Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 19th, 2007

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think this is a very substantive motion. The mover has already admitted that the amendment is poorly worded. Nonetheless, I think it's important that everybody gets a chance to speak on this until we feel that debate is fulfilled. If Mr. Russell has a pertinent point he'd like to make, I've always found his points to be quite interesting.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

The chair did make a statement that I would finish off with the mover of the motion, and that would be the end of the debate.

The chair is going to end the debate. I feel that there has been opportunity, so we're going to move on to the question.

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

Can I ask for a recorded vote, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Certainly.

(Motion negatived: yeas 3; nays 4) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We'll move on to the next motion, by Mr. Lemay.

Mr. Lemay, would you like to speak on your motion?

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

I think that everyone has received the copy of the motion we are tabling today and which follows on numerous consultations we have held. I don't know whether you have distributed it, Ms. Charron.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Do all members have Mr. Lemay's motion?

Supply one to Madam Keeper, please. Everyone else has the motion.

Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair, the motion that we will be debating is the result of numerous consultations that we have had in recent weeks with the First Nations of Quebec and Labrador. This motion is a direct result of our consultations with Grand Chief Ghislain Picard and representatives of the Quebec and Labrador First Nations who appeared before us in the past few weeks.

Mr. Chair, I said earlier that this motion focusses on problem that was strongly condemned by the vast majority of the witnesses who appeared before us.

They told us that they all supported the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and I think that everyone here is also in agreement on this point. However, before the bill to abolish section 67 is passed, the vast majority want consultations to be held, within the meaning of the Supreme Court decisions.

Mr. Chairman, I think that everybody has read the motion that we have tabled and I don't want to spend much more time on it. I think that it is quite clear. It is direct and clearly asks the question. Ten months from now, if the government does its part, if the First Nations participate in the consultation process as they say they will, we should be able to come back before this committee and adopt, with full knowledge of the facts and with the backing of the vast majority, if not all, of the First Nations in Canada, specifically in Quebec, but Canada in general, this bill to abolish section 67.

I am done, Mr. Chairman, and I am prepared to answer any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Well, Mr. Chair, I know that a number of the opposition members have highlighted the fact that some people who have come before us have called for a repeal of section 67, yet they believe they haven't been as interested in Bill C-44.

The argument I had hoped to make in the previous round was that there isn't a bill that is more in tune with a repeal before the government currently. This is the repeal of section 67; that's exactly what this bill is. It isn't something grander than that. It's simply the repeal of section 67. So it's illogical, in my opinion, to suggest that it's anything but a repeal of section 67, which everyone has universally called for. That's what we're delivering here in this committee.

I know that the member opposite has received various viewpoints and is calling for this suspension, but this is outside of our ability as a committee. We can't just put off work on this important bill for ten months. I just can't see how this is possible.

We need to proceed. We've been commanded by our House. The parties all agreed, sent this bill to committee. Mr. Lemay's party sent this bill to committee to be worked on, amended, sent back for a vote. Send it back to the House, and then you can vote it down and you'll have a longer delay of the implementation of this section of human rights to first nations people.

That's where I'll leave it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I'll let Mr. Lemay answer the question, since it's his motion.

Mr. Lemay, please.

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

Mr. Chair, I want to respond to my colleague. When we began our study of section 67, my initial impression was that everything had already been said and done, and that we would quickly pass the bill. In all sincerity, I admit that my first surprise was seeing Phil Fontaine, the National Chief of the Assembly of First Nations, representatives of the Human Rights Commission, the Assemblée des Premières nations du Québec et du Labrador, and the Native Women's Association of Canada appear before us. They came to tell us that certain steps had not been taken and that they were not ready.

I had a long discussion with representatives of the Assemblée des Premières nations du Québec et du Labrador. They told me that even though we've been hearing about this for 30 years, nothing had ever been done to prepare First Nations for the repeal of section 67.

However, I do not want—and I say this in all sincerity— the House of Commons to oppose a bill that has the support of First Nations. They want section 67 to be repealed, but they are telling us that the groundwork must be laid and consultations must be held.

I will conclude on that note, because I want my other colleagues to have an opportunity to speak. The last person who testified before the committee was Grand Chief LaBoucane-Benson, who was from Saskatchewan, I believe. I will remember this for some time to come. She confirmed what I feared: today, June 19, 2007, First Nations are simply not ready for section 67 of the Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to be repealed until such time as mechanisms are put in place to deal with the situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Storseth, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I just want to reiterate once again that the House has given us a mandate. The consensus of all four committees gave this committee a mandate on what we had to do. We have to report something back to the House in this regard. I believe the chair made the correct ruling before. I don't mean to be procedurally wrangling here, but I would ask the chair to make a ruling as well if he sees this motion as being in order, unlike the previous one.

I also just want to make one comment. I have followed some of Mr. Lemay's career, and he has been an excellent parliamentarian who for many years has fought for human rights. It is very disappointing to see this motion, from this member, proposing to hold off human rights to human beings for what could be an indefinite period of time. We're in a minority Parliament. He has an opportunity to do something ground-breaking here. I would hope this member would opt to remove his motion and continue forward in a constructive manner, to try to bring some amendments to this legislation that he sees the first nations people want, so we can move forward and get something done on this, rather than putting this legislation off for an indefinite period of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

We will move on to Madam Neville, and then Madam Crowder after.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to respond before I go in the direction I originally intended. First of all, I want to indicate we're not commanded by the House to report. The bill was referred by the House for review, discussion, comment. There is no command by the House to deal with it.

[An hon. member]

We have to report back.

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

We have to report back, yes, but we're not commanded to approve the bill.

And we talk about human rights and human beings. When you want to talk about human rights and human beings, let's talk about water, let's talk about housing, let's talk about children with disabilities, let's talk about educational opportunities for aboriginal people, let's talk about building capacity in communities, let's talk about treating people with respect and courtesy and honouring their traditions. What I see is what Rose Laboucan says is a real effort to ram this down without any due process, any due respect for them.

I have a pile of amendments, and to say we're not acting in good faith is far from the truth. We have been advised that these amendments will be ruled out of order, that they are beyond the scope of the bill.

If the government had been genuinely interested in moving forward on the repeal of section 67, they would have crafted a bill that would have allowed for an interpretive clause, that would have allowed for a non-derogation clause, that would have allowed for capacity-building in it, that would have allowed for respect for aboriginal and treaty rights. It would have talked about first nations legal traditions and customary laws, particularly the balancing. This is the key to it, the balancing of individual rights and interests against collective rights and interests.

So we are not prepared to ram this down anybody's throat. We believe there should be a comprehensive bill. Last week I made the suggestion that the bill be recrafted in a manner so that it could be amended, so that it could include the interpretive clause, so it could include the issues of collective and individual rights, so it could include legal traditions and customary laws. I haven't seen the government come back with anything.

I spoke with the parliamentary secretary, who indicated to me yesterday that he would be coming back with some proposal. We haven't received any proposal. We've been prepared to work in good faith. We support human rights. We are a party of human rights. I don't believe there's anybody around this table who doesn't support human rights. But we also are respectful of first nations people, and we will not be party, without knowing the implications, to ramming something down their throats that they are so vocal and insistent is wrong for them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Madam Crowder, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a couple of comments.

One comment was that this bill was sent to committee after second reading. My understanding of parliamentary process is that when a bill comes before a committee, we as responsible parliamentarians are obliged to then hear from people about the consequences of the proposed legislation. My understanding, as well, is that as responsible parliamentarians, we need to listen for impacts and consequences, whether they are intended or not. After hearing from so many different witnesses who talked about those impacts and consequences, I don't see how we can responsibly proceed with the bill as it is.

I would argue that part of our role as elected representatives is to look at those anticipated consequences. When we've heard, almost without exception, that people are concerned about the impacts on their communities, I don't see how we can disregard that testimony. I just don't see how we can do it. What we would be doing in fact is discounting all of those people who came before us and said please do not implement this legislation without appropriate consultation. We would actually be saying to all of those witnesses who came before us that their words didn't matter. We would say to all those witnesses who came before us, who know their communities, who live in their communities, who work with people day to day, that their words didn't matter. So I don't see, as a responsible elected representative, how we can completely disregard testimony that comes before us.

We know that our hands are virtually tied in terms of amending this piece of legislation in order to reflect the testimony that we heard from people. So we are truly boxed in. We either support a piece of legislation that the people who would be directly impacted by it are telling us could have consequences that we don't know about, or we can defeat the legislation and still be in limbo, because we all support the repeal of section 67 as long as it's done in a respectful or appropriate manner, or we can proceed with Monsieur Lemay's motion.

I would argue that out of the options that we have available to us at this point in time, the most respectful way to proceed would be to support Monsieur Lemay's motion and to have that appropriate consultation happen so that we can help stave off some of the consequences that we've seen in Bill C-31, that we've now seen with the Sharon McIvor case, that we've seen with other cases, like Ipperwash, in which people's rights have been violated. So I argue that in order to be respectful, we do need to take into consideration the passionate testimony that we often heard from some witnesses.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I guess the chair would just like to respond to that by asking if you will ever really know all of the implications. It doesn't matter how long you consult with the aboriginal community, there are always going to be unknown implications of acts in this country, no matter what the topic is. So that is the issue. You can go into clause-by-clause, deal with it, and then move on to your amendments, and then change the length of time for implementation, and deal with it in that respect.

We will move on to Madam Karetak-Lindell, please.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you.

Just to comment on what you said about how we'll never know all the implications of any policy or legislation, that doesn't mean that we don't go with what we know. We've heard from enough witnesses using Bill C-31 as an example of what can happen when you don't try to mitigate some of the consequences that are going to definitely come about, and you know that hasn't been done.

Going back to some of the comments that Mr. Storseth made about being procedurally correct, I'm not a lawyer and I don't follow court cases, but sometimes a case can go exactly by the book, all the right procedures, the people in the courtroom following everything. But is justice done at the end of the day when you don't take into consideration the people who are involved?

Let's use child custody cases as an example. I sat on a special committee on child custody cases. Talk about hearing painful witnesses' stories. It's never easy when parents are fighting over children. But if the court just said parent A gets the child without any conditions whatsoever, do you then feel justice is done, because it was a very simple statement—parent A gets the child? That's as simple as you can get. Mr. Bruinooge talked about the very simple—This is just stating a fact. Well, just stating a fact like that does not take into consideration all the conditions you should apply, whether it's visitation, whether there's money for child support, whether the grandparents can visit, whether the children can travel outside the province or state they live in. There are so many other situations that you have to take care of that making just a simple statement like that does not take care of the people who are affected by that decision.

This is the same. You can't just say this very short bill is going to take care, if you don't look at how it's going to impact the people. Again, as Ms. Crowder said, how can you as a member, including myself, not listen to 99% of the people who said there have to be other considerations? There have to be resources. There has to be a longer time to implement this. You can't take any of those and just disregard them and say this will solve everything, because that is being irresponsible.

I go back to what I used to say when I used to be chair of this committee. Don't do things for the wrong reasons, because the consequences are too high. If the members opposite want to be able to say over the summer that they took care of human rights for people on reserve as far as the Indian Act is concerned, then they should want to be able to do it feeling good that they did everything possible to make sure that it did not result in dire consequences for people who are affected by it, not because they just want to be able to say they passed Bill C-44.

Let's not do it for cheap political points, because that is going to have such serious consequences, as we've already seen with our history. Why add more to the list of things that have caused aboriginal people grief and despair? Why add to that? This is what passing Bill C-44 will do, because we don't know what the consequences are going to be. We don't have any resources to go with it. I just can't see how we can not listen to all these people saying that Bill C-44 does not take care of them because it doesn't take care of all the possible consequences after that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Responding to Ms. Karetak-Lindell first, we're not drafting a new Canadian Human Rights Act. We're simply extending what people in Canada see as a very important piece of legislation—what people around the world see as a great piece of legislation. It gives the opportunity for anyone in Canada who feels that their human rights are being violated to showcase that before a tribunal.

You said that somehow this is going to have negative consequences on individuals. I don't understand. If an individual within a first nations community feels that their human rights are being violated, they can bring this before a tribunal and argue their case. Now they can have an opportunity—

[An hon. member]

With what?