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.
