadian government continues to close its eyes on the recommendations of more than 35 years of studies, consultations and various working groups, most of which it has contributed to. In refusing to consider these recommendations, the Canadian government keeps First Nations institutions in a highly precarious position.

Our schools and post-secondary establishments are underfunded. A number of our students cannot undertake their post-secondary studies because of a lack of finance.

This is why, on behalf of the Chiefs of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, I regard it as my duty to denounce this situation loudly and clearly, stated Chief Polson.

“It was important for us to call on the United Nations so that all can be done to put an end to this situation. We must ensure that the wrongs we have suffered do not worsen so we reach the point of no return,” declared Ghislain Picard.

As stated in a press release issued in New York on May 2 and distributed by CNW, at the end of the seventh session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues, Mr. Picard declared that Canada had lost all credibility. He attended the session with an important delegation that spoke. At the meetings, they were “able to give a clear picture of first nations' situation in Canada. Today, the Canadian Government has lost all credibility in this respect on the international scene,” he said, reiterating Mr. Fontaine's comments on this subject.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development claims he did everything he could for education. The following is from a Radio-Canada article:

For months, Mashteuiatsh, Essipit and Nutashquan chiefs have been trying to meet with the Minister of Indian Affairs...The chiefs want to move forward the negotiations that were the result of the Agreement-in-Principle of a General Nature concerning Innu self-government, signed in 2004 by the government—

The process has been stalled since the appointment [of the minister] last fall.

However, the minister...has declined the offer. “He told us that for the time being, he is not able to meet with us, despite our insistence. We need to speak with the federal government about the main issues of the negotiation,” said Mashteuiatsh Chief Gilbert Dominique.

[The minister] said that he did not have enough time for a meeting that he did not deem necessary.

Gilbert Dominique said that he doubted the Conservatives had any desire to sign territorial agreements with aboriginals when they were elected in 2006. He wonders if the fact that the Innu signed the first-ever agreement in Canada to protect the ancestral rights of an aboriginal community has not put the brakes on the government.

The Innu have called on Premier Jean Charest to try to convince Stephen Harper—

I am quoting the article; I am not naming the Prime Minister—

An Act to establish the Specific Claims Tribunal

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-30, an important bill addressing the concerns of first nations in this country. The official opposition will indeed be supporting this bill, but we will be supporting this bill in recognition that it came forward as a compromise between the government and the Assembly of First Nations. The bill is not perfect. We heard from an extensive number of witnesses who have concerns, and with the government's record with aboriginal people, we understand their concerns.

A legislative tribunal is not a new idea nor a new approach. The Leader of the official opposition called for a specific claims tribunal in his run for the leadership of the Liberal Party. He commented, I believe, if we are to do the job properly, there should be no such threshold and that all specific claims should come under the mandate of a new body”. He went on to say, “I also believe that, if we are really going to make a new start, the members of the new body should only be appointed after consultation with first nations organizations”.

We know that the Assembly of First Nations is happy with this bill, but we also know that it is very much a compromise. The specific claims tribunal is an idea 60 years in the making. In fact, in July 1947 a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons reported:

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 thereunder.

A process was put in place in 1973 and since then, almost 1,300 claims have been submitted to Canada. We all know that today there is still an enormous backlog and we hope, as do all members of this House, that this bill will substantially reduce it. The claims are far too high. In 1996 the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recommended an independent lands and treaties tribunal. I underline the word “lands” as well. Over the next decade, attempts were made to fix the system, including a joint first nations-Canada task force which led to legislation which, as we all know, was not implemented.

Each political party is in agreement that the current process needs to be improved. We hope the bill will reduce the backlogs of specific claims. They are, as we know, lawful obligations. According to the AFN's first nations perspectives on the specific claims policy and resolution process submission to the Senate committee on aboriginal affairs in November 2006:

They arise from breaches by the Crown of its lawful fiduciary and statutory obligations in respect of honouring treaty rights, managing reserve lands and other assets, and carrying out promises to create reserves.

This legislation is an important first step toward creating an independent tribunal to help resolve the backlog of specific claims.

As we have heard, the legislation puts forth four key elements: the creation of an independent tribunal; more transparent arrangements for financial contributions for dedicated funding for settlements; practical measures to ensure faster processing of claims; and better access to mediation once the new tribunal is in place.

The tribunal will have authority to make binding decisions on the validity of claims and compensations issues in respect to claims that are up to a value of $150 million. For claims already in the backlog, Canada would have to complete a preliminary assessment of these claims within six months of coming into force to identify those that qualify for assessments and sort them for faster processing. It is important that we understand the criteria of that assessment process.

For claims that are complete, Canada would then have up to three more years to make a decision to accept or reject the claims. For claims submitted to Canada after coming into force, the three year limit for assessment begins on the date that the first nation submits its complete claim to Canada. Under the legislation, if Canada fails to meet either of those timelines, the first nations would have the option to refer the claim to the tribunal for a binding decision.

Some have said that the scope of the tribunal is far too limited. We heard my colleague say that the tribunal did not have jurisdiction over claims valued over $150 million, punitive damages, cultural and spiritual losses or non-financial compensation, such as lands.

A number of issues that could not be agreed on or were not addressed in the legislation itself were dealt with in the political accord signed by the Assembly of First Nations and the Government of Canada. The measures in the political accord include first nations participation in appointments to the tribunal, the reacquisition of lands and additions to reserves, and claims that are excluded by the monetary cap.

Once again, the bill is a compromise.

In an answer to a question regarding the appointment process, University of Manitoba professor and advisor to the Assembly of First Nations, Bryan Schwartz, is quoted as saying:

...ideally I would have preferred to see some sort of formalized statutorily established joint appointment process.

Many witnesses wanted to see the political accord included in the legislation but, unfortunately, we were told that was a non-negotiable. We often heard witnesses speak to the importance of the monetary cap and the fact that it should be lifted or increased. We also heard witnesses refer to the land issue, as we have heard before, as being of great importance. We heard these were non-negotiable. We were told that these amendments would have been out of the scope of the bill and that they would have potentially delayed the bill or killed it, once again, delaying any progress on specific claims.

We would have liked to have seen the government include these measures in the legislation but we will need to hold the government to account to ensure that the measures set out in the accord are implemented and honoured.

As Chief Edward John from British Columbia said:

My hope is that the political accord becomes a living and breathing document during the initial five-year term of this tribunal. It should be perhaps revisited and renegotiated at the conclusion of the five years, when the bill has been reviewed as well.

Our party, in cooperation with the other opposition parties, passed an amendment to include first nations in the bill that do not have reserve lands. In Quebec and Labrador, five historic first nations do not have reserve lands. They should not be disqualified from the bill so we worked to ensure they would not be.

British Columbia regional chief, Shawn Atleo, in his submission to the committee, indicated his support for the bill but also acknowledged that this bill was only a first step. He stated:

In moving forward, on reform of the specific claims process, there are a few remaining issues that are not yet resolved. ...all of which are set out in the political agreement. As long as the commitments these two documents embody are lived up to by the government—in particular, the commitments embodied in the political agreement—we feel that the work that was carried out as a part of this joint process stands as a work in progress model for how first nations should be engaged in issues that have the potential to affect us.

He went on to say that “work on claims over $150 million that are outside of the cap are going to be very key”.

He urged the government to get on with the important work as quickly as possible because this was about us working together and it was about bridging gaps of misunderstanding.

Grand chief, Ed John, echoed Chief Atleo's comments in saying:

...this process should be seen as an ongoing new mechanism for engaging first nations people in the development of legislation in the future.

Throughout the committee process, we heard the concern about the lack of consultation.

Prior to coming here, I was part of a meeting that re-echoed the issue of consultation. This was a collaborative process with the AFN but it was not a consultation between the government and the aboriginal peoples as we know it to be and as it should be. However, this was the first time the government had some meaningful discussions with the AFN on an important issue, but I would reiterate that it was not consultation as we know it.

Organizations, such as the British Columbia specific claims committee, were concerned about the restrictive time frame in the introduction of the bill because there was no opportunity to take the draft legislation and the political accord “directly to the communities for their vital feedback and valuable input”.

The AFNQL also felt that in the rush to have things accomplished, Canada neglected one crucial element and that was the duty to consult with those first nations that would be directly impacted by this bill and its related measures.

We welcomed the collaboration with the AFN and the opportunity to hear witnesses before the committee but that was not consultation between the government and first nations. Because the bill was done in collaboration with the Assembly of First Nations, the government felt that it did not have the obligation to consult.

Yes, the bill's process for first nations communities is voluntary but the government tried to blame the AFN for not consulting with its own communities. That in fact happened in committee and it was not up to the AFN. It was the government's responsibility to consult.

In numerous meetings, we heard the government question witnesses on whether or not the AFN had consulted with them prior to the introduction of the bill, citing the funds given to them for regional dialogue. The AFN did not undergo regional dialogue with first nations communities across the country but it is important to note that the government should not confuse the notion of its legal obligations and its duty to consult.

We saw the government unilaterally introduce Bill C-21. We heard the concerns about the process for Bill C-47. It is essential that the government work with first nations rather than to impose measures upon them without consultation. It must also not attempt to pass on its duty and it must not play politics with the issue.

I want to reiterate the concerns around the bill and talk about clause 15 where the tribunal cannot receive claims based on events that are less than 15 years old. However, it is possible to notice that new claims are being created by the actions or inactions of federal officials regarding their management of the indigenous lands today.

I want to note that clause 15(4) and clause 20(1)(b) of the bill would limit the tribunal from awarding compensation in excess of $150 million. I have spoken to that before but it is worth noting that in Quebec it can identify at least four specific claims potentially are over $150 million. I will speak to the Okanagan in a minute. We need answers on how these will be addressed.

Clause 16 of the bill would give the minister the discretion to set minimum standards for claims submissions as well as allowable format. This power could potentially be used to stonewall claims submissions and prevent them from being accepted.

We know the national chief will be involved in an advisory capacity in the appointment of judges to the tribunal, as mentioned in the political accord, but there is no explanation of how it will work, which is deeply disappointing. Moreover, the accord, as we have heard before, is not enforceable and we question its future.

Representations have also been made that other organizations that protect first nations should be involved in the consultation process.

We heard concerns about the fact that the tribunal hearings would only take place before one tribunal member. If the position of the tribunal member is biased or whatever, there is no recourse or avenue for appeal according to this bill.

Through questions and comments and before the committee, we heard that the tribunal could only give pecuniary compensation and could not give an award for any harm or loss that is not pecuniary in nature, including the loss of something that is cultural or spiritual in nature.

According to the structure of the tribunal, we heard that there could be a risk of federal conflict of interest during the pre-submission phase for the initial three years review and the subsequent three-year negotiating period. We also heard that the decisions of the tribunal would not be binding on other levels of government. Provincial and territorial governments would participate only on a voluntary basis. I think we need to move forward on that.

We also heard from women's groups that the strategy does not include strengthening the role of aboriginal women as it relates to land claims. I accept responsibility for that because one of the things we did not do in the committee process was ask whether there had been a gender based analysis done on the bill. I think all of us, as members of the committee, were remiss in that.

We recognize the importance of the bill but we also question the government's commitment to reducing the logjam of land claims and finding fair, just and reasonable settlements. It has been over two years since we have seen the conflict at Caledonia and yet the government has not been willing to take action. A mediator has been appointed. I have been to Caledonia and have met with both first nations and community members. Their frustration is growing at the lack of willingness and lack of participation by the government in a real effort to resolve some of the very serious resolutions to the Caledonia situation.

At the outset of the legislative process for Bill C-30, the Okanagan Band received a rejection for its land claim worth over $150 million. The claim is estimated to be at roughly $750 million. This legislation offers the band no recourse. What will the government do for it? We have no indication of what will happen to a claim of that sort that has been rejected and not addressed.

We need to see real commitment. We need to see real leadership. We need to see the government work with the specific communities, as well as all communities, with outstanding grievances, to bring an end to the despair that we know aboriginal people face across the country, not only with land claims but with housing, education, infrastructure, water, health, economic development and human rights for first nations, including the signing of the declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples, which has not been signed, which is not being honoured by the government, and which is an overlay of the whole issue of specific claims.

We saw the government scrap the Kelowna accord when it came to office. The government ignored the will of aboriginal leaders, provincial and territorial leaders and others who were involved in the 18 month process. As I have heard some of my colleagues say over and over again, the accord offered real hope for first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples, and they tell the stories in their communities of those who cannot speak English but understand the word Kelowna and what hope it offered for them, their communities and their children.

The government destroyed that hope and showed a profound disrespect for aboriginal Canadians in that process. Instead of working with aboriginal peoples, it has tended to act unilaterally on so many initiatives. Conditions are worse today than they were a year ago and we are about to see a second day of action because of the government's actions. The bottom line is we need to see real action, real leadership, no cherry-picking and no spin.

The specific claims legislation is an important step, but there is so much more we must do as parliamentarians to ensure that first nations people, along with Inuit and Métis people, have the same opportunities that all Canadians do in this country.

Business of the House

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

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

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

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

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

Charter of Rights and Freedoms

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canadian Human Rights Act

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aboriginal Affairs

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

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

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

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

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

Could the Minister of Indian Affairs set the record straight.

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I have two further questions.

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

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

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

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

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

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

Status of Women

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

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

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

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

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

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

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

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

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

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

National Chief Phial Fontaine said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As described in the December 2007 Amnesty International report:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

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

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

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

Opposition Motion—Status of Women

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

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

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

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

Business of the House

[Ralph Goodale, Liberal, Wascana, SK]

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

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

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

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

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

Committee Amendments to Bill C-21--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on February 14, 2008 by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians concerning committee amendments to Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

I wish to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary as well as the hon. members forArgenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, Nunavut and Winnipeg South Centre for their submissions on this matter.

In his intervention, the hon. parliamentary secretary indicated that he was seeking a ruling as to whether two amendments to Bill C-21, adopted by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, are in order. He argued that these two amendments are beyond the scope of the bill and should not be allowed to stand.

The hon. parliamentary secretary went on to describe the main components of Bill C-21 as follows: a provision for the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, a statutory review provision and, finally, a transitional provision with respect to aboriginal authorities. In essence, he stated—in my view, correctly—that the principle and scope of the bill therefore relate to the repeal of section 67.

In his submission, the hon. parliamentary secretary further contended that in reviewing the legislation which has received the approval of the House at second reading, committees are limited to making amendments that respect the principle and are within the scope of the legislative proposal. Here as well, the Chair shares the view expressed by the hon. parliamentary secretary.

However, before going further, it is perhaps useful to review what the two contested amendments seek to achieve. The first is a non-derogation clause added as a new clause 1.1. This amendment indicates that the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from existing aboriginal treaty or other rights or freedoms that pertain to the first nations peoples of Canada and goes on to list certain rights or freedoms.

The hon. parliamentary secretary argues that this amendment adds a new purpose to the bill and is therefore beyond the scope of Bill C-21.

The second amendment that is in dispute is an interpretive clause added as a new clause 1.2. This clause mandates that in relation to human rights complaints, the act be interpreted and applied with due regard to “first nations legal traditions and customary laws”.

This amendment was ruled by the chair of the committee to be inadmissible because it was beyond the scope of the bill. Following a successful appeal of the chair's ruling, the amendment was subsequently adopted by the committee.

In her submission, the hon. member for Nunavut expressed the view that these amendments represent an improvement to Bill C-21, inspired by the desire, in her words, “to make sure that the rights of people are protected”.

The Chair has examined the two amendments in question, as well as the proceedings on this bill in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development with reference to the text of Bill C-21 as adopted at second reading. There is no doubt that this committee’s lengthy deliberations reflect the seriousness with which members have approached this issue.

In cases such as this one, the Speaker may be asked to review, on strictly procedural grounds, what went on in committee with reference to the correctness of a chair's ruling, or even the overturning of a ruling in committee.

As I explained when the matter was first raised:

...the Speaker acts as a court of appeal, as it were, from decisions of committees in respect of admissibility of amendments for certain purposes that they can be arguably beyond the scope of the bill or beyond the principles of the bill that was sent to committee at second reading.

In this case, I am simply being asked whether or not the two amendments in question are admissible, more precisely, whether the two amendments in question are within or beyond the scope of Bill C-21.

I said earlier that I agreed with the hon. parliamentary secretary that the principle and scope of the bill relate to the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Now, after due consideration of the procedural issues involved, I have concluded that neither of the disputed amendments, namely new clauses 1.1 and 1.2, interfere with that principle.

In the view of the Chair, the two amendments neither restrict nor expand nor conflict with the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which we all seem to agree is the principle of Bill C-21.

New clause 1.1 describes the existing aboriginal rights framework. New clause 1.2 refers to the due regard that is to be given to first nations legal traditions and customary laws in the adjudication of future complaints made possible under the act by the repeal of section 67.

In the words of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, “The bill, as amended, still proposes to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act; it still proposes a review and a transitional period for the said repeal”. In short, neither amendment introduces conditions whereby the repeal of section 67 would not take effect. Rather, both amendments provide guidance of a general nature and in a context specific to first nations.

For these reasons, I find the two amendments to Bill C-21 adopted at committee stage to be admissible. I thank the parliamentary secretary for having raised this matter.

Committee Amendments to Bill C-21

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise to respond to the point of order raised on Thursday, February 14, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians concerning two amendments to Bill C-21 adopted by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to take up too much of the House's time. However, I do feel that it is important to have a couple of items on record before you give your ruling. The parliamentary secretary shared that in his opinion two amendments adopted in the standing committee should be ruled out of order because he felt they went beyond the scope of the bill.

First, I would like to quote from the sixth edition of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms. At page 205 it states in article 689(2):

The committee may so change the provisions of the bill...other than that which was referred. A committee may negative every clause and substitute new clauses, if relevant to the bill as read a second time.

Article 694 on page 206 states:

Amendments may be made in every part of a bill, whether in the title, preamble, clauses or schedules; clauses may be omitted; new clauses and schedules may be added.

Beauchesne's sixth edition also states on page 205 that:

The objects (also referred to as the principle or scope) of a bill are stated in its long title, which should cover everything contained in the bill as it was introduced.

The long title of Bill C-21, as listed on the bill's cover page under the number assigned to the bill, is “An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act”. Therefore, the principle and/or scope are defined in this title, that is, to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The two amendments in question that are contested by the parliamentary secretary are essentially the addition of new clauses: an interpretive clause, clause 1.2, and a non-derogation clause, clause 1.1. The reason for a non-derogation clause is of much importance, as legislation must be consistent with the constitutional obligations of the Crown.

The clause is important to first nations as it is an affirmation of their rights that are set out in the Constitution and ensures that those rights are respected with respect to any new legislation. A non-derogation clause protects established and asserted aboriginal treaty rights recognized in section 35 of the Constitution. The amendment dealing with this non-derogation clause was accepted by the committee chair.

With respect to the interpretive clause, a review of the minutes of the relevant meeting reveals that the chair admitted that he had received mixed advice from “legislative people” as to its admissibility.

These two additional amendments in no way alter the principle or the “scope” of the bill as stated in the long title, that is, to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. Furthermore, the parliamentary secretary admitted himself that the said bill contained three specific items: first, it repealed section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act; second, it provided for a parliamentary review of the repeal within five years; third, it included a transitional provision concerning the implementation of the repeal of section 67.

Again, the two amendments in no way alter these three items as presented by the parliamentary secretary. The bill, as amended, still proposes to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It still proposes a review and a transitional period for the said repeal. Therefore, I cannot see how the scope or the principle has been affected.

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully request that you rule these amendments to be in order and allow the House as a whole to express itself when the bill is called for debate at report stage.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to seek a ruling on whether two amendments to Bill C-21, adopted by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, are in order. I submit that these two amendments are actually out of order because they are beyond the scope of Bill C-21 that was set at second reading.

Bill C-21 was referred to committee after second reading, as we all know, and page 654 of Marleau and Montpetit states:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

I would like to emphasize that the bill was adopted at second reading and had a very narrow scope. Namely, it contained just three specific items: first, it repealed section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act; second, it provided for a parliamentary review of the repeal of section 67 within five years; and third, it included a transitional provision concerning the implementation of the repeal of section 67.

Page 661 of Marleau and Montpetit states:

Since a committee may appeal the decision of its Chair and reverse that decision, it may happen that a committee will report a bill with amendments that were initially ruled by the Chairman to be out of order. The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage. The admissibility of the amendments is then considered by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on his or her own initiative.

This passage flows from a Speaker's ruling from 1993 when the members of a committee rejected the decision of their chair, who had ruled three proposed amendments to a bill to be out of order. The amendments were then adopted by the committee and included in the report to the House.

Following a point of order raised in the House in respect of this matter, the Speaker upheld the ruling of the chair and ordered that the three amendments be struck from the bill.

Marleau and Montpetit, on page 662, also cites a 1992 ruling by Speaker Fraser. It reads in part:

“When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is...restricted in its examination in a number of ways...it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting this may be”.

The first amendment to which I wish to bring to the Speaker's attention is an interpretive clause, which was added as a new clause, clause 1.2, to the bill. This amendment was ruled inadmissible by the chair because it is beyond the scope of Bill C-21.

During the committee's consideration of this amendment, the member for Nunavut stated:

I don't believe we are asking for too much beyond the scope...I want to take it into the House of Commons for further consideration and see how the ruling would be on that in the House of Commons.

Notwithstanding the acknowledged uncertainty of the member for Nunavut with respect to the admissibility of this amendment, the chair's decision was overruled by the committee, which then adopted this amendment.

The second amendment to which I wish to draw to the Speaker's attention is a non-derogation clause, which was also added as a new clause, clause 1.1, to this bill. While the chair did not raise admissibility concerns with the amendment, this new clause clearly adds a new purpose to the bill and is therefore beyond the scope of Bill C-21.

As I have noted, the purpose of this bill is to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Since the bill is silent on how the Canadian Human Rights Act should be interpreted and applied to first nations, I submit that the amendment to add an interpretive clause and the amendment to add a non-derogation clause exceeds the scope of this bill.

Both of these amendments are beyond the scope of the bill by attempting to prescribe how the Canadian Human Rights Act should be interpreted and applied to first nations people on reserve. Since the purpose of the bill is to bring first nations people the basic human rights that every other Canadian enjoys, I question why the opposition would want to water them down.

What is more disturbing is that the opposition was willing to achieve this goal by overriding a fundamental principle of parliamentary legislative practice. It overruled the chair, who rightly ruled an amendment out of order because it went beyond the scope of this bill. These amendments attempt to bring back much of the intent of section 67, which, of course, the bill proposed to repeal.

I believe this view has been supported by the Speaker in his ruling of February 27, 2007 on Bill C-257, which states:

Given the very narrow scope of Bill C-257, any amendment to the bill must stay within the very limited parameters set by the provisions of the Canada Labour Code that are amended by the bill...They argue that these amendments are admissible for they only make clearer the bill's provisions...However, I fear that their views are precisely what Mr. Speaker Fraser meant in the 1992 ruling...when he warned members against being led into the temptation of amendments not contemplated in the original bill.

On Tuesday, January 29, 2008 in a decision on the admissibility of an amendment that was beyond the scope of Bill C-3, the Speaker ruled:

The amendment was ruled inadmissible by the committee chair on the grounds that it was beyond the scope of the bill. It was contended that on the contrary his amendment was within the scope of the bill because it simply expanded the appeal provision already contained in the bill.

Admittedly, the hon. member’s amendment deals with this same principle, namely the right to appeal, but where it goes beyond the scope of the bill is in relation to the conditions under which the appeal may be made...Consequently, even if the principle remains the same, its scope is clearly expanded.

Any attempt to establish how the Canadian Human Rights Act is interpreted and applied to first nations people should be seen as an expansion of the scope of this bill since this clearly introduces new issues which were not part of Bill C-21 as originally introduced.

I would like to conclude by stating that these two amendments, particularly the nature of the interpretive provision, would undermine the universality of human rights principles embodied in the Canadian Human Rights Act and the very purpose of Bill C-21, which was simply to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Clearly, these two are beyond the very narrow scope of the original bill.

Mr. Speaker, if you agree that these amendments are out of order, I would suggest that they be removed from the bill, as you did in your previous ruling on February 27, 2007.

Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

[Barry Devolin, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the third report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development.

In accordance with the order of reference on Tuesday, November 13, 2007, your committee has considered Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, and has agreed to report it with amendments.

Aboriginal Affairs

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is shocking that first nations people on reserve are denied the same human rights protections that all other Canadians enjoy.

After 30 years of this discrimination, our Conservative government is set to pass Bill C-21 in order to heal this scar. However, today, in the aboriginal affairs committee, after delaying the bill for more than a year, the Liberals, NDP and Bloc are conspiring to pass amendments that will nullify the effectiveness of this bill.

Former Liberal minister of Indian affairs, Robert Nault, has urged that this legislation be passed immediately. He says that it is a way to prove Canada is serious about equality, but fellow Liberals are not listening.

Yesterday, the Canadian Human Rights Commission released a report urging support for the bill. Yet again, the Liberals are just sitting on their hands.

As an aboriginal Canadian, I am offended by the actions of the Liberals over the last year. I demand that they end their anti-rights agenda and pass the bill without watering it down.

[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?

[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?

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.