Evidence of meeting #57 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 witnesses.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Chief Commisioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Thank you very much.
Commissioner Langtry, who is our champion of this portfolio, is going to respond.
12:40 p.m.
Commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission
If I have it right, certainly, yes, we are aware of some of the concerns, indeed, whether they are about the wholesale dismantling or about specific provisions. I know where some of the concerns may come, and we've been wrestling with how you would then balance.... Or where would provisions of the Indian Act that may be contentious...? I'll use as an example that even though Bill C-31 reinstated didn't give full...as you well know, to children of children and that kind of thing in terms of reinstatement, would those then be subject to the application of grounds of discrimination?
I can say that we have internally begun the process of reviewing the Indian Act just to give ourselves some understanding of where there might be potential complaints. We've also discussed with NWAC those concerns as well as projects they're talking about doing.
Certainly, I have no idea whether the government has undertaken a fulsome review, because of course we're independent of that process. But it does speak to the resource issue. And I quite agree that for us to do that kind of full review.... And how that might in fact apply, again, is one of the issues under the need to do the balancing of the interpretive provision.
I can say that we do that already. There have been examples in which the Indian Act doesn't apply and in which the tribunal has balanced the competing collective with individual rights and interests.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll continue with some of that line of thinking. Would you see it being a good course of action to do the consultation prior to section 67 being repealed, to get a general assessment of how many potential cases there might be out there, in light of the fact that you or someone could go into communities and meet with individuals who are potentially having their human rights violated? But the individuals going into these communities would in essence be meeting with people, giving them a forum to put forward their views, which could put them potentially in further peril for further human rights violations, knowing full well that in the minority context the repeal might not ever happen.
Mr. Langtry, do you see that as something that is potentially possible? Would you feel challenged to go into a community without the repeal in place and ask people for their viewpoints on human rights violations they might be seeing?
12:45 p.m.
Commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission
As you know, we did launch a national aboriginal program, and that was prior to Bill C-44 being introduced. It took a long time to develop because we recognized that we don't have, and have not had, a relationship with many first nations because of the existence of section 67. We have developed an aboriginal outreach program or strategy, which is to enter into that engagement and dialogue, from an educational...to describe the work of the commission, as well as to learn from first nations communities.
When the chief commissioner indicated that we've embarked on that in a modest way, it's only because of not having additional resources. But it is our intention to continue to do that, to develop that, to work in partnership with a number of communities, whether or not Bill C-44 passes or doesn't pass. So we want to engage in that education, and as you know, section 67 is not an absolute bar, and we deal with complaints coming to us from reserves.
12:45 p.m.
Chief Commisioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission
Thank you.
Just to add to that, and thank you for that question, you've raised a key point, and it's going to be there whether or not there's that time scenario you were speaking of. What you were talking about is if we go in to assess impacts and people come forward to talk about what's on their minds, might they, if this is done prior to a repeal, not come forward or fear some form of reprisal? I think that might be what you were suggesting. Is that more or less it?
This is a very key part of conflict management in all society, and I'm sure specifically in aboriginal communities. The reality is that the vast majority of people don't come forward, for many reasons. So when we talk about how many complaints we might have, that is just the tip of the iceberg, which is why we're talking about education, awareness, and prevention. This coming forward and not coming forward issue is critical.
My hypothesis would be: (a) repeal the act; and (b) provide a long enough transitional period that we can create an environment of confidence and confidentiality to develop the mechanisms and the conflict management systems that will not only protect people who do come forward but will create an environment where anyone can raise these issues and come forward with confidence that they will be respectfully heard and responsibly addressed.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
I think that obviously is the perspective that makes the most sense. Government has been trying for 30 years to repeal section 67. It has failed, unfortunately. In the current governing context, in a minority, it is always challenging to pass legislation such as this. So clearly the government is calling for the immediate repeal of section 67.
How much time do I have?
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
You have seven...six...five...seconds.
I'm going to cut off the questioning. We have some other business to deal with, committee members.
I want to thank the witnesses, once again, for their valued information to this committee. We really appreciate the opportunity to question you. Thank you.
Committee members, we have a.... Yes?
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
On a point of clarification, I wanted to wait until the witnesses were finished so as not to interrupt their speaking, but I wanted to set the record straight.
Ms. Neville earlier suggested that I may have misled this committee in my comments. I want to quote for the record from the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, Tuesday, June 5, 2007.
Mr. Russell said:
The argument here is fundamentally to have a bill that meets the needs and desires that we're trying to articulate, which is the protection of human rights. The transition period, when it comes to this particular bill, is a moot point for me because I believe the bill is fundamentally flawed in terms of its approach and process.
Then I said:
So let's vote on it and see.
Then Mr. Russell said--and this is the pertinent point, Mr. Chair:
I'm there, don't you worry. I will be voting against this bill, come hell or high water....
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Todd Russell Liberal Labrador, NL
Mr. Chair, if he's going to quote, he had better quote it accurately, and that is “come hell or high water, as it is”.
Is that not right, Mr. Storseth?
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
We'll go to the business that the chair wishes to move on to.
We have a motion from Madam Neville that states:
That the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development call representatives from the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) back to Committee to present their comments on the proceedings and presentations that have been put forth before this committee on Bill C-44.
The chair wants to give some guidance on this. The chair has to determine the balance of opportunity to the public to be heard fairly and equally. In my judgment, if the chair gave an opportunity to be heard to the AFN a second time, then of course this opportunity to be heard should be extended to the previous witnesses. Procedurally the chair is of the mind that we shouldn't entertain a second opportunity for a witness who has already appeared.
The witnesses who appeared just now were government witnesses. They were not what I would call from the public.
That's the opinion of the chair, and I can be challenged.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Are you making a ruling, Mr. Chair? I will challenge the ruling of the chair.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
Mr. Chair, I think you have ruled correctly. We have a number of witnesses--
June 7th, 2007 / 12:50 p.m.
Liberal
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
Yes. One moment, please, Mr. Bruinooge.
I am going to entertain the motion as it is put forward to the committee. Is there any discussion on the motion? This is not on the chair's opinion.
Go ahead, Madam Jennings.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
On a point of order, my understanding is that you made a ruling that this motion is out of order.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
I was actually advising the committee of my opinion of this.
We'll move into the discussion of the motion as presented.
Go ahead, Madam Crowder.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
I would like to propose an amendment adding the Native Women's Association of Canada after the Assembly of First Nations.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
It very much seemed to me that a ruling was made, so I think it's incumbent on the committee now to challenge the ruling.