Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on June 19th, 2007

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

—to highlight the fact that their human rights are being violated. I see that as a good thing.

This is an opportunity. This is the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It's something that everyone in Canada takes for granted. I can't understand why you would see this as a negative consequence for individuals and communities.

If you're talking about other groups, leadership perhaps, there might be some issues, and those have been presented. But for individuals—and that's who I'm talking about, individuals on reserve—this is their opportunity to be able to bring forward their cases.

That's why we are interested, and it's not for cheap political points, I assure you. None of us here are doing that.

[An hon. member]

You said it.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

No, you guys said it. You think that's what we're doing here? That's just unbelievable.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Okay.

Mr. Lemay.

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

Mr. Chairman, I fully understand the position of the department, the Conservative Party and those who will vote against this motion we tabled. I do not agree with it, but I can understand it.

Over the past few weeks, members of the Assembly of First Nations told me that they had waited 30 years and that they were prepared to wait another 10 months. The ten-month period mentioned in my motion isn't an arbitrary thing. I wasn't the one who thought of it and who said that if everyone displayed some good will, 10 months from now, the consultation process with First Nations will have been completed. If we comply with subsection 1(a), (b) and (c), if my motion is passed, the ball will be in the government's court.

The problem is that the department has not done any study of the impact of Bill C-44. This has been clearly stated to us on two occasions: at the beginning of the hearings, when representatives and the minister appeared, and at the end, when representatives of the Department of Justice and the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development informed us that an impact assessment had not been done.

I think that we can move forward, but we will need to show some good will. I am here to pass legislation that will make things better in Canada and especially in Quebec. If we were to pass Bill C-44 today as written, I do not think I could face First Nations in my riding and tell them that I have properly represented them.

However, if we adopt the motion that I tabled today—and I swear that I will not score election points with First Nations—I could tell them that the ball is now in their court and in the government's court as well, and that they have 10 months as of today. I am prepared to say “as of today” to show that real consultations on Bill C-44 and on the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act have been undertaken.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you, Mr. Lemay.

Madam Keeper.

[Tina Keeper, Liberal, Churchill, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to just add that I'm really appalled by the accusations that we on this side do not support human rights. And I think this discussion we have about the duty to consult has been taken out of context as well.

I'm sure you all know that aboriginal and treaty rights are entrenched in the Constitution of this country, and that the Supreme Court rulings on the duty to consult were not made because there has been an equitable history here for first nations in comparison to Canadians. There has been a call for these measures within the Constitution and in Supreme Court rulings because there has been inequity, and that inequity is best played out or displayed in the living conditions of first nations.

Mr. Bruinooge should know, as well as anybody else, that this is in the Churchill riding. Many of us represent people here, and the duty to consult is not simply about the representation of your constituency. If we want to talk about the representation of our constituency, I don't think we should confuse that with the duty to consult. I think that representing our constituents is what we're here for, certainly, but it is also to uphold the law and to impact the law so that we do our best to ensure that this country becomes a stronger and greater country.

I have a riding that has been, in terms of my representation as their member of Parliament, very clear and has articulated to me and to this committee. And I believe there has been an overwhelming majority of first nations representation here that has clearly stated that they are not against human rights. They're not against the repeal of section 67, but there are these rulings, there are these rights within the Constitution of Canada, because there is a responsibility that we have to move forward to ensure that we can right historical wrongs, and those historical wrongs play out every single day in the lives of first nations people in this country.

We cannot simply say that we want to extend human rights and ensure that they are there. We need to be looking at the living conditions of first nations people, and we need to be participating with first nations people to ensure that 25 years down the line we are not still dealing with a piece of legislation that has not had a positive impact on their lives.

For me, it is reprehensible that we even consider the idea, that we move ahead and that 10 or 20 years down the line the living conditions are worse. The reason we are here is to ensure that we have frameworks in place that represent Canadians. One of the basic tenets in terms of health and well-being is self-determination, and if we undermine self-determination by our processes and what we think is right without listening to people, then we undermine the well-being. I see that every single day in my riding.

So I think, in all good conscience, these types of accusations should cease. I think we have a responsibility to be very clear about the law and that we have a responsibility to respond to people and hear what they're saying. Petty arguments or petty politics do not have a place when we're discussing something so precious as human rights. I think we should try to move along in a way that we do what we believe is best without making these types of accusations across the floor, and if we have a difference of opinion, for whatever reason, then we do so.

We have a responsibility, as you said, to respond to what we believe is driving this agenda, and for us, on this side of the House, we accept the overwhelming majority of the witnesses and what they said.

For me, as a first nations person, aboriginal and treaty rights as entrenched in the Constitution are paramount.

We understand human rights as being part of our aboriginal rights. We had a very healthy, very good lifestyle. To discredit first nations people as not having human rights is absolutely appalling.

I think we've been very clear, first nations and aboriginal people who are in the House, that our success is largely due to our culture and to the way our cultures have lived. I think one of the things, as aboriginal people, we have very clearly said is that we don't want to and we don't have to—legally, we do not even have to—give up who we are as aboriginal people to participate in Canada.

I think this is a very important discussion. So thank you for the opportunity to participate in this discussion at this table. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you, Ms. Keeper.

We'll go to Mr. Storseth, please.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thankfully, Ms. Karetak-Lindell, I'm not a lawyer either.

I just want to make the point right off the bat that we are obliged, as parliamentarians, to follow the rules of the House. As Marleau and Montpetit, chapter 16, page 659, clearly outlines: “The committee is bound by its Order of Reference—the bill—”, in this case, “and may only report the bill with or without amendment to the House. Consequently, the committee may not include substantive recommendations in its report.” This is exactly what this motion is.

I do want to say, though, after sitting here for something like 80 days and listening to the opposition say how listening to these witnesses is not consultation, that you can't have your cake and eat it too, or your dinner and eat it too.

Monsieur Lemay considers a meeting with the AFN to be consultations with first nations on how many months they want this thing pushed back. I listened to Ms. Keeper talk about the witnesses and how important it is for us to listen to witnesses, yet they're not actually here, because these are not consultations.

You can't ride the fence on this. You can't. This is about human rights. You have to get off it and be on one side or the other. You cannot just continue to try. I at least respect Mr. Russell's position. He has taken a firm stance on this. You cannot continue to try to do what you did in government for 13 years, and that's just ride the fence right down the middle and not accomplish anything at the end of the day.

This is a golden opportunity for this committee and the people sitting around this committee to actually do something tremendous for first nations people and for Canadians in regard to human rights. If we put this off for ten months in a minority Parliament, we may never have this opportunity again.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Albrecht, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I share my colleague's concern with the procedural correctness of what we're doing. However, we haven't had a ruling on that at this point.

I just want to go back to a comment Ms. Karetak-Lindell made. I think she said something to the effect that 99% of the people who were here were not in agreement with Bill C-44 in its current form. I just want to remind all of us that the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples represents a very large constituency of aboriginal peoples. Just to quote directly from their statement: “Does the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples support the repeal of section—”

[An hon. member]

Now he's going through the same thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Please allow the witness to speak.

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

“Does the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples support the repeal of section 67? Absolutely, unequivocally. The fact that the Indian Act has substantially escaped human rights scrutiny”—which is what we're dealing with—“for three decades is unacceptable in a country that is otherwise held up throughout the world as an example of a successful and prosperous democracy.”

He goes on. These are his words:

How can we permit these grievances to perpetuate? How we, as aboriginal leaders, and you, as parliamentarians, cannot be morally moved to remedy this situation with speed, conviction, and precision is quite frankly beyond me. Sadly, at this point in our history, we know that Canada has failed to address a significant source of real and potential discrimination against aboriginal peoples in Canada. Thankfully, the repeal of section 67 from the Canadian Human Rights Act will begin to deal with this pressing issue.

Finally, he concludes:

We live in a nation that enjoys almost boundless prosperity. We in Canada are indeed the true north, strong and free. We need to move quickly and sincerely to ensure that our first nations sisters and brothers, be they youth or elder, living both on and off reserve, enjoy the full freedom, benefit, and protection of the provisions afforded by Canada's Human Rights Act.

So to go to the motion, Mr. Chair, the motion is asking us to wait for another ten months. I don't think I need to remind this committee, because I've done it a number of times already, of the numerous attempts there have been to repeal section 67. At least three of those attempts failed because Parliament was either prorogued or it adjourned or there was an election called.

So if I could be 100% guaranteed that ten months from now we would be here and this bill would proceed, I might be more amenable to considering your motion, Mr. Lemay. But with the uncertainties of our history, our historical track record on trying to repeal section 67, the uncertainty of minority governments, and the speed with which this could move forward, I cannot support this motion in its current form.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Lévesque.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I remember that as soon as the press release came out from the minister announcing the introduction of Bill C-44, the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador, the Assembly of First Nations of Canada and the Native Women's Association of Canada immediately responded, saying that they agreed that section 67 be repealed and that Bill C-44 be passed.

However, since that time, some people have said that the lack of consultation was unacceptable. I understand the principle that one nation should demonstrate respect towards another. It is not up to us to shove something down another person's throat that we wouldn't want to have shoved down our own throats. So I don't believe that delaying the bill would be bad for Canada, in terms of our standing at the United Nations or internationally, contrary to what the government fears. Perhaps a delay would even be more favourably received. In our capacity as parliamentarians, perhaps we have found all the solutions to truly implement the bill in a respectful manner. However, it is not up to us to decide by ourselves whether or not to consult people. They will perhaps come to the same conclusions that we did. At least, we will have respected the First Nations. They are entitled to such respect. Then, even if there is not unanimous agreement, we could propose the repeal of section 67 in the most reasonable manner possible. There will no longer be protests that people were not consulted. And so, Mr. Chairman, the consultations would be justified.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I'm going to go to Mr. Bruinooge and then Mr. Russell. Then I'll finish with Mr. Lemay and Ms. Neville.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I will go back to a few of the comments. Speaking to consultation, clearly we have heard from a number of witnesses. In hearing Ms. Karetak-Lindell speak to it, 99.9% of them were carrying her position. Obviously that wasn't the case. We heard from a number of individuals who in their testimony talked about how we could proceed with the bill with some amendments. Many called for a longer transition period, and this is an amendment that can be brought forward.

I can quote one of the most senior professors in Canada, Larry Chartrand, in relation to aboriginal issues. He was very supportive of the bill. I'll note that he did call for a longer transition period. But he talked about how an interpretive provision would in fact water down the very treaty rights that are so essential to be maintained in Canada. Those are entrenched in the Constitution, so there is another argument on the front of the interpretive provision. We're talking about something that is entrenched in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As a learned professor from my home city, his arguement was that an interpretive provision would very likely be watered down. When you put finite words on describing someone's rights, you are not taking into account any evolution that might occur in the jurisprudence subsequent to that. I think that was a valid point.

We live under the Constitution in Canada. Nobody here is arguing that this bill we're bringing forward is going to trump the Constitution. It won't. It's not going to. As such, I believe we can go to clause-by-clause. I agree with the arguments that were made in relation to how this motion should be out of order.

Mr. Chair, if I could conclude, it would be on the topic of the individual. The individual is often the minority. It's the minority for which human rights are essential. We have minority groups that have brought their case before the Canadian Human Rights Commission and have had rights extended to them. Everyone before this committee can look back into our history and see multiple situations....

It is individuals who might not share the opinion of leadership in first nations communities who are the very individuals we need to offer the opportunity to voice their complaints. That is the biggest reason I am such an advocate for this legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you, Mr. Bruinooge.

We'll go on to Mr. Russell, please.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to speak to the motion, and in favour of the motion.

The motion is predicated on the fact that we will repeal section 67. The motion speaks to consultation. On those two very basic premises I support this particular motion. It is based on repealing section 67 and it's based on consultation.

It should be noted, I believe, that when we talk about consultation, the government seems to have the notion that we could never come out of consultation with any positive impact or any positive recommendations, that consultation is some process that leads nowhere, but in fact that is not the case. The Supreme Court of Canada has said that this is the law and the government has a duty to consult. In fact, I would say that the government is a bit hypocritical on this particular point, because they say we don't need consultation on Bill C-44 but we will consult in the drafting of new legislation when it comes to specific claims. That announcement was made last week.

Without having an argument about the two pieces of legislation, or the two directions we're going in, I would think that this particular bill or this repeal requires consultation just as much as consultation is required on the drafting of a bill to deal with specific claims or a specific claims tribunal and process.

At the end of the day, if we're going to respect human rights, we have to respect the duty to consult. We have to respect self-government. We have to respect the impact it's going to have on communities. If you don't, you're in essence trampling on human rights themselves when you don't do that. You can't separate the individual from the aboriginal community and the duty that the Crown owes to both the community and individuals. You can't separate them in such stark contrast.

This is why we are in the conundrum in which we find ourselves after just a few short months of the Conservative government. The relationship with aboriginal people has been very tense. We all know that. We have had a number of blockades already. There is a call for a day of action. The government is trying to put in place some mechanisms to cool this down, but the essence of this, Mr. Chair, is a relationship issue. It is a relationship issue. If the government proceeds in the way they want on this particular bill and in other venues, the relationship will only deteriorate.

What we're asking in Mr. Lemay's motion is to try to heal that relationship in some way by respecting what the aboriginal voices have said at this committee table and in public, and ten months seems to me to be a reasonable amount of time in order to hold a consultative process.

What I like about this particular motion is that it's not too prescriptive in terms of how that consultation process would take place or what would be involved in the consultative process because, again, if we're going to be respectful, and if the government would honour the direction the committee may give today, then they would sit down with the respective organizations and design a consultative process that is, in itself, respectful and doesn't prescribe too much.

For all those reasons, I would certainly support this motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Madam Neville.

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

Mr. Russell has pre-empted some of what I wanted to say, Mr. Chair, but I too am struck by the fact that the government chooses to do one thing on the one hand and something else on the other.

Mr. Albrecht mentioned the possibility that we will not be here over a period of time to deal with this. I hope we'll be here to deal with the legislation that's been brought out of the land claims thing, and I hope the government introduced that process in good faith with an idea of introducing legislation to address the specific claims. As part of that process, the minister has recognized the importance of the consultation. He has already begun a consultation process with the leadership of the aboriginal communities, and he understands—I was at the announcement—that the consultation on the land claims issue will take place over the next number of months. I don't understand why he can't acknowledge the importance of the consultation over this issue, so we understand the consequences of it.

Mr. Chair, I'm repeating myself, but I think it's important. We came in good faith, we worked in good faith, we developed amendments. What we have subsequently learned is that the only amendment we can bring forward to this bill is to extend the time period from six months to whatever. That is not sufficient, based on what we've heard from the Human Rights Commission, from the aboriginal leadership, from the individual communities. It's not sufficient.

If the government had chosen to bring back another piece of legislation, we certainly would have been open to it. Mr. Bruinooge advised me last week that they were looking at bringing forward some proposal. We waited for it. Nothing has come forward. The only thing we can do with the legislation as it is at the present time is to extend the period of time.

So I want to reiterate, we will work in good faith to repeal section 67; we support the intent of doing so. If we are here in ten months, we will do everything in our power, speaking for our party, to move the agenda forward, but we believe strongly that a consultation process has to take place. We have to look at the whole issue of balancing individual versus collective rights. We cannot, as one of the presenters suggested to us, amend the Indian Act through the back door to do what we can't through the front door, by chipping away at it through the back door.

I will be supporting this motion put forward by Mr. Lemay. Should it pass, we will continue to work in good faith with the consultation process and with the ultimate repeal of section 67.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Madam Crowder, and then I'm going to—

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, if I could just respond to some of the aspersions that were made....

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I've got a list and I've got to stay with this.