Human Resources Committee on May 10th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Ms. Yelich.

I have Mr. Lake, followed by Ms. Dhalla and Mr. Lessard.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

It's no surprise that I'm not a big fan of the legislation itself. But I am even more troubled by this approach, to again have this ad hoc way of doing things. This isn't a high school project; this is important legislation that would have a major impact on Canadians, on provinces, and on the relationship the federal government has with its provinces.

Ms. Dhalla says she consulted with many stakeholders from the aboriginal community, but we haven't had a chance to talk to any of them as witnesses--maybe one of them, but we haven't talked to many of the other ones. It's a ridiculous way of doing legislation.

My question for our witnesses has to do with this wording. Is this wording consistent with other legislation, the type of wording used in this? I'm concerned about the consistency, the way we're approaching this thing. Can you comment a bit on other pieces of legislation and this type of wording?

[Shawn Tupper]

All I could say is that I've not seen this particular wording used in other legislation.

[Christian Beaulieu]

What I can say is that the French version is to be found elsewhere. The English one I've not seen. What we see is “aboriginal organizations”—that's what I've seen—or “aboriginal peoples”, but I haven't found that exact English version anywhere.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

Are the French and English versions consistent? Are you saying they're different even in the wording of the French and English? We've seen that before in this committee.

[Christian Beaulieu]

When I read it, it seems to be saying the same thing.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

They're the same, okay.

[Christian Beaulieu]

But it's drafted differently. I'm not an expert there, but when you look at the two languages, it may be spelled differently. You have words you don't find in one version, but the message is the same.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

The message is the same, okay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lake.

We will move to Ms. Dhalla, followed by Mr. Lessard.

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

In terms of clarification for the committee, the amendments I submitted weren't submitted 24 hours ago. They were submitted, I would think, approximately two weeks ago for translation. Once they were translated, they were then forwarded to the committee to the clerk, who I believe forwarded them yesterday. So they were not done in the last 24 hours. They were submitted at least two weeks ago.

Thank you.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

I apologize for that. It's just that it is frustrating, and we didn't have that. We're dealing with first nations, aboriginal people. I think we have to have more clarification on how this affects them, and I ask the experts again—

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

In all fairness to Ms. Dhalla, these amendments were out here. The clerk set the time she had to look at them. We're dealing with some subamendments as we go, so that's going to take a little more time.

Mr. Lessard is next, and then Mr. Merasty.

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Mr. Chairman, it is not fair to say that this issue was raised surreptitiously today. At the beginning of our deliberations, this vacuum that exists with respect to aboriginals was brought to our attention, and we have been studying the issue since that time. We have welcomed native groups. I read the position of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples and that of the Native Women's Association of Canada. Moreover, Canada's first nations have appeared here. One morning, I believe there were six or seven witnesses who came to give us their opinion.

Essentially, they want to have the choice of opting out of that, as a nation, if they feel it is appropriate, but they want to be a part of it so that their rights will be recognized. No one should tell us today that we are going to speak on behalf of the first nations without having heard them on this issue. These witnesses told us that their traditions are different from those of non-aboriginals, and that as such, they wanted to consult all of their communities, from the smallest to the largest. That is all they want, in terms of tradition. Otherwise, they agree on the content of the legislation. The problem lies in the wording of the provisions.

That is why I find these amendments to be timely and respectful of what the aboriginal groups asked of us. We are concerned about giving them enough leeway so they can opt out. I think we are fully complying with that request.

Mr. Chairman, we have fully discussed the issue, and I would not want to limit the speaking time of our colleagues. I think that we are ready to vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you, Mr. Lessard.

If there are no further comments after Mr. Merasty's comments, I would like to call the vote. I think that would be a great idea.

Mr. Merasty.

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

To bring some clarity, the reason there is trouble with this wording is that any federal legislation in the past has been specific to either first nations, Métis, or Inuit. It has not usually been pan-aboriginal, and that's the difficulty with some of the interpretation. It's been infrequent as well, aside from the Indian Act, which is specific to status Indians, and so on. So the infrequency and lack of specificity have contributed to this.

Now, in all fairness, our side and Ms. Dhalla went through the process of getting legal wording properly done to be included in this, and that's what we've put forward.

On a final note, when the aboriginal members were here they said they would support it if aboriginal people were included. They never said they would not support it outright, but they want aboriginal people mentioned specifically.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Thank you.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Blackstrap, SK]

They want to be named in here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

That point's not relevant right now. We're talking about the motion that's been brought forward, so it doesn't matter whether they want to be named or not.

Mr. Lake is next, for a last short comment.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

We heard the sponsor say she consulted widely on this, but apparently not widely enough. Now Ms. Dhalla talks about consulting many groups. We never had a chance to question some of the groups in front of us as witnesses.

I'd like to know the list of first nations groups, Métis groups, and Inuit groups you have consulted. For example, did you talk to the First Nations Summit and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs about their views? Which groups did you consult with specifically?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

Mr. Lessard.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont, AB]

No—I want to hear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dean Allison]

I'm sorry, were you going to respond to that, Ms. Dhalla?

[Ruby Dhalla, Liberal, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

I feel as if we're in question period. It's great to be on the other side.

Some of the groups we consulted were the AFN and the B.C. aboriginal group. There were groups of chiefs as well. We can get a list to the committee, if you wish.

The aboriginal stakeholders we heard from mentioned repeatedly that they wanted to be included in the bill. I think any legislation--and Mr. Lake would know this first-hand--we put forward within our Parliament must be inclusive in nature, must include the aboriginal people.

[Gary Merasty, Liberal, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

It's the only hope they have.