Evidence of meeting #45 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was individual.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
But my point is that it's not only in the aboriginal community that you don't see people bringing forth complaints about their rights.
12:35 p.m.
Chief Commisioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Oh, absolutely; it's endemic to society. That was a societal comment I was making.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
Let me just ask the question, because we're talking about a timeframe: what is the magic number? You said from 18 months to 30 months. Why is it that? Why not 36 months? Why not 48 months? How do you come up with that timeframe? What makes you feel that is sufficient?
12:35 p.m.
Chief Commisioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission
We're speaking of a range principally because this is balanced and also has to do with what resources there are. The more resources there are, the more quickly one can move towards obtaining the inputs we need and developing the education programs.
We're aware that other organizations are proposing different lengths of time. I don't know that I have a more precise answer for you. The reason for the 18 months came from the case of Corbiere, and yet our sense of it is that because of the diverse number of people and communities, the more maximal period would be what we're looking for, the 30 months.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
Thank you.
Is there anything further? We have about five minutes, and then we're going to move into committee, just so that you're aware.
Mr. Bruinooge.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
For the sake of argument, I want to respond just quickly to some of what Ms. Karetak-Lindell said. My point would be to let the communities say whether they have complaints; that's what this process is all about. If the people in the community want to put forward their human rights complaints, we'll see.
Perhaps there are individuals on reserve who have these issues. We'll find out when the Canadian human rights code applies.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Nancy Karetak-Lindell Liberal Nunavut, NU
I'm just saying that things change as soon as the word “aboriginal” goes in there.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
The transition period for implementation has come into question. Also, one of the issues that have come up in previous discussion is the need for consultation.
A statement Ms. Karetak-Lindell just made reminded me again that there's a very large diversity across first nations people. How would we know when we had done adequate consultation? Would it be after we've spoken to the three or four major groups that represent first nations people? Would we need to go community by community? I'm concerned that we hide behind and make the process so long that we may never get to our ultimate goal, with the amount of consultation that's needed prior to moving ahead.
Then the second question would be, when the Canadian Human Rights Act was first enacted in 1977, did it come into force immediately on the day it was enacted, or was there a transition period to let Canadian people learn about the issues?
12:40 p.m.
Chief Commisioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Thank you.
To begin with, the consultation process was three years for section 15 of the charter. Secondly, what we're talking about in developing an interpretive provision is not capital “C” consultation as required by the government, but rather the level of dialogue and of education we need, and of lending our expertise to communities to develop local redress mechanisms, because this is so much a better way, and it is the way of the future—the way of now for us at the commission with all of our regulated industries and departments and agencies.
I know you said one more thing.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
I think you already said that there were three years of consultations. When the act came into place, was it immediately enacted and the next day it was in force?
12:40 p.m.
Team Leader, Strategic Initiatives, Knowledge Centre, Canadian Human Rights Commission
I have to check to be certain. As I recall, the legislation was passed in February, the chief commissioner was appointed the following September, and they didn't start taking complaints until the next year. So it was about a year before they started taking complaints.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
I'm still divided on the subject of positions, particularly following the Parliamentary Secretary's questions. When I look at and read—and I've read it a number of times—the Canadian Human Rights Act, it's an act that enshrines individual rights. We'll be required to include in it, or to find a way of including in it, an interpretation of and respect for collective rights, because that's what Aboriginal people are requesting from us. They think it's important that collective rights also be protected; the survival of a number of First Nations is at stake. That's what they told us.
You expect to need a transition period of 18 to 30 months before you are ready. I'd like to give you more time rather than not enough. Do you agree with me that this an act concerning individual rights in which we must now include collective rights? I don't know what you think about my assessment, but in my view it will take at least 24 months before you're ready. I don't know whether you agree with me that it would be better to give you 30 months rather than 18, but once it's set down in the act, we can't go back. Do you agree with me?
12:45 p.m.
Chief Commisioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission
On your premise that the statute is more for individual rights, the statute actually names prohibited grounds of discrimination. It also contains mechanisms that balance collective and individual rights, such as sections 15 and 16, especially section 16, which deals with special programs, which I mentioned before. I can give you more details.
I'm not agreeing with your original premise completely. We would agree that the longer the period of time we have, the better will be the whole system that is in place for local redress, education, and prevention. Of course, we'll adapt as quickly as we can, and we're ready to do that with the appropriate resources.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
Thank you very much.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here today.
This has been very interesting and informative for the committee. We're looking forward to moving forward and doing what's best for aboriginal people with regard to Bill C-44. So thank you for your attendance.
I'm going to suspend for three minutes.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
Members, we need to deal with some committee business here. I'd like to go through it fairly quickly.
We had a notice of motion from Madam Crowder, but she is not here today. We'll postpone it.
The second item I have is that the clerk has received a brief, and the question has come up as to whether these briefs are confidential. I want a determination from the committee. If the briefs are sent in to the committee, are we going to treat them as confidential?
We advertised and asked for briefs to be sent in on Bill C-44 from anybody who wants to contribute information that they are not going to be here to give as witnesses. We received some briefs with some statements, I think, in the briefs that there was a concern that they wanted to keep that information confidential. And so the question came up whether or not we can do that as a committee.
As we are a public committee, is all the information we receive public? The second thing is, can we determine that we will receive these briefs maybe in camera so that they are not public?
I am looking for some direction.
Mr. Lemay.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
No, no, Mr. Chairman, we're not going to head in that direction. We're going to conduct a public study of Bill C-44 because it's too important for us to start engaging in—I'm weighing my words—a certain amount of discrimination, that is to say hearing from some witnesses in camera and others in public. In my opinion, if someone wants to talk, he can do it clearly and publicly. So if he wants to send us his brief, he'll have to expect that it's public. Enough concealment, particularly when it concerns a bill as fundamentally important as Bill C-44.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
I am, but if someone has sent a brief thinking it would be confidential, I think we owe it to the person to offer that either they keep it and we won't look at it, or that they do it in public.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Starting today, we're going to inform everyone that evidence will be public. If someone has sent us a brief and wants it to remain confidential, I suggest we return it to him, telling him that, if he wants the committee to consider it, that report will be public. That person will then be free to decide whether or not he wants to send it to us.