Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 19th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I'd like to convene this meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. It is Tuesday, June 19, 2007.

Committee members, the orders of the day are committee business. We have two motions that have been submitted to the chair. The first motion is from Madam Crowder.

Madam Crowder, do you still wish to forward this motion?

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

Yes, I do, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

The chair would like to make a statement about the motion, as the chair feels that the motion is out of order. I'd like to give the reasons that follow.

The committee is at the pleasure of the House. The purpose of the committee is to review and suggest amendments to bills through debate based on relevant information supported by witness testimony. The action recommended by this motion does not relate to the substance of the bill, and the motion also recommends department expenditures, which is ultra vires to the committee's mandate.

Second, the motion does not specifically mention Bill C-44, so it is questionable if it is relevant to the legislative process.

Third, the chair also believes that the House is the appropriate body to debate the essence of bills. The committee is to debate the substance of bills. This motion, in my opinion, crosses the line and alters the integrity of the bill. The purpose of the bill is to amend section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, not to define the duty to consult. The motion is addressing the principle of the duty to consult, yet that question is very abstract and, the chair determines, too vague to resolve.

For these reasons, the chair determines the motion is out of order.

Do you wish to challenge the chair?

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

I want to challenge the chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Okay.

The chair is being challenged. We'll be taking a vote.

Shall the decision of the chair be sustained?

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

Can we have a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Certainly. We will have a recorded vote, please.

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 7; yeas 3)

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We'll move on to the motion as presented. Madam Crowder would like to speak to it.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

At the last meeting I think I did present my case about why this motion is so important. Again, I will be very brief, because I do believe I covered the points, but I just want to reiterate that the duty to consult has been outlined in a number of court cases, and from witnesses and from a number of other statements we have heard that committee hearings do not negate the government's duty to consult. I feel that before adopting a motion that could have wide-ranging impact on first nations communities, it is very important that the issues raised by numerous witnesses be considered prior to implementing the legislation. I would urge the committee to take this very seriously.

We just saw, again, the Sharon McIvor case come out. It took 18 years before there was a Supreme Court decision. It would be unfortunate if we implemented a piece of legislation that could have that kind of impact, so I would encourage members to consider my motion very seriously and move forward with that respect and responsibility that I think all parliamentarians wish to bring to the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Does the government have a response to that?

Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the sincerity of the opinions of the member opposite. However, I'm sure she can also appreciate the sincerity of the actions that we, on the government side, are attempting to take, and that is, to offer the opportunity to people who are on reserve, who don't have access to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, to be able to bring forward their opinions and their views if they feel that their human rights are being violated. They need that option. They need that forum. That's why we're proceeding.

I can appreciate your arguments. I understand that they have value within the discourse, but at the same time, they are unable to reconcile with my argument, which is that it is essential that we bring this forum to those on reserve who aren't represented by the first nations leadership, who aren't represented by government. They are individuals in communities. And currently, they don't have the opportunity to say that their human rights are being violated.

This is something that we must do with haste, in my opinion, because it's been occurring for far too long in Canada.

I believe this is the opportunity now that we have before us as a committee. We've heard witnesses' testimony. We've heard a multitude of opinions. And I believe we can make this happen right now within the context of this meeting, if we so choose. So that's something the members on this side are going to continue to push for, all summer long, if need be.

I would just ask that we find a compromise and proceed to clause-by-clause.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Are there further comments?

Mr. Storseth.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll pass for Ms. Neville if she wants to respond.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Madam Neville.

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

Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully to the member opposite. He and I have had conversations beyond this table over this bill. I guess where I differ from him.... He just commented now that we've heard a multitude of opinions. We have heard many, many opinions here, from legal experts to first nations leadership to individuals who have come before the committee. Overwhelmingly we have heard the need to consult with first nations, to talk about the impact that the repeal of section 67 would have into first nations communities, to deal with first nations communities with respect.

I don't believe that the majority of those who came before the committee are opposed to the intent of Bill C-44, which is the repeal of section 67, and that has been our position from the outset. We support the intent of Bill C-44, which is the repeal. But I sat on the committee, as did my colleague beside me, when we dealt with Bill C-7, where we also spoke about the repeal of section 67 and the importance of it. The major flaw of Bill C-7 is the major flaw of this process and this bill.

Bill C-7 was brought forward with only a token gesture to consultation in a meaningful way, and it didn't succeed. I would say that the same is happening with Bill C-44. I don't even think there has been a token gesture to consultation, and the processes of it. We know from all of the expert testimony we've had and we know from all of the individuals who have come before the committee, whether it's been from national leadership or local leadership, that this can't happen without understanding what the impact will be on collective versus individual rights, what the impact will be on the capacity of communities to respond to it.

I think it's important that we look at a delay. Members opposite have talked about 30 years of consultation. I would argue that it's not been consultation. It's been discussion and it's been looking at the issue, but there has never been a meaningful consultation on this bill. If we've waited 30 years, what difference does a number of months more make to do it properly, so that it's not challenged in the courts?

I have here, and I've been carrying it around, the Supreme Court of British Columbia judgement on the Sharon McIvor case. We see the implications of bad legislation. We see the implications of people having to go forward and appeal. I can't help but say it: the McIvor case was done under the court challenges program. I despair for anybody else who wants to take an issue forward.

Six months, ten months, a year, I don't see what the difference is, and particularly in light of the McIvor decision and Bill C-31. We talk about protecting women and children. The minister indicates that he's going to appeal this decision, which is a protection of women and children. So there's no need to rush it, and I would certainly support some delay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Storseth, please.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Storseth is going to speak; I just want to quickly ask a question, though, and of course it's a rhetorical question.

Ms. Neville, you talk about bad legislation. In essence, what you're saying is that the Canadian Human Rights Act is bad legislation.

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

That's not what I'm saying, not at all.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Well, that's what you're insinuating. You're saying a rush—

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

No, I'm not saying that at all.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

—towards implementing bad legislation. That's all we're doing here is extending the Canadian Human Rights Act.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We're to stay on the topic of the motion.

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

Well, let me just say, on the record, that I am not saying that at all, whatsoever.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Storseth, please.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

First of all, I want to express my concern with the opposition's apparent lack of parliamentary procedure. There's no way, at this stage of the legislative process, that they can put forward a motion that simply delays it because, as Ms. Neville said, there's no rush to get this done.

I would absolutely disagree with her. I have first nations people in my communities who want to see action on this, and when you delay this a year on the front end, a year on the back end, you're delaying human rights to human beings, and that's wrong any way you put it.

We're talking to the motion here, and I feel that the motion, while clearly out of order, as the chair has ruled, which the opposition has overruled.... It's very clear that with this motion the opposition is simply trying to do what the Canadian public would not do for them, and that is give them a mandate to put forward government legislation in this House.

They continually try to subvert what we are trying to do here as a government. They have been desperate to stay away from clause-by-clause on this, because they have no amendments that can be dealt with in a constructive manner. If you have amendments, perhaps we should move to clause-by-clause so you could put those forward and we can get on to governing. That's what the negotiating process is supposed to be.

Unfortunately, what the opposition is trying to do with this motion, quite simply, is stay away from clause-by-clause, which is the direction the House has given this committee to move in. This committee does not have the authority to overrule the House on that.

Mr. Chair, I will be voting against this, and I would suggest that it's time the opposition members do what the witnesses have asked. The witnesses have overwhelmingly asked that we continue with the repeal of section 67, but there are amendments they would like to see. That is the next stage, the clause-by-clause, that's where amendments come in. If the opposition has some amendments they would like to work on with the government, I suggest we get to that point and move forward with this.