Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on July 26th, 2007

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

This has everything to do with the motion at hand.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Chair, I think we're talking about the human rights of first nations here.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

And that's exactly what we're talking about.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

I invite the member to--

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We're dealing with.... Please, Mr. Blaney.

[An hon. member]

We're talking about parliamentary procedure.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

At the environment committee the chair was forced to resign for the same kinds of similar shenanigans. At the official languages committee the chair was removed; similarly, at the ethics committee.

You know, it's interesting, if a man always acts for a reason, what is the reason here? This is a minority government. If the outcome is the nobility of purpose that the parliamentary secretary seeks to achieve, why is he then proceeding, I assume with the chair, in such an antagonistic fashion? Why? Why are we working against parliamentary tradition and procedure? Are we really trying to achieve a better outcome for our aboriginal peoples, or is this mid-summer doldrums and a need to create a crisis in order to pursue PMO shock-and-awe communication strategies?

This committee is the master of its own destiny. The minister himself has repeated many times that he is interested in constructive dialogue. Those are his words. The Conservative MPs may laugh at their minister; I won't. I take him at face value. I believe he does care about constructive dialogue. He says it's essential.

If this is what constitutes constructive dialogue, Chair, through this process, through these shenanigans, then Canadians could be forgiven, because it's reminiscent of another government--another government at the provincial level. That was the government of one Mike Harris.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Could we...?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

This is very much on point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

You're beginning to ramble. Please stay on topic.

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

I find this fascinating.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

I can imagine you do, but this chair would like you to stay on topic.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Let's talk about Ipperwash, Chair, shall we? Shall we talk about Walkerton and Ipperwash?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

No, let's talk about--

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Let's talk about the conduct of a Republican government in Ontario--

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

--Bill C-44.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

--and its treatment of aboriginal peoples there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. McGuinty, please, Bill C-44.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'm dealing with Bill C-44, and I'm dealing with your unilateral decision to call this meeting.

This isn't surprising, and I think Canadians should be aware of this. This is Karl Rove in action. This is a transparent, identifiable, Republican political technique. It's a cheap and low-brow technique to drive a wedge between parliamentarians, to drive a wedge between Canadians, to drive a wedge between aboriginal Canadians. It speaks to division. It speaks to halting dialogue. It speaks to halting consultation.

What exactly does the government seek to achieve here, Mr. Chair? What exactly does the government expect to achieve? When will it understand that it is not permitted in minority government fashion to undermine parliamentary procedure, democratic principles, and practices that have evolved over a century? If the parliamentary secretary is so ultimately committed to the changes contemplated, why is he driving forward against the will of this committee? Why is he driving forward against the will of Parliament--to create a crisis, to seek to drive a wedge, to seek to fail?

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. McGuinty, you're speaking off the topic. The chair is going to rule that you discontinue and just deal with Bill C-44, please.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I'm dealing with Bill C-44.

Here's my final comment. If the government is really concerned, this is not the way forward. This is simply going to continue to poison the atmosphere of dialogue and consultation and consensus at this committee and in the House. Everybody in this room knows it. The staff of this committee know it. The MPs on that side of the room know it in their heart of hearts, and the staff behind the wall know it.

So I would strongly support the motion put forward by my colleague Ms. Neville.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

I'd like to remind the committee that the motion that Mr. Lemay put forward June 19 was contrary to the recommendation by the subcommittee to wait until September to go to clause-by-clause. There wasn't a word spoken at that time about the fact that we're changing the agenda, and that's what happened. So I actually take offence to the fact that they would accuse the chair of trying to move this bill forward, because I believe the intent of the House is to move a bill forward in a timely fashion, and that's why we're here.

We'll move on to Mr. Albrecht, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think all of us around this table will recall vividly the dozens of witnesses who came before this committee in the last six months. Each of the witnesses had two primary concerns. One was the consultation period, and the other was the implementation period.

Around consultation, there really was no consensus as to what adequate consultation was. Around implementation, our government, as our parliamentary secretary has pointed out, has made a significant move by extending the implementation period from six months to eighteen months. Twelve months are added there.

I have a question in regard to this particular motion that's in front of us calling for consultation. I would like the mover of the motion to clarify, are we going to first nations groups to consult on Bill C-44 in its current form? Are we going to first nations groups to consult on one of the amendments that she has proposed, or possibly one of the amendments that the NDP or even the government has proposed? Which consultation will occur over these next few months? If at the end of that time an alternate form is decided upon, will we again need to go back for another ten months of consultation?

Mr. Chair, it's clear to me that we will never come up with a bill that has every single “What if...?” addressed. There will be questions; there will be review. In fact, this bill gives opportunity for review. I'm just disappointed to see that we are dragging our feet.

No, we're not creating a crisis, Mr. McGuinty. This has been for 30 years. Previous Parliaments have attempted to change this. Governments of all stripes have attempted to change it. Why are we now suddenly afraid to move ahead with legislation that Canadians have been asking for, that first nations people have been asking for, and take the responsibility here at this committee to get some legislation in place? Yes, we'll fine-tune it as time goes on, but to hide behind a perfect solution when action is needed I think is irresponsible. We need to move.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

I'm going to go to Mr. Russell, who hasn't had an opportunity. I haven't been ignoring you, Mr. Russell, and I would like to give you the opportunity now.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I wouldn't want you to break a trend, just the same, Mr. Chair.

Good afternoon, or it soon will be good afternoon. It's good to be back in Ottawa to speak to this particular matter.

I am going to speak in favour of Ms. Neville's motion. It respects the will of the committee and the previous decisions of the committee. It respects the will of the vast majority of the witnesses who have appeared before us. But most of all, and I've heard this time and time again, it respects the will and the voice of aboriginal Canadians. That, to me, is the most important thing about this particular motion: it respects the will and the voice of aboriginal Canadians to be heard, to be listened to, not to have something rammed down their throats, and to respect their traditions, their customs, and their own laws. That, fundamentally, for me, is what this motion says.

I'm saying this as a parliamentarian. No parliamentarian, and certainly not a minority of them, has the right to dictate the lives and will of aboriginal people in this country. I was an aboriginal leader for ten years, and I fought against parties of all stripes, to be quite frank with you, when things were being foisted upon us against our will. It's not that we're against the repeal of section 67. We're against the way this minority Conservative government wants to do it, without consultation, without listening, without understanding the dynamics. Mistakes have been made in the past. We're only saying let's not do things in a way where mistakes are repeated today and into the future.

I want to highlight that they talk about noble means, noble ways of doing things. Well, what did I see before the first throne speech came down? The Kelowna accord was cancelled. What did the rest of Canadians see? The appeal of the McIvor decision and the rejection of the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples. Do you know what the worst was, from a personal perspective, Mr. Chair? You can't consult on this human rights legislation, but you want to consult before you make an apology to the aboriginal people of this country around residential schools. How crass is that?

This motion respects the will of the committee, it respects the witnesses who have appeared before us, it respects aboriginal people, and it respects the democratic process we have in place. For all of those reasons, I support this motion.