Bill C-30 (Historical)

Specific Claims Tribunal Act

An Act to establish the Specific Claims Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts

This enactment establishes the Specific Claims Tribunal, the mandate of which is to decide issues of validity and compensation relating to specific claims of First Nations, after their submission to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The enactment also makes consequential amendments to other Acts and repeals the Specific Claims Resolution Act.

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

So this was distributed, there was the first reading of the bill, upon which the leadership of first nations communities across Canada would have been informed of the actual specific content, and yet at this forum in December, you say you don't feel there was adequate opportunity given for discussion and input around Bill C-30.

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

I just want to follow up on the point that this document not only went to each first nations leader and each group within Canada, but actually to each first nations person. It's clear on page 12, which outlines the next steps, that over the summer of 2007 discussions would take place between federal officials and first nations leaders, and it goes on about the process. It would seem to me that if I had received this and became aware that a process was going to be initiated, and if I had deep concerns about it, even in the general sense, I would try to get those concerns registered. I am disappointed to hear that, in your words, less than adequate consultation has occurred, because the government did everything we could have done to get the word out.

On the point of feedback and discussion, I understand that the special chiefs assembly occurred in December 2007. I'm just wondering if you could comment. I don't know if you or Chief Atleo would have been there. What was the outcome of the discussion surrounding Bill C-30 at the chiefs assembly in December 2007?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm going to split my time with Mr. Albrecht.

Actually he's holding up a document here, “Justice at Last”. This is a document the Government of Canada sent out in June 2007 to all first nations leaders across the country. It outlined much of what we were considering in the drafting of what is now known as Bill C-30 . After this was sent out and agreed upon with the AFN, we entered into a good-faith negotiation with the Assembly of First Nations on Bill C-30 . Though the drafting of a bill is usually done behind closed doors before it's presented, it was done with the AFN, and as such we as a government feel that we entered into this in good faith with the body that represents first nations people across the country.

My question to you Ms. Abbott is this. Do you believe that AFN is able to enter into that type of negotiation with the Government of Canada? Does it have the legitimacy to do that?

[Ken Epp, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

When you talk about consultation--and I think we all agree that's very important both in the creation of the legislation as well as with respect to consulting in general--how did you consult on Bill C-30 on this particular issue with the Indian chiefs you represent? Did you have any consultation with them?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

But the tribunal is not up and running yet. Once it is, when this bill, hopefully, passes, then the legislation will be in place, and the tribunal will see the eligibility of these things that you're calling for. My point is, and perhaps I'm not making it in the easiest way, that I feel that concern is maintained within the context of Bill C-30.

But perhaps we'll move on from there. One question I want to ask, and I guess it is more along the lines of consultation in general, is this. You mentioned a few moments ago in response to one of Madam Crowder's questions that you felt that binding recommendations in relation to who the judge would be should also come, I think you mentioned, from a representative from British Columbia. Is that what you said?

[Debbie Abbott]

And second, it does so by establishing timeframes for Canada's response to first nations' claims. These are marked improvements to the existing process.

That said, there are particular concerns that Bill C-30 does not adequately address. Some of these have national implications, while others are unique to British Columbia's claims situation. Without significant amendments, Bill C-30 will do little to resolve the backlog of specific claims, especially those arising from B.C.

I will return to this crucial issue in a moment, but I will first outline for you the unique history of reserve establishment that has given rise to so many specific claims in British Columbia, as well as the unique status of British Columbia first nations' specific claims in the large, much growing backlog of claims awaiting action by the federal government.

As for B.C.'s unique claims situation, in the colonial period from 1848 to 1865, Indian reserves in British Columbia were established by Governor James Douglas, pursuant to his commission from the Hudson's Bay Company and the British Imperial Crown. On southern Vancouver Island, small reserves were established by Governor Douglas as a result of the Fort Victoria treaties. In the Fraser Valley and in parts of the southern interior, Governor Douglas ordered the establishment of large reserves. When Douglas sent his surveyors out, he told them to ask the Indians to point out the lands they wanted to reserve. He wanted them to include cemeteries, hunting grounds, villages, gardens, and favourite resorts.

From 1866 to 1870, his successors proceeded unilaterally to cut back significantly, or cut off, Douglas reserves. In 1871, British Columbia entered Confederation. In the post-Confederation period, from 1871 to 1905, several federal-provincial Indian reserve commissions were appointed to complete the allocation of Indian reserves in British Columbia. These commissions were established and guided by orders in council and formal letters of appointment from federal and provincial authorities. Commission decisions to establish reserves were unilateral executive actions, as no specific legislation, other than the orders in council or treaties, was involved.

Entirely separate from these 19th century reserve commissions, Treaty 8 was signed in 1899. Pursuant to its terms, treaty reserves were created in northeastern British Columbia and in the old Peace River Block.

From 1913 to 1916, another joint federal-provincial royal commission, known as the McKenna-McBride commission, was established to adjust Indian reserves in British Columbia. Many reserves were reduced in size or cut off completely. A small number had acreage added, while most simply had their earlier allotments confirmed by this royal commission. Reciprocal orders in council by both governments approved the McKenna-McBride commission's decisions. As with earlier reserve commissions, the decisions of the McKenna-McBride commission were unilateral and have resulted in many specific claims in British Columbia.

In short, after Confederation, reserve establishment in B.C., with the exception of Treaty 8 in the northeast, did not take place pursuant to treaties, but rather through a series of joint federal-provincial reserve commissions that were established without the input of first nations, and whose reserve decisions were made without the consent of first nations. Before 1938, these allotted reserve lands, although promised to the first nations, were adjusted, reduced, and in some cases eliminated without the consent of first nations. These unilateral government actions have given rise to the many historical grievances to be resolved as specific claims.

It is against this historical context that the present circumstances of the B.C. first nations' specific claims need to be addressed. In British Columbia, there are over 200 individual Indian bands or first nations living on over 1,680 small Indian reserves.

[Debbie Abbott, Director, Nlaka'pamux Nation Tribal Council, Union of British Columbia Indian Chiefs]

Good afternoon.

I am Debbie Abbott. I'm a member of the social development committee for the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

I would like to thank you for inviting me to make this presentation to you today on behalf of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

With me I have Jody Woods, who is a member of the research staff of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs.

We did bring a bit of a presentation. Because of the length of time, I will just make a few comments from our paper. We have copies for the committee as well. I'll get right into our presentation.

First of all, I'd like to quickly go over the history of specific claims research and policy reform advocacy. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs is a not-for-profit organization representing over 80 first nation communities in British Columbia. Our goal is to improve intertribal relationships through common strategies to protect our aboriginal title and rights.

We also strive to support indigenous peoples at regional, national, and international forums, and continue to defend our aboriginal title through the revival of our way of life politically, legally, socially, economically, and spiritually.

The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs houses the oldest, largest, and most experienced specific claims research program in the province of British Columbia. It provides research services to any first nation that provides us with a mandate.

In addition to our ongoing specific claims research projects, we focus on providing B.C. first nations with up-to-date information on specific claims and policy reform, and since our inception we have worked tirelessly for the fair, just, and timely resolution of B.C.'s specific claims.

For more than 20 years now, first nations have sought an independent and impartial process for the resolution of their historical claims. The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs has been at the forefront of this effort.

The three fundamental failings of the current specific claims process are that Canada sits as the judge and jury over its own conduct, that Canada takes as long as it likes to consider and respond to first nations' claims, and that Canada consistently underfunds B.C. for the research, submission, and negotiation of its specific claims.

Bill C-30 is Canada's latest attempt to address some of these flaws, first by establishing an independent and impartial tribunal having the power to make decisions binding on Canada, both as to whether a claim is valid and what compensation Canada must pay, and second, by.... There has been a misprint here.

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

You don't have to comment. I have a second question for you. When I look at the list, there's a significant number of files waiting in the Department of Justice for preliminary legal opinions. Some of them seem to be quite old. I'm sure there are many factors, but it does seem that the Department of Justice, forgive me, is a bit of a roadblock at times.

I'd like to just ask a question about mediation. I believe the minister said that part of the role of the Indian Specific Claims Commission has been mediation. Am I understanding that it has until December 31, 2008, to wrap up cases that are significantly far along? Bill C-30, as far as I understand, doesn't make any mention of either the ISCC or a dispute resolution process. So I wonder if you could tell us what's going to happen to the ISCC after December 31, and what provisions will be put in place for mediation.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Right. I guess I'm just imagining the judges must have to look to some type of benchmark. They must use some rationale, so I imagine there must be at least some utilization of past awards to incorporate into their opinions. I think that's maybe self-evident in the answer, so I don't need an answer on that.

Maybe I'll ask just a few questions about Bill C-6, a bill that was passed by a previous government. Could you maybe highlight some of the improvements that Bill C-30 would have over the previous Bill C-6?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Members, it's a delight to be here. I'm obviously very pleased to be here to speak to a bill that's been on the minds of many Canadians and I think especially first nations leadership for decades, and that's Bill C-30, the Specific Claims Tribunal Act.

As you ail know, Bill C-30 is the key element in implementing the broader specific claims action plan announced last summer by Prime Minister Harper along with Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine.

While federal governments have entered into treaties with first nations since this country began, we acknowledge there have been instances when the crown has not lived up to its obligations stemming from these treaties and other agreements. Bill C-30 will help right those wrongs. In doing so, this bill carefully balances the interests of first nations with the interests of all Canadians.

First nations leaders have been calling for this kind of legislation for 60 years. It has taken willing partners to finally have it become a reality. We have listened, we have worked closely with the AFN, the Assembly of First Nations, to finally get it done, and in the words of National Chief Phil Fontaine, concerning Bill C-30, “it's pretty darned good”.

This bill is the embodiment of a spirit of genuine productive collaboration between the Government of Canada and the Assembly of First Nations. We are showing the rest of the country the benefits of working in partnership towards a common goal, a new and forward-looking way of addressing historic grievances.

By establishing a specific claims tribunal with the authority to issue binding decisions, this government has shown that it is serious about resolving these long-standing claims. And in just two years of office our government has made significant strides forward on land claims, many of which have languished during previous administrations, sometimes for generations.

Last July a joint task force was established between our government and the AFN, consisting of representatives from the Prime Minister's Office, former minister Jim Prentice's office, and departmental officials, as well as the national chief's office and regional chiefs from British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan.

This task force oversaw the development of the legislation and was fully supported by a group of technical experts from both the AFN and the federal government who discussed the elements of the bill in great detail.

It's important to look at several key features of this historic piece of legislation. I want to also explain how we have built upon both past recommendations and past criticisms arising from a number of sources--the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples report entitled Negotiation or Confrontation: It's Canada's Choice; the Canada-Assembly of First Nations joint task force report of 1998; and lessons learned from the Specific Claims Resolution Act.

As announced by the Prime Minister on June 12, 2007, claims valued over $150 million will no longer be dealt with through the specific claims process. The tribunal proposed in Bill C-30 would have a jurisdictional limit of $150 million, which means the tribunal cannot award compensation in excess of that amount.

I'd like to stress a few points related to this issue.

First, a jurisdictional limit of $150 million per individual claim is a huge increase from the $10 million limit included in the Specific Claims Resolution Act, which was highly criticized by first nations.

Secondly, the vast majority of specific claims can be resolved within this limit through negotiated agreements or through tribunal decisions.

Thirdly, there must be greater flexibility for the very large claims, which can only be achieved by securing separate cabinet mandates on a case-by-case basis. Removing these large-value claims from the application of the specific claims policy and the tribunal process means that the $250 million per year of dedicated funding available on an annual basis will be available for the resolution of more specific claims.

Finally, the Political Agreement National Chief Fontaine and I signed just over two months ago commits the federal government to further discussions on approaches to claims that are outside the specific claims policy and the scope of the proposed legislation.

In summary, this bill and the accompanying political agreement were the result of a collaborative effort that included compromises on both sides. Striking the right balance can be challenging. This initiative is a good example, though, of how when two parties work together the end result will be balanced and fair for everyone. In light of this collaborative process, I would suggest, and I hope, that we can move forward quickly with this bill without amendments.

I have heard some concerns expressed that $250 million per year will not be sufficient to pay for both negotiated settlement agreements and compensation awards issued by the tribunal. As I mentioned, because large-value claims will not be paid out of this dedicated funding and because the federal government retains the ability to have funds paid with interest in installments over a five-year period, I am confident that the funding set aside for the resolution of specific claims will be sufficient.

Lastly, there will be a five-year review of the legislation, which will provide an opportunity to examine whether sufficient funds have been made available.

I would like to spend some time discussing the ineligibility of claims based on treaty rights related to activities of an ongoing and variable nature, such as harvesting rights, to be filed with the tribunal. Let me be clear: these kinds of claims are not being accepted for negotiations under the specific claims policy. The fact that the bill precludes the filing of these grievances as specific claims is not a narrowing of the application of the policy; rather, it's a necessary clarification.

The specific claims policy was designed to deal with historic grievances, with a view to settling outstanding debts and obligations in a final manner. The specific claims process is simply not the appropriate forum to deal with the broader issues of ongoing treaty rights, which are part and parcel of our ongoing relationship with first nations. I'm happy to talk about some of the other initiatives that we have going in British Columbia and elsewhere if members would like to do so.

We do recognize the importance of this issue. For that reason, the political agreement contains a commitment to work together on a joint approach to address other treaty issues not dealt with in the bill or the specific claims policy. This joint engagement will begin with a national historic treaty conference taking place this coming March.

Although the tribunal will hear all varieties of specific claims, including those related to lands, it will only award monetary compensation. First nations may choose to use the money they receive to purchase land on a willing buyer and willing seller basis. As set out in the political agreement, any lands purchased with such funds would have a priority status for addition to reserve.

The first nation interest in the land that was the subject of this specific claim will be released at the time of the tribunal decision. Because so much of the land that is the subject of specific claims is now in the hands of third parties, the release provision is necessary in order to clear title to the land. I would point out that this is consistent with the approach taken in negotiated settlements. Provincial and territorial governments have a role here too. They participate in some negotiation tables, and we look forward to their increased participation in settlement negotiations on specific claims.

Our Conservative government continues to believe that negotiations are the best way to resolve specific claims.

Bill C-30 will not bind provincial or territorial governments, unless they have been added as a party to the proceedings and certified in writing that they have taken the necessary steps to be bound by the tribunal's decision.

While we respect the jurisdiction of the provinces and territories, I realize that there may be some uneasiness about tribunal decisions where Canada has been found not to be wholly responsible for the losses of the claimant first nation. I wish to make it clear that if the province or territory has not volunteered to become a party to the proceedings, the tribunal has no jurisdiction to rule on provincial or territorial liability. In the absence of the province or territory, the tribunal will determine federal liability only. However, first nations will continue to be able to pursue their claims against provinces and territories through the courts or negotiations with those parties.

This bill is designed to bring greater rigour to the specific claims process, something which, I believe everyone can agree, is long overdue. During the proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples just over a year ago, many witnesses stressed the need for the federal government to commit in legislation to strict timelines for addressing specific claims. We have done that in Bill C-30.

We've also included consequences if those timelines are not met. This legislation requires the federal government to assess specific claims within a three-year time period. The claims in the existing backlog would receive similar treatment as set out in special transition provisions. In order for the government to be in a position to meet this time period, all claim submissions must meet a reasonable minimum standard to be followed in relation to the kind of information required, as well as a reasonable form and manner for presenting the information.

If the government fails to respond to a first nation as to whether its claim has been accepted or rejected for negotiations within this three-year period, the claim will be deemed rejected, and the first nation will have the option of filing the claim with the tribunal. First nations will also have the option of filing their claims with the tribunal if three years of negotiations have not resulted in a settlement agreement, or if Canada agrees, prior to the end of the three-year timeframe.

It should be highlighted that although a first nation will be able to file its claim with the tribunal after three years of negotiations, it is not obligated to do so. The parties can continue negotiating, but once a claim is filed with the tribunal, unless it is subsequently withdrawn a final decision will be rendered.

With respect to concerns raised by the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples and others regarding resources for the specific claims process and the development of new guiding principles, I would like to reiterate that these matters were addressed in the government response to the Senate report in the following manner:

The Government of Canada will be carefully reviewing what resources are necessary to achieve a timely resolution of specific claims and accepts that the principles of fairness, inclusion and dialogue are important to the Government of Canada's new approach to settling specific claims. Obviously, the application of resources will track the new structures.

We have certainly shown that we have worked closely and collaboratively with first nations on the development of Bill C-30 and that we will continue to engage in dialogue on many other matters, as agreed in the political agreement I signed in November. We will also be working to ensure that the necessary resources are secured in order to make the new approach to settling specific claims a success.

In closing, I would like to quote from the Senate committee's report, “Negotiation or Confrontation: It's Canada's Choice”. In it, the national chief is quoted as saying:

Many Canadians are afraid of land claims. People have this real fear that if a claim will be settled, they will be dispossessed of their lands and their property and rights that they enjoy will be taken away. There has never been any desire or any interest on the part of First Nations to dispossess or deny someone else rights that we should all enjoy.

Mr. Chair, the time has come to afford first nations the same courtesy by righting past wrongs and resolving these longstanding grievances. I would encourage all members, no matter the party, to support this important legislation so we can resolve specific claims once and for all, for all Canadians.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I'd like to call the meeting to order.

Welcome to the members. I appreciate that with the votes today after question period we're about ten minutes late getting started and some of our members have not yet arrived, but I anticipate they will be here soon.

To refresh everyone's memory, we have the minister, the Honourable Chuck Strahl, here today to talk about Bill C-30. He will be here until 4:30 but his officials will remain until 5:30, for the full committee meeting, to pose questions and have some answers to those questions.

As we did the last time, our typical process is that once the minister is finished with his opening remarks, we will have the first round of questions, which will be seven minutes long, followed by subsequent rounds of five minutes. As the last time, I will be fairly tight on the time in an effort to get as many turns in as possible.

With that, on behalf of the committee, I'd like to welcome you here, Minister Strahl, and ask if you have an opening comment for us.

Judges Act

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to rise today to speak to the Judges Act amendment bill.

This bill has the appearance of being of minor importance, for it amends a single number in a single paragraph of the Judges Act; however, the significance of this amendment is indeed great.

It will create the authority to appoint 20 new judges to the provincial superior trial courts and it will allow the government to achieve two very important objectives: first, to provide increased support and access to justice for some of Canada's most vulnerable groups, including aboriginal communities, victims of domestic violence and children in need of protection; second, it will facilitate the timely resolution of specific claims.

Subparagraph 24(3)(b) of the Judges Act, which we refer to as the pool, creates the authority to appoint additional judges to the superior trial courts of any jurisdiction in Canada. The pool was created in the early 1970s because of the recognized difficulty in having to constantly amend the Judges Act when jurisdictions needed an additional judge or judges.

This section is intended to permit the government to respond quickly to substantiated pressures on provincial superior courts. This bill would increase by 20 the number of appointments authorized under this section for judges of the trial courts and thus permit the appointment of 20 new judges to these courts.

The need for additional judicial resources to respond to existing and increasingly urgent pressures in the provincial superior courts has been clearly demonstrated, especially in six jurisdictions across Canada. Those jurisdictions are Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland and Labrador, and Nunavut.

In Ontario and the Atlantic provinces, the need for more judges arises in the existing family branches of the superior courts, and is largely the result of enhanced child protection laws and a growing population. Similarly, Quebec has witnessed mounting family and civil caseloads within its superior court.

Nunavut faces serious issues in terms of access to justice for its aboriginal communities. Complex criminal trials and increasing family law caseloads have clogged the system, and over the past year the senior judge of the Nunavut court has had to postpone several jury trials and court circuits due to a lack of judges.

Judges, lawyers, court administrators and other professionals are all struggling to meet those growing demands, and maintain an accessible and effective justice system for families and for children. Despite these efforts, court delays and backlogs have continued to increase and it has become clear that additional judges are required to be part of the answer to this situation.

Each of these jurisdictions have submitted detailed statistical data outlining case volumes, trends in court workload and backlogs. Based on the government's quantitative analysis of this information, these jurisdictions and their chief justices have objectively substantiated the need for at least 14 judges to respond to these existing pressures.

In addition, the government has introduced Bill C-30 creating the new specific claims tribunal. This tribunal will have the authority to make binding decisions where specific claims brought forward by first nations are rejected for negotiation, or when negotiations fail.

As the Prime Minister indicated in June, it is critical that the members of this tribunal have the necessary experience, capacity and credibility to examine historical facts and evidence. They must be able to address complex questions surrounding Canada's legal obligations and determine appropriate levels of compensation. For this reason, the proposed specific claims tribunal act provides that tribunal members must be superior court judges.

It is estimated that the tribunal will require the full time equivalent of six judges to handle its anticipated caseload of 40 claims per year. These claims are dispersed across the country with the greatest number arising in British Columbia, and some of the most complex cases originating in Ontario and Quebec.

All provincial superior courts are currently working at full capacity, with a number of them, as I have just described, experiencing significant backlogs and delays. As a result, authority for an additional six judges is being sought to provide the trial courts with the capacity to absorb the new work of the tribunal and to address these claims on a priority basis.

It is intended that through this infusion of new judicial resources, the courts will be able to allow a number of their experienced judges to be appointed to a tribunal roster of up to 18 judges. It is proposed that these judges would sit on the tribunal on a part time basis for a period of time equivalent to the number of additional judges provided to the court. The judges appointed to the roster would continue to sit for the balance of their time on cases assigned as usual by the chief justice of their own court.

Allocation of the 20 new judges to specific jurisdictions will take place following consultations with chief justices of the affected courts and the provincial and territorial governments. These consultations will begin immediately to allow the requesting jurisdictions to refresh the data upon which their original proposals for new judges was based.

It will also provide governments and courts the opportunity to discuss the workload and functioning of the new specific claims tribunal. The goal is to be in a position to appoint the new judges as soon as possible after the passage of this legislation.

We are extremely fortunate in Canada to have a judicial system that is independent and impartial. We take for granted that our judiciary will be fearlessly and fairly deciding on the basis of the facts and the law of each case, complicated issues that affect our children, our families, and our communities.

Our courts bear a tremendous responsibility. Each day they render decisions that have an impact on personal relationships, living arrangements and financial circumstances. These judges determine how parents will share responsibilities for their child, what level of support the child will receive, and sometimes whether a child can be safely left with parental care. At times the level of conflict between family members is extremely high, which increases the risk of negative repercussions for the children involved. There are few of us who do not experience a visceral reaction when we hear the facts of some of these cases.

Our judges cannot act upon these gut feelings. Throughout the process the court must be, and be perceived to be, completely unbiased and impartial. Public confidence in our judges and a decision they render demands no less. Maintaining an impartial and independent judiciary is thus the centrepiece of our justice system and we are rightly proud of the success we have achieved in this regard.

However, the protection of important principles such as independence and impartiality has little meaning to the average Canadian when the system is inaccessible to them. Average Canadians must have access to the court system for it to be properly functioning.

This government recognizes the social cost of maintaining a family justice system that is accessible and responsive to the needs of families in crisis. There is a social cost when the system is inaccessible. These costs include demands on the health care system and the criminal justice and youth justice systems that are incurred when family law issues are not dealt with in an effective and expedient manner. We have all witnessed as well the conflict and uncertainty that has arisen from past failures to establish a fair and impartial process for achieving binding resolutions on specific claims.

As members can see, this apparently minor amendment would have a significant impact on access to justice for a number of Canada's most vulnerable communities, including children in need of protection and aboriginal communities. It is also critical to the effective functioning of the new specific claims tribunal.

I am confident that all hon. members will recognize the true significance of this bill and will support its speedy passage.

The House resumed from December 4 consideration of the motion that Bill C-30, An Act to establish the Specific Claims Tribunal and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

By the way, I must commend you on your chairmanship thus far. Through some very complex issues, you have been clear certainly to me, and that is certainly appreciated. I thank you for that.

I am voting against this particular motion that Mr. Bruinooge is putting forward.

That might come as a shock to those on the opposite side of the committee table. I would just calm down a little if it hits you too hard. Take it gently, take it gently.

I certainly am going to vote against this particular motion. Basically it's a motion for closure, and there's a presumption in that particular motion that the committee is not diligently doing its work and moving forward in a methodical, thoughtful way. Therefore, certainly I would not be supportive of this particular motion. We're doing what we're supposed to do as a committee, and we will continue to do what we're supposed to do as a committee, which is to seriously consider legislation that comes before us and to propose amendments where we see fit and to debate those amendments, and if there is a question on a particular amendment, then we vote one way or the other.

I would also make the comment that this particular motion, like so much of what the Conservative government has done thus far on this bill, is to propose a way forward that is going to be met with opposition. They're designing the process, in my view, even through this motion, that would see this particular bill fail. In fact, they have done this in terms of the first tabling of the bill without any consultation with any first nations leadership or any first nations organizations on the drafting of the bill, without the involvement or input of the people who are going to be most affected by it.

Then when the committee--by the vote of the committee, which should have been respected--said, “Listen, we have all summer, now with the break in June, for you to consult with aboriginal people, to listen to the voice of aboriginal people, and to give that voice expression in terms of the legislation”....

Remember, this is not something totally foreign. The government had just recently decided to consult on Bill C-30, the specific claims act.

So why has the government chosen in this particular instance not to consult, not to collaborate, in the drafting of this legislation, but has chosen to collaborate on another piece of legislation when they knew the obstacle was there already? They knew the obstacle was there back in June, May--let's go back to April, March. If you go back in time, it was there. But what happened? We even prorogued. Legislation went out. They came back with virtually the same bloody bill, understanding that these obstacles were still there.

So in terms of the motion, they're designing the motion for it to fail. They're designing the process to fail. It is only for some political gamesmanship. That's exactly what's happening here.

I do question at times, and I think rightfully so, the motive behind the approach that the government is taking in terms of whether they really want to see the bill repealed at all, or whether they're just putting it forward as some symbolic move that they know will never happen because they're designing the process to fail.

I would say that for those reasons we will continue our work as a committee in the way that we have carried it out for the last number of weeks and months on this particular piece of legislation, and I would vote against the motion that Mr. Bruinooge has put forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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