Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 1st, 2007

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

Okay. One of the things that constantly comes up in our committee hearings is the implementation lag time. Another is the interpretive clause. The struggle that I have in dealing with an interpretive clause--and either of you can answer this--is how we can possibly have an interpretive clause inserted into this legislation that would adequately address the individual concerns of 600 different first nations communities across Canada. Do this current Constitution and the sections 15 and 25 of the charter not do an adequate job of balancing the collective and individual rights? We're all concerned that those balances be honoured.

[Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard]

I think probably the best answer to that would be that we have here.... We're probably limited to the scope of this bill, which, in my view, probably presents some limitations in terms of the concept of what a basic human right is. My feeling is that there might be different interpretations when it comes to the aboriginal communities. Different concepts, different contexts could apply.

What I'm trying to get at is that, yes, we feel there's no urgency in the matter because there are other basic rights that have been refused to aboriginal communities, such as the right to education. In this sector alone, budgets have been capped for years. Why doesn't there seem to be any urgency there? I feel that if we are provided proper space, proper time to adequately consult, then certainly we can....

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

Thank you for your answer.

The one comment or the one phrase you use repeatedly through your presentation, and you just used it now in your answer, is adequate or full consultation. Again, I'm wondering if you could just describe what that would look like. There are 600 first nations communities across Canada. At what point would we know that full consultation has occurred and that we can move ahead?

My concern is, quite frankly, that we're really holding the process back and possibly hiding behind this nebulous idea of full consultation. If you could help me understand that, it would be good.

[Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard]

I think if we can ensure that there's a common starting point here, that would probably be more acceptable to our communities. I come before you this morning with this bill, and obviously I didn't have the time or resources to adequately consult our communities. It's difficult to give a timeframe of how long it would take, and what would be deemed appropriate consultation, but we're saying here--and it was mentioned earlier--that this issue has been on the back burner for 30 years.

Obviously, it is a concern for us, too, that we adjust to the environment around us, but it doesn't mean that we would do it at any cost. The kind of approach that we've been forced into certainly means that at the end, we have no choice.

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

Is there time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

You have a minute.

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

In terms of the consultation specifically on Bill C-44, I think I can accept your statement. There were previous attempts to repeal section 67--we have had Bill C-108, Bill C-7, and Bill S-45--and we also had consultation sessions held across Canada in 1999 as part of a formal review of the Canadian Human Rights Act. That did include extensive discussion about section 67. So in those previous attempts to look at this section, in those discussions, have your communities been involved? We have to get to the heart of what we're trying to do here. Bill C-44 is the current focus, but the principle of repealing section 67 has been looked at numerous times over the past number of years. Have you had input in those previous inventions of this particular action?

[Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard]

The only answer I could provide there is that, again, I will refer to our specifics in Quebec and Labrador. Consultation at our level has been very limited--

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

In 1999, when this Human Rights Act--

[Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard]

--and the other consideration is that we're speaking about 30 years passing from the first time that this issue was brought up. Obviously, the situation has evolved. Sometimes that's not been in the way we would like, but nevertheless it has been 30 years.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to each of you.

You know what they say: The bill is “good intentioned”, but we know where the road paved with good intentions goes, and we see some of that reflected, I guess, in the comments. Virtually every single aboriginal leader who has come before us has said that this bill is deeply flawed. There's not only the matter of physically acting. I would say to my colleagues, you must act in the right and proper way. You can act to assimilate. You can act to undermine communal rights. You can act to undermine the inherent right of self-government of aboriginal communities.

As I understand it, there is a right to consultation. It is not necessarily that nebulous. The court has ruled that when something is affecting the aboriginal people or communities, they have to be consulted.

I wanted to ask this question. There seems to be a little difference in the two positions. Of course, everybody has the right to have their own position. I would say to Mr. Toulouse, you say there are six conditions that should be met for this to go forward. If all of those conditions were to be met by some amendment through this committee, if that were even possible, would you feel adequately consulted? Would that then satisfy the communities that you represent? I'm just surmising. If we could meet all those six conditions through an amendment in the bill, would that be satisfactory to you?

Mr. Picard, your situation seems a little different. You're saying we haven't met the basics in terms of consultation, and therefore we need to go back and start from a right-relationship perspective, understanding the bigger picture around collectives and inherent rights and things of that nature.

So could you just comment on that?

[Chief Angus Toulouse]

Generally speaking, we support human rights. There's no problem with the provision of human rights.

I'm sorry, I didn't get the other part.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

If we could meet all six conditions you have put before the committee, would that be satisfactory, or would there still be a breach of consultation?

[Chief Angus Toulouse]

Understanding the urgency, and understanding the need for the repeal of section 67 and the protection of human rights.... As far as we're concerned, if those six conditions were to be met, which would allow for a three-year process that would at the end of the day have something everybody could be comfortable with and understand, is something we still stand by that can deal with this matter.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Go ahead, Mr. Picard.

[Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard]

I certainly join with my colleague on the issue of human rights and the need to provide adequate protection. The only thing I could add is that so many times in the past we've seen a bill presented before Parliament, and so many times we've come before this committee and a number of committees to express concerns. Yet at the end of the day, the bill is enacted and the bill comes into force with very little input from first nations.

This is something I could have said this morning. I didn't say it, because I've said it too many times in the past. Ultimately, what I was attempting to provide for is adequate space and time to consult with our people.

One proposal I made this morning is to consider a notwithstanding clause. This is something I could have validated with our member communities in Quebec by asking if this was something that could be of interest. Does it provide adequate room for us to move forward rather than entertain the status quo? This is just an example of the kinds of proposals we could have considered.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We'll go to Mr. Bruinooge, please.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thanks to the witnesses today for your presentations.

Perhaps I'll start in order of the presentations, the first by Mr. Picard.

In your presentation, you talked about the Crown--Canada--requiring honourable processes of negotiation and respect for the requirement for consultation, accommodation, justification, and first nations' consent. Like Mr. Albrecht, I would ask for you to define how that would occur.

As a legislator, I am presented with the issue of human rights not being present on first nation reserves. As a government, we have decided that we would like to remedy that. Perhaps you could explain to us how you would envision the proper methodology for that to occur.

[Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard]

Well, I think we all know, not only on our side of the table, but on your side as well, that the aboriginal community in Canada represents a wide diversity. Many of our communities have to deal not only with the federal government, but they have to also deal with provincial jurisdictions. We also have different situations that we face.

It's difficult for me to provide a precise timeframe in terms of how this consultation would take place. Certainly in our case, in Quebec and Labrador, we have the structures that are in place that could provide adequate assistance in order to consult our communities. But again, we always have the issue in terms of adequate resources to do so.

Have we been given that opportunity in the case of this bill? No. Again, I want to reiterate the fact. Don't put us here in a situation where we seem to be negating basic human rights. It's not the case. We're only concerned with the way this process is taking place.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Picard, you did just say that you don't have a real understanding of how that would occur. You could suggest some of the practices in your home province that you've engaged in in the past. I think you're really getting to the heart of the issue. There isn't a process that is agreed upon by all people in first nations or within government that dictates how that consultation would work.

We've seen, since 1977, that there was consultation on this particular issue in 1985, in 1992, extensive consultation in 2000, and then again in 2002.

As somebody who has been elected in Canada to address issues that are occurring in Canada.... And I think all members of the opposition would agree that we would like to see the extension of the Canadian Human Rights Act on reserve, for particular issues that I'll probably get into in my next round of questioning. In light of the fact that this construct of consultation is very nebulous, how can I as a legislator not act because I don't have that concept in front of me in terms of consultation? We've all tried to figure out what it is. Thirty years--is that enough? I don't know. But today we have the opportunity. That's why we're wanting to proceed. We want to hear from you and build into our discussions what you're suggesting and what Mr. Toulouse is suggesting.

To suggest, as you did in your speech, that we just stop is something I can't do. My electors have sent me here to act, and that's simply what I endeavour to try to do.

[Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard]

Again, there are always consequences to decisions that we make and actions that we take--from a government perspective, I'm guessing, and the same from our perspective. If we have taken the time to come before you and present our case--and I'm certainly only speaking on my behalf here--then I also know my constituency, the people I represent, and I know where they stand on the issue. Otherwise I wouldn't have spent the time to come before this committee to make it a point. I think it's very important for you to understand that as well.

Because of this ambiguity between this whole notion of collective versus individual rights.... And let me state again that we are not opposed to individual rights here. We only want to provide adequate comfort between that concept and the concept of collective rights, which is very important to our communities.

All we're talking about here is adequate time, adequate space, proper consultation, and ultimately then we can come to a point where we all agree on a process leading to the enactment of this bill in a proper fashion. That's really all we're saying.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I'm going to have to close your comments now.

Mr. Lévesque.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to apologize for being late, gentlemen. It is the Liberals' fault—they brought up the issue of the residential schools. We could not miss the opportunity; we had to plead your case.

I would like to know whether you would be looking to propose amendments to the act at the end of the three-year consultation period, and whether you would require additional funding for the consultations.

[Vice-Chief Ghislain Picard]

I do not think that we are the first witnesses to appear before the committee and suggest that additional time be spent on consultations. The position of the Quebec native women, for example, springs to mind. They spoke of having enough time to carry out consultations properly. In their case, and in the case of their members and various community organizations, resources are obviously very limited.

We are not saying that human rights are not a priority; however, first nations governments and band councils are constantly put in a very uncomfortable situation when they have to choose amongst priorities for their communities. Examples abound, but I will spare you the details.

As to whether we will have amendments to propose, I would imagine that we will, given the concerns that we have raised about the bill.