Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on July 26th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

I'm going to go to Mr. Blaney, and then the final say will be Madam Neville.

Madam Bennett, do you have something further to bring forward? Okay. Mr. Blaney first.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the chance to speak to this motion, which I strongly oppose.

In life, there is a time to talk and debate, and there is a time to act. Mr. McGuinty asked what the government is seeking to achieve with this bill. I will also remind him of the will of the House. It has referred this bill to us for us to review it and to return it to the House so that it can make an informed decision on it. Over more than 16 meetings, we have heard from representatives of the communities, who have made comments on this bill.

The government's purpose is simply to seize this historic chance to extend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the First Nations. It's simply that, Mr. Chairman. The simplest and clearest response we can give Mr. McGuinty is that the government wants to extend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the First Nations.

I understand his frustration, because, in the past, the Liberals have tried to adopt reforms with the First Nations, particularly with regard to governance. Unfortunately those efforts did not produce results. Today, we parliamentarians—including Mr. Bruinooge, who is Aboriginal—have the opportunity to propose a breakthrough for the First Nations. This is a real chance. We are prepared to move on to the clause-by-clause consideration. The bill may not be perfect, but it at least corrects an injustice that has lasted for 30 years and that has made it so the First Nations are not subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That's unacceptable, and everyone here recognizes that. We have a chance to proceed today.

So let's move ahead. What are we waiting for? This is a historic chance offered to the members of this committee to send a bill back to the House so that we can at last correct this deficiency and this error.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that my colleagues have expressed themselves very well on the question. I believe there is a time to talk and debate, but this is the time to act. We have the opportunity to do that; let's move ahead.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Okay. I want to wrap up really quickly, so I'm going to allow Madam Bennett to bring her concerns forward, speaking to the motion for a short--

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, Mr. Storseth hasn't spoken to the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Actually, I've got Mr. Albrecht. Do you want to share...?

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

I have not received a response to the question I raised during my presentation, Mr. Chair.

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

I don't have to answer any questions, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Okay.

Madam Bennett first, and then we'll....

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Mr. Chair, I am in full support of Ms. Neville's motion, in that I believe this is actually about getting this bill right. It is really not up to the chair to determine what's a timely fashion. This is about listening to our aboriginal people, particularly aboriginal women, and getting right this complexity between individual human rights and collective human rights. It is very important for what we've heard from our aboriginal peoples, particularly the women.

I am very concerned that for us to feel that it's up to us, in some sort of paternalistic way, to jam this forward, before our aboriginal people feel there has been proper consultation, will only mean that we will get it wrong. Regardless of how long implementation takes, if the actual framework of the bill is wrong and flawed, we won't be able to implement what is not a good bill.

Eighteen months of consultation went into Kelowna, and it was extraordinarily well received. The people themselves felt they had got it right, both in accountability and in the what, the when, and the how. I think it is extraordinarily important now that we move forward and that by September the government be able to explain the meaningful consultations that have taken place over this time; otherwise, the will of Parliament will not have taken place in terms of what was passed and agreed upon by this committee in May and the intent of the bill and the intent of the Bloc motion.

I think it is really important, and I say to the chair that once this motion is passed, it is really incumbent upon you to make sure that meaningful consultation, proper consultation, has taken place before this bill comes back to this committee.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Mr. Storseth, and then we'll wrap up with Madam Neville.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I find that interesting. The last time this legislation was brought forward the member was actually sitting at the cabinet table, and admits that there wasn't adequate consultation.

Mr. Chair, we've had a lot of debate on this, we've had a lot of discussion on this. I have to admit that I'm just a normal person; I'm not a big city lawyer like some of the members opposite or an academic who speaks in many tongues. But what I do know, Mr. Chair, is that when I go home, when I go to my own community and talk to first nations people, I hear from them that they want this moved forward. Normal people want to see the Canadian Human Rights Act extended to all Canadians and to all human beings in this country, Mr. Chair.

I know that there are many things in this bill the opposition has said they would like to change. We have admitted that there are some things we'd like to do to enhance the legislation, after listening to and working with first nations communities and organizations, as well as after listening to some of the debate around this table.

The proof is in the pudding. There are amendments sitting in front of us, Mr. Chair. What we are suggesting is that the opposition go forward, work together, as you have to in a minority government, in a minority Parliament, and work with us on the amendments. Let's set this aside. They can keep this motion over our heads. Let's set aside the partisanship and work together to provide human rights for all human beings in this country, Mr. Chair. That is really what we need to do here. That is really what the people of my constituency have asked me to come here to do today.

It's not that the opposition can't.... Let's hammer out some of the ideas, some of the amendments here. Let's be reasonable, let's be parliamentarians, and let's see what we can get done. And if they don't like it at the end of the day, bring this motion forward.

Just as an ending, Mr. Chair, I know that the time comes for decisions, and people and leaders have to make decisions. They have to. The people in my riding are saying get this done--not tomorrow, not next week, not next month, and certainly not ten months from now. They want to see some real action on this. So let's see some leadership from the other side and from the other parties.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We've just about finished here. I've allowed Madam Neville the last say. Can I proceed?

Mr. Lévesque, do you have something? Please be concise.

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

I'll be very concise, Mr. Chairman, as always.

A transition period has been proposed to us. We had suggested, not a transition period, but rather a consultation period, as the government promised the First Nations for every project or legislative amendment concerning them. At every meeting where testimony was heard, at least two out of three witnesses—and very often the majority of witnesses—reminded us of the need to consult them before proceeding with a change concerning them.

I deeply regret the fact that the government always says the opposition should work with it. Why wouldn't the reverse be possible? Why doesn't the government work with the opposition? If that were the case, we would have gotten quite a bit further. There would already have been five weeks of consultations, if we had undertaken to act in accordance with the motion adopted by this committee.

I'm sorry, but, to my mind, this meeting discredits the work of this committee. I inform you that I'm going to support Ms. Neville's motion and propose that we at least wait until the consultations are completed. In 10 months, if nothing has been done, we'll make a decision.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Thank you.

Madam Neville, wrap up, if you would, the comments on your motion. Then we'll be voting.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I have a number of comments I want to make.

Mr. Chairman, we have sat here for a number of months. We've heard representation from a whole host of Canadians—aboriginal, non-aboriginal, and, I would put forward, normal Canadians. I don't want to get adversarial, but I take great offence when I hear my colleague opposite say normal Canadians want this bill passed. One delegation said the legislation is just fine. Every other representation we had here had concerns.

I know the clerk extended the notices to go out to Canadians across the country who wanted to come before this committee to make presentations, to make representation. We expanded the notice. Those so-called normal Canadians who want this bill passed didn't come to the committee or didn't submit written representations. I would say that the very normal Canadians who came before this committee over the last number of months made their positions very clear.

First of all, what I want to reiterate again, because nobody seems to let it sink in, is that we do support the intent of this legislation--I have said that over and over again--but we feel that the process has been badly flawed. We have heard from Canadians who have come before this committee making representations on the nature of consultation that should take place. I guess what I ask my colleagues opposite is, why do they think they know best? Nobody who came before the committee, but one, said they were on the right track, so why do they know best?

Mr. Chair, I want to read into the record a number of statements made before this committee. They're not lengthy, but I think it's important to underline the importance of the consultative process that aboriginal Canadians—men and women from all parts of this country—are asking for.

The first quote I want to read is from Beverley Jacobs, the president of the Native Women's Association of Canada, made to the committee on April 17. She said:

We agree that the repeal of section 67 is long overdue. However, we feel there has to be meaningful consultation as a strong first step of an evolving and collaborative process. We do not view human rights protection as compartmental. It is a process in which each step is necessary to achieve success in the overall goal. Consultation is not an excuse for inaction; it is an essential element in an active process.

The next quote is from Mr. Ghislain Picard, the regional chief of the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec. He said:

...Bill C-44 was not developed jointly with first nations, at least not so with the members of the AFNQL. Despite its virtuous intent, it is another example of imposition on first nations without our consent, despite the fine promises of the Crown to the contrary.

I am not reading it all; I'm just reading some, Mr. Chair.

Chief Lynda Price from the Ulkatcho First Nation, on March 29, said:

Repealing section 67 and replacing it with appropriate legislation to protect our individual rights and collective rights will be a giant step forward. Getting it right will be the challenge.

There are a number of changes that need to be made to the bill to get it right.

On May 31, Rose Laboucan, from the Driftpile First Nation, said:

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.

I'm going to conclude, Mr. Chair, with comments made the day before yesterday at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference by Chief Betsy Kennedy. I referenced it in my opening comments. She said:

The challenges for aboriginal Canadians, cultural and political, are the differing world views and competing values. Is it possible to promote first nations cultures and achieve our desired political outcomes within the context of the Canadian political system?

What did she use as her examples? The matrimonial real property on reserve, and proposed Bill C-44, an act to amend Canadian human rights issues.

If you will recall, Mr. Chair, the first nations women had a summit last February, in your part of the country, in British Columbia, and as part of their statement they articulated:

We are mad as hell with the crown government interference in our lives, and we're not going to take it any more. We maintain our authority to be law-makers and caretakers of our nations, our families, and our lands. We stand united to oppose attempts by the federal government to unilaterally impose legislation and policy. Through our collective efforts, we will achieve systemic change.

Mr. Chair, I put forward this motion because I think it is imperative that we get it right. My colleague Ms. Crowder has cited Bill C-31 and the McIvor decision, years of legislation, costly legislation, much of it under the now-abolished court challenges program, and unintended consequences. It is important that we do it right.

We support the intent of this legislation. My colleagues on this side, and I would say all parties, support human rights for all Canadians, but we don't ram it down their throats. Human rights rammed down a community's throat is not human rights. We have heard overwhelmingly from first nations, from men and women, that they want it done right--“consult with us, involve us, let's work it out together”--and that's all we're asking, Mr. Chair.

So I would ask members present to support my motion and let's do it right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

We're going to move to the motion.

Would you like the vote recorded?

[Some hon. members]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4)

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Mr. Lemay.

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

I move to adjourn.

I move that the meeting be adjourned.

[The Chair, Conservative, Colin Mayes]

Is it carried? All agreed?

The meeting is adjourned.