Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 19th, 2007

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Okay, if you can get me on the list at some—

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

And I'll be very brief.

A couple of points have been raised. One is the notion that a repeal of section 67 will have human rights occurring on reserve. Of course what we know is it will allow people to file a complaint, but it has no guarantee of any remedy, and that's part of the problem. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination itself noted the fact that without remedy, there is no guarantee of human rights.

Of course we know that with the 2% funding caps and all the other challenges facing first nations on reserve, it's important to look at the whole package. That's why the consultation process is also important, because that consultation process can talk about some of the shortcomings currently facing people on reserve, which could end in potential human rights complaints.

So it's part of the whole deal, and to imply that a section 67 repeal will provide human rights on reserve is a simplistic notion, without the other factors being considered.

I will be supporting this motion.

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you, Madam Crowder.

Mr. Bruinooge, quickly.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

With haste I'll just quickly respond to the argument that was put forward by Mr. Russell and Ms. Neville in relation to the consultation that's being called for on new legislation being brought forward to bring about independence at the Indian Specific Claims Commission. This was something the minister has been calling for for a number of years. There's no question he had; it's been on the records for years when he was a commissioner at the Indian Claims Commission. That's an argument we don't need to make.

The point I will make, though, is that this is new legislation that hasn't been debated in the past. This is a new piece of legislation that will make an important change to the Indian Specific Claims Commission, and he has suggested that he's going to be consulting with the Assembly of First Nations and others. That's something he's going to be doing over the summer.

However, in relation to Bill C-44, and this is where I argue your point, there's been a multitude of debates, discussions, consultations, a word that is without definition—there is no definition to the word “consultation”. I know Ms. Neville just suggested there wasn't consultation. Unfortunately, there isn't a definition of “consultation”, on what that is. I'm arguing that it was consultation and you're arguing that it's not, but there's no arbiter who's deciding what the word is. So as such my argument is that over 30 years there was consultation, and that's the difference. We now have the opportunity to move forward with legislation. We have heard a multitude of opinions.

Again, I will offer up that we must go to clause-by-clause. We need to put this behind us, because, as was mentioned by Mr. Albrecht, this House might not sit forever. We are on ground that we can't say is strong, because this is a minority government. It could go to an election at any time. Priorities change.

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

Why didn't you bring in another piece of legislation?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

If I could finally respond to Ms. Neville, she has suggested that there was no proposal made. I did indicate to her that there can be a change on the transition period. She knows that she can make an amendment. The opposition members can make an amendment.

My proposal was that the Canadian Human Rights Commission, a body that is mandated by the Government of Canada to adjudicate human rights—One could argue that they are the experts in Canada on human rights. I think that's an argument I can make quite safely. Our proposal was that the interpretive language that they put forward be something that they incorporate into their policies at the commission itself.

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

You didn't give us a proposal.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

That was the proposal that I offered up to you, and it was the way we could proceed forward.

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

Then give it to us in writing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Please let him finish.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

I'm verbalizing it. I verbalized it before, and I'm verbalizing it again.

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

With cooperation of the AFN? Did they agree with such a proposal?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

They are supportive of the language. They did indicate support.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Please do not address each other back and forth. The chair is trying to keep the meeting in order.

I'm going to allow Mr. Lemay to wrap up. I'd like to make a few comments first, if you don't mind, Mr. Lemay.

It would be interesting to know the people who passed Bill C-31, because some of the discussion has referenced Bill C-31, and there is this one case that is being challenged right now. We also have to look at the number of people who were reinstated and given Indian status. That benefited a huge number of people.

The fact is, as I've said before in this committee, sometimes you have to know when the talk stops and the action begins. We have to move ahead. I'm sure there was some anguish when they passed Bill C-31. I'm sure there was debate and some people argued they needed more time and needed to consult more, but eventually somebody had to make a decision and move forward. Quite frankly, I believe that's where we are now.

Madam Crowder, when you talk about remedies for potential human rights complaints, service delivery, and level of service delivery, those types of things are going to be determined by the courts anyway and will be dealt with through those complaints that are brought forward. There are unknowns when you are working in this environment. That's the challenge. But we need to have faith that those who are implementing the laws we enact will be able to react to those challenges and come up with solutions.

The department sat here and told us they will work with first nations to implement the challenges, meet those needs, and resolve the issues. We heard that statement from Mr. Watson. I have confidence in what he said, and I believe the department is working in good faith to meet those challenges.

I'm going to leave it at that. I really believe that ultimately we can't sit on the fence. Bill C-31 was passed in 1985 by a Conservative government in order to move ahead. It is typical of a Conservative government to move forward, instead of prolonging the issues and never taking action. I believe we should start thinking seriously about moving forward.

Mr. Lemay has the last comment on the motion.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect—and I have always had a great deal of respect—for chairmen. However, I disagree with you on this matter.

The First Nations and I would very much like to trust the department. Unfortunately, the First Nations have been greatly disappointed on many occasions. I would even go so far as to say that they have been had by the department—I look forward to seeing how that is going to be translated—yes, they have been had by the department.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond to Mr. Albrecht. Unfortunately, I do not agree with him when he cites the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, representatives of which testified before us. I disagree for one very simple reason. The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples can say what they want and can think what they want, but they have no power in aboriginal communities. They cannot speak on behalf of the First Nations whose members live on reserve. Section 67, which we want to abolish as quickly as possible, applies only to Indians living on reserve pursuant to the Indian Act. That solves the first problem.

As for the second problem, there is nothing in Marleau and Montpetit that sets a deadline for a committee to study a government bill. I stress, a government bill. Like him, I too have read page 656 in English and in French. I can tell him that we have...

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

I can't read French.

[Marc Lemay, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

I can read it in English, no problem.

Marleau and Montpetit does not set any deadline for consideration of government bills. So we can take more time, as First Nations are asking us to.

They have made this request of us, and the motion that I have tabled today will reveal who was right. I hope to be here 10 months from now. Mr. Chairman, if I am still here 10 months from now and nothing has been done regarding consultations on the repeal of section 67, several people in the department and from the First Nations will have to answer some serious questions.

I think that once this motion has been passed, all the arrangements could be made to have a true consultation, to set deadlines and to approve funding. Like you, Mr. Chairman, I heard the officials from the Human Rights Commission tell us, when they last appeared, that no funding above what they already had for implementation of Bill C-44, if it were passed, had been provided for. So we will give them a chance to get ready by passing this motion.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, please note that my motion makes no mention anywhere of Bill C-44. That was done deliberately. In fact, if the government decides to prorogue the House, I want to avoid a situation whereby we are told that Bill C-44 died on the Order Paper and we must halt the consultations. With this motion, the government could proceed and nothing would keep them from holding a true consultation. The same thing would hold for the First Nations that will be participating in a consultation process.

They have told us on several occasions that they were ready to be consulted and I think that is what will happen starting this afternoon, in approximately 15 minutes, if the motion is passed. Arrangements for cross-Canada consultations will be made. First Nations would then need to come to the table, the department would have to make some decisions and if necessary, set up a crisis centre to prepare immediately for a genuine consultative process.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you. We're going to end the debate there.

Mr. Lemay, I respect your opinion.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We don't have any further business, so the meeting is adjourned.