Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 14th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Just before we continue, committee—and I would ask the clerk to correct me if I'm wrong—we do have an option here of tabling the motion until after we've finished discussion on the issues around how we're going to proceed.

We can adjourn the debate on the motion and come back to it after we discuss the other issues that are not necessarily relative to the motion. Mr. Bruinooge is correct that some of the discussions we're hearing right now fly in the face of the motion, because they're talking about possibly having amendments, or the act redrafted, in order to make everyone feel comfortable and to move forward with the act as soon as possible, whereas Madam Neville's motion is basically just to start a period of consultation. So you do have that option.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Chair, if I could just jump in on that front—

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Bruinooge, please.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Of course, as you might predict, this motion, as I've already said, contemplates a process that doesn't allow us to immediately begin the process of extending human rights to first nations people on reserve.

We have a motion on the table, and I'd prefer to vote for it today.

[An hon. member]

Or against it.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Or against it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Okay.

Madam Crowder, then.

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

I have couple of points around this. First, a motion has already been passed by the committee that does not allow us to go into clause-by-clause until September.

My motion recognizes the fact that the committee already passed that. Therefore, there isn't going to be an undue delay, if the process here is undertaken fairly quickly.

My understanding—and I don't think that we've had anything official, and I don't know if it's possible—is that the Assembly of First Nations' proposed amendments are outside of the scope of the bill. If they are not ruled out of order here, they would likely be ruled out of order when they came to the floor of the House.

So it would take a commitment on the government's part to withdraw the bill and resubmit a new one.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

First, we should be clear that the AFN does not have the power to table amendments. They made suggestions, but they do not have the authority to table amendments. We have been using the type of language that they have some sort of authority on the committee; they don't.

They were witnesses; they made suggestions and comments on some amendments that they like. But ultimately, so that you are aware of this, the committee members will forward any amendments that the chair entertains.

Mr. Albrecht.

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

Mr. Chairman, I certainly don't want to second-guess my colleague's motives, but I have a number of problems with the motion that's before us.

First is the sheer size of the motion; it is much longer than Bill C-44. To expect us to engage this motion with any degree of vigour and come up with a reasonable solution within a two-hour period is rather unrealistic.

There are a couple of comments, words, or phrases used here that I think are problematic. For example, under number 1, it refers to “a degree of consensus”, and I think that gets to the heart of what we talked about with a number of our witnesses. Virtually every witness who appeared before us admitted that getting a consensus on this would be a pretty tall order. There are really no degrees of consensus; either we have it or we don't.

She refers to a non-derogation clause. When the Canadian Human Rights Commission appeared before us, they did not support including that.

There is no addressing of the timeline or costs of the steps that she proposes. What would the timeline be? What would the cost be?

There are too many unanswered questions for me to give any degree of support to this, so I'd definitely be voting against it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I want to bring to the committee's attention that there have been some consultations going on, because we've had a number of witnesses. We did call for submissions, if you recall, and we had three submissions presented. We called for submissions all across Canada, so there was an opportunity to respond.

There's a balance between the responsibilities of duly elected leadership, whether it's MPs or the aboriginal leadership across this country. We have heard from a number of the leaders of the aboriginal communities across this country, and I think that is part of the consultation.

The committee has to make a decision. As Mr. Albrecht just said, what is adequate consultation? That is a real question. There is a responsibility of duly elected people to represent, as they are duly elected to do.

Madam Neville.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We're sort of between, as my colleague just said, a rock and a hard place on this right now.

I want to make it clear that I and my party do not view the representations we've had before the committee as consultation. They've been representations by people who have come before the committee in response to this bill. So we do not feel that a consultation process has taken place.

I wanted to respond to your comment about the first nations or the Assembly of First Nations in terms of drafting legislation. No, it's not their responsibility, but they have brought forward a number of very important issues, as have a number of other individuals and organizations, and we actually have amended clauses. The issue, Mr. Chair, is that these clauses will in all likelihood be ruled out of order and beyond the scope of this bill. I'm repeating myself in terms of what I said earlier. We cannot support this bill without the scope of the bill being expanded.

My preference, and I don't know whether colleagues will agree with me, would be to allow discussions to take place today, tomorrow, over the weekend, or however they want to do it. And I would ask my colleague if she would allow us to defer her motion—I would prefer not to take a vote on it—until Tuesday to see what possible expansion of the bill might take place. We reconvene on Tuesday with the motion still on the floor, amended or not amended, with the possibility of other options being brought forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

The chair would entertain such a motion.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

We would agree to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

You agree, or you disagree?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

We agree to suspend. That's fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Okay. We're dealing with a motion, and I haven't heard a motion to—

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

Well, it's not to table; it's to defer.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Yes. It's to adjourn any debate on the motion until Tuesday, June 19.

Go ahead, Madam Crowder.

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

What business would this committee then do for the balance of the meeting today?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

The chair would be looking at the pleasure of the committee. There are a few options. One is that we could go in camera and talk about how we're going to proceed, or we could do it informally, out of committee, and do it on an informal basis.

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

We would adjourn this meeting now.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Yes, that's correct.

So do we have a motion that the debate on the motion be adjourned until Tuesday, June 19? Who's going to move that?

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

I'll move it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

There's a motion by Madam Neville.