Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 19th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

If you want to speak, please wait until you're recognized by the chair.

Madam Crowder.

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

Mr. Chair, I think that last statement was a distortion of the facts. What we heard from witnesses and are hearing from opposition members, certainly New Democrats, is that we absolutely support the repeal of section 67. It's the manner in which it is done.

When you talked about the witnesses asking for the repeal of section 67, it was always in the context of appropriate consultation. When the member talks about putting the amendments forward, what we have had some opinions on, in terms of Marleau and Montpetit, is that, by and large, the amendments that are needed would be ruled out of order, because they're outside the scope of the bill.

So I would suggest that if the government were truly interested in pursuing the repeal of section 67 in a respectful manner, they would agree to withdraw the bill and bring forward a bill with the amendments that I'm sure many of us could put forward fairly quickly.

There are some avenues out of here that would allow us to move forward in an expeditious way. It really, truly is in the government's hands in terms of their willingness to withdraw the bill and resubmit a bill that's more palatable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you, Madam Crowder.

What I said in my statement about my concerns about this motion—you used the words, Madam Crowder, “appropriate consultation”. How would you define “appropriate”? That's the issue the chair brings forward. Who is that going to be determined by? What is appropriate?

Quite frankly, I've said this before at this committee, I'm duly elected to represent my constituents. I have five bands in my constituency. I talk to them and I consult with them. I'm duly elected to govern for those constituents. I do that for non-aboriginal people in my constituency also.

There's no way you can go to every constituent to find out a yea or a nay on every issue. There's election day, and they elect people who they feel will represent them well at the table to make decisions on their behalf. I think we have followed a process here, that we have listened to the leadership of the aboriginal people. They represent their people and their opinions and they brought that forward. I believe we've done that true consultation to the level that we need to do it to function as a committee and make decisions on behalf of Canadians, including aboriginals.

Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

I have a quick interjection in relation to Madam Crowder's comment about having the government bring back new legislation, which would be unprecedented.

This bill arrived at committee because of the very reason we already talked about—all the parties consented to it. So it's bizarre to now hear that the parties that brought the bill here through unanimous consent now want the bill done away with and put aside, and a new piece of legislation brought forward. What guarantees are there that a new bill wouldn't be turned aside? This is without precedent, as far as I can tell.

We have no choice but to proceed to clause-by-clause. I don't see how this motion would stop us, even though the chair has ruled it out of order. If the opposition parties are going to pass it, I have to put it out there right now that we don't see this as something that's going to stop us from calling for clause-by-clause on a daily basis.

If that's the route you want to take, so be it. But we have our position and will continue to put it forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Madam Neville.

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

We all have our own realities, because we've clearly sat here and heard very different things from the witnesses.

I would recommend that all members review the testimony of Chief Rose Laboucan from the Driftpile First Nation. I've highlighted a number of her comments, but in light of what we just heard I want to read one to you. She says:

As for the principle of Bill C-44, the repeal of section 67 I don't have a problem with, but let's talk about the process and what has to occur prior to that, instead of ramming something down my throat again. I say that as a first nations person who has had to live under the Indian Act all my life.

This is what we're doing. We're once again saying we know best, or the government knows best. We're not listening. I found her testimony quite compelling.

There is overwhelming support for the repeal of section 67, but there is overwhelming disregard and disappointment and a real problem with the process we're undergoing here. I think we have to correct the process and move forward.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Is there any more discussion on this motion?

Mr. Albrecht.

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

I think we have to come back to the basic principle of what we're trying to accomplish here in Bill C-44 and ask whether we are in favour of repealing section 67 or not. We've agreed around this table that this needs to happen, and the majority of the witnesses have said that. So I think we need to answer whether we're ready to end discrimination against a particular group of citizens that's been going on for at least 30 years.

We've also had individuals approach us, either by letter or in person, asking us to please pass Bill C-44.

Back to the question of consultation, I agree with your statement, Mr. Chair—and almost every witness agreed—that it would be almost impossible to have a degree of consensus, as it's referred to in this motion, or any degree of consensus.

Another point I'd like to make is that the motion we're dealing with right now is longer than the bill, yet we're expected to deal with it within a committee meeting or two.

There is no definition of consultation, and there is no definition of what is meant by degree of consensus. As I mentioned last time, even the Canadian Human Rights Commission does not agree with the inclusion of a non-derogation clause. There are no costs indicated here, so it would be out of order for us as a committee to approve a motion that would add unknown costs to the House.

So there are multiple reasons why I cannot support this motion before us today.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you, Mr. Albrecht.

Mr. Lemay, I'm going to allow Madam Crowder the last say before we go to vote.

Are you going to speak, Mr. Lemay?

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

Mr. Chairman, you do realize that I have already tabled a motion that we will need to debate today.

However, while I find Ms. Crowder's motion to be complete, I must tell you that everyone who has appeared before us has been in agreement about the need repeal section 67. They all agreed that Bill C-44 should be passed, except that—and this is the difference between the government and those of us who are here at this table—the vast majority of witnesses who appeared before us asked for consultations, within the meaning of Supreme Court rulings, before this bill is passed.

I don't want to go over the list of witnesses, but if you look at the blues, the testimony, you will see that the vast majority said that they wanted adequate consultations to be held before Bill C-44 is adopted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

I'm going to finish with Madam Crowder.

Do you want to summarize your motion?

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

Actually, just to address the issues around, for example, the non-derogation clause, it does say “options for a non-derogation clause”. And if I recall the Canadian Human Rights Commission's testimony, it wasn't that they were not supportive or in favour of a non-derogation clause; it was outside of the scope of their responsibilities and their authority. So the non-derogation clause is a separate issue from the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

I actually want to propose a couple of minor wording amendments on this. Under point number 1, where it says “to engage in transparent consultations”, I want to add the word “directly”. I actually have a copy for the clerk.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

The motion is to amend the wording and after “consultations” to insert the word “directly” “with First Nations”, and then after the words “First Nations” to add “organize with the assistance of”.

Do you want me to go through all of these?

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

There are two more amendments. They're minor wording changes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Do you want to go through all of them or do them individually?

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

No, do it as one block, because the intent is the same with it all.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Committee, I have to ask you whether you would allow the change in the wording of the motion, because the mover of a motion cannot amend their own motion. So either somebody else has to move to amend or else the committee must allow the mover to amend the wording of the motion. What is the pleasure of the committee?

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

On principle, we disagree with the motion, so if the mover would like to find one of her cohorts to bring forward these amendments, she should feel free.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

First of all, we have to answer whether it is the pleasure of the committee to allow the mover to at this point change the words in the motion.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

And as I said already, Mr. Chair, we're not going to consider that, so she can find one of her colleagues to bring—

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

There's no consensus, Madam Crowder, so you'll have to have somebody move that amendment.

There is nobody, so we'll deal with the motion as is.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, could I speak one last time in relation to this motion?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Russell asked that, and I'd summarize that unless it's....

Can I ask, Madam Crowder, would you like to hear more debate on this? The chair wants to give you the last word on your motion, which I think is appropriate.

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

If necessary, I'd like more debate.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Okay. We'll go to Mr. Storseth.