Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 22nd, 2007

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

There certainly has been discussion about it. There has been discussion with the Department of Justice, because the justice department in particular would be in a position as legal counsel to the Government of Canada. We accept that this is something that, in terms of resourcing, we will have to discuss with individual chiefs and councils.

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

Is there any analysis available that could be tabled before the committee? I assume various scenarios have been played out around potential numbers of complaints and the resources that might be required. For many rural and remote communities, for example, there will be travel costs involved, whether the Canadian Human Rights Commission travels to that community or whether the community members have to travel out. That money has to come from somewhere.

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has addressed those questions specifically, and we've taken steps to ensure that they will be adequately resourced to be able to discharge their responsibility to deal with the educative parts and the interpretive parts. But none of that can happen if the legislation isn't passed.

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

Is the analysis available for the committee, though, about potential impacts on band councils and what resources they might require? Has there been an analysis of it that's available for the committee so that we can consider it?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

There has been discussion about that. I'm not aware of an analysis, to use your term, that analyzes it across the country. But I'm happy to share anything we have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Minister, it is 12:20, if you wish to be excused.

I'm wondering if the other witnesses are going to stay for further questions. Does the committee want to ask questions of the other witnesses? Was there an intention for that to happen?

[Jim Prentice, Conservative, Calgary Centre-North, AB]

If I might just say something in closing, Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee members for the dialogue.

I do hope you will seize upon the historic opportunity that this presents. The country has been discussing this for thirty years, and this is an opportunity to pass this bill, to repeal section 67, and to move forward. I welcome your recommendations about how we do that and about issues that you feel need to be addressed, but at the end of the day, it will have to be through the action of Parliament that section 67 is repealed. If not now, when? If not by this Parliament, then by which Parliament?

In all of the voices that have spoken—like the Canadian Human Rights Commission or former Justice La Forest, one of the most respected lawyers in the country—there have been thirty years of calls for Parliament to repeal section 67, and this is our chance to do it.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you, Mr. Minister.

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

The parliamentary secretary ascribed opinions, motives, or I'm not quite sure what you want to call it, to members on this side. I'm speaking for my colleagues in terms of not caring about women and not caring about human rights. That is a false assumption. I clarified at the outset that we are equally concerned about human rights—

[An hon. member]

More so.

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

—perhaps more so, as my colleague says—and to do that is misleading and fraudulent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you, Madam Neville. The chair will take note of that and try to keep the discussion at a civil level.

We'll recess for a couple of minutes while the witnesses leave.

[Proceedings continue in camera]