Evidence of meeting #61 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Read the minutes of the meeting. There were no negative comments on the May 10.... Let me find it and read it into the record, Mr. Chair, because at the May 10 meeting there was concurrence.... It reads:
It was agreed, — That the report of the Subcommittee be concurred in.
The subcommittee report indicated that “clause-by-clause be reserved until September”.
So there are two issues. The first issue is overriding the will of this committee, which was agreed to, if not by a majority...and it appears to have been concurred in unanimously, but certainly by a majority of the committee. The second issue is the consultation process.
I'll come back to it in the debate, but I have more to say.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
Thank you.
I'm going to go to Mr. Lemay and then to Madam Crowder.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Chairman, we are going to support Ms. Neville's motion for a number of reasons.
First, I would like to remind you that the majority of committee members voted in favour of the June 19 decision. The majority of the government members opposed it. Rather I should say the minority, because they have to be reminded that they are in the minority and that this government must behave like a minority government, that is to say that it must consult those that can help it move this issue forward.
I'm going to reread it since a number of people have asked me the question.
To allow a reasonable time for consultation with and between the First Nations regarding repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and its intent, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a) recommends as follows: 1. That all debate on repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act be suspended for a maximum of 10 months following adoption of this motion by the Committee, in order to make possible the following: a. discussions between the federal government and the organizations representing the First Nations locally, regionally and nationally, on an appropriate level of funding to support an adequate consultation process, with each First Nation to receive such funding; b. consultation of its citizens by each First Nation, and consultation by the First Nations of one another, within their regional structures; c. the launching by the federal government of consultations with the First Nations, either on an individual basis or by regional or national organization, as determined by each First Nation. 2. That, once the process defined above is completed, and no later than 10 months after adoption of this motion by the Committee, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development resume debate and public hearings on repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, or its replacement, so that the First Nations could either appear before the Committee to explain the results of their consultations, or submit the results in writing.
Mr. Chairman, nothing has happened since this motion was adopted on June 19 last. The proof that nothing has happened is that the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Phil Fontaine, is denouncing the federal government, which abuses the universal rights of the First Nations of Canada and of the other Aboriginal peoples of the entire world, in his view.
At the same time, again according to Chief Phil Fontaine, the government is trying to impose new laws on them without providing the necessary resources for them to achieve the expected results. That's what Phil Fontaine has just declared in reaction to the premature resumption of proceedings on Bill C-44.
We have in hand the position of the chiefs of Ontario. The Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador has the same position. Nothing has happened with regard to Bill C-44 since June 19. It is time this stopped. It is time the government put in place a genuine system of consultation, in accordance with the decision made by this committee on June 19 last. Consequently, I ask that we vote on this motion as soon as possible. We are going to vote in favour of Ms. Neville's motion.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will be supporting Ms. Neville's motion.
I think there are a couple of important points here. One is around process.
The committee, after hearing from witnesses from all over the country, consistently heard the message that appropriate consultation needs to happen before this bill is put into effect. The majority on this committee--the opposition members on this committee--have, after having heard from witnesses, who included the Native Women's Association of Canada, the Indigenous Bar Association, the Canadian Bar Association, the Assembly of First Nations, chiefs and councils from across this country.... After hearing substantial testimony, considered testimony, and legal experts as well, the committee determined that based on everything they had heard, it was only responsible of this committee to consider that testimony and call for appropriate consultation. That included looking at the communities across this country, looking at perhaps some self-government agreements that have already drafted their own human rights codes. It would seem to me that the committee, in being responsible, heard that testimony and called on the government to do that appropriate consultation.
So we have the issue of the fact that the majority of this committee passed a motion calling for that. They passed a motion back in May; they passed a subsequent motion in June. We have a minority of this committee attempting to disregard that process. It does call into question the commitment to a democratic process. But of course it's not really a surprise to a number of us in opposition, given that the Conservatives have chosen to ignore a number of key issues that have come before the House where the majority ruled and the Conservatives have chosen to ignore it. So it does call into question a commitment to a democratic process.
The second piece of this is around the substance, and I did touch on it briefly already—around the amount of testimony that we have heard talking about the need for consultation, talking about an interpretive clause, talking about non-derogation, but also talking about the unintended consequences of legislation that has come before the House in the past and perhaps was passed without that appropriate consultation. Everybody is very familiar with Bill C-31 and the impact it's having on the second-generation cut-off.
Even more recently, we've had a Conservative Party that likes to tout itself as a champion of human rights appeal the Sharon McIvor decision, where the Supreme Court in British Columbia.... This is what the justice said: “I have concluded that the registration provisions embodied in section 6 of the 1985 Indian Act continue the very discrimination that the amendments were intended to eliminate.” This provision prefers male Indians and their descendants to female Indians and their descendants. So despite the government asking her for 24 months to give Parliament time to consult, she didn't agree, and said that it needed to be looked at quickly.
Later, on July 6, after the House had recessed and on a Friday, when there's not a lot of media attention, the Conservative government chose to appeal that decision.
It's difficult to put into context the people who are saying let's move ahead on human rights in the context of a decision that they've now appealed, which discriminates against Indian women, using the justice's words. So I would urge this committee, after hearing the amount of testimony it heard, to take the appropriate amount of time to ensure that the repeal of section 67 is implemented in a way that works in first nations communities and doesn't end up with unintended consequences.
I haven't heard one person talk about not supporting the repeal of section 67. We all support the repeal of section 67. It's how we do it. I am sure that in a future generation we don't want to have to try to deal with consequences of a bill that was flawed, as we're doing with Bill C-31. Ten months is not an unconscionable amount of time. I would urge this committee to take that appropriate amount of time to hear from people and make sure that we're making the best decision possible.
I think it is part of our mandate and our duty as responsible elected officials to listen to the people who are going to be most affected by this piece of legislation. So I will be supporting Ms. Neville's motion.
Conservative
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Our government--the members of this committee--brought forward Bill C-44 because we feel that after 30 years, first nations people on reserve deserve access to the human rights that all of us in this room, or many of us, take for granted. As an aboriginal person myself, as I've said already, it's something that I can take for granted. But we've received communications from people on reserve who want to see this happen, who want to see this happen as soon as possible.
We've seen 30 years of information brought forward to numerous Parliaments. Unfortunately, all of these attempts have failed. We have the opportunity today to actually move forward, extending human rights to first nations people through Bill C-44. In the past, we've seen actually majority governments fail in this attempt. As a minority government, we can never predict when the next election is going to happen, but we do know that this must be done.
All of the opposition parties in the past, during the initial introduction of Bill C-44, glowingly asked to have it passed. But once it's come to committee, they now decide we need to put it off further.
Mr. Chair, I know that this is something we can look at as being not only historic but meaningful as well. People will actually have something tangible. They will be able to bring forward a human rights violation to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Right now, if a first nations person walks through the front door of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, their actual complaint will be turned down, not allowed.
This is why we called this committee. I know that some of the members opposite have complained about having to come back to Ottawa at this time to deal with this issue, but as I see it, the most important thing we can possibly do as elected officials is actually take time out of our summer to address the very important issue of human rights for first nations people.
You're calling that a script. Unfortunately, this is something we believe. As an aboriginal person myself, I couldn't think of a better thing to be doing with my time this summer.
I'd like to address some of the comments Ms. Crowder made in terms of democracy. She's right that she can vote for this motion today. She can vote to continue putting off human rights to first nations people. That's democracy. But we're here today to highlight the fact that this is something we believe in. This is something we actually want to see go forward.
You can choose today to vote against extending human rights to first nations people. That may be what you do. But one of the things we want to do is highlight all of the reasons why now is the time.
We heard from a number of people in the spring session, and many of them called for a longer transition period. When we introduced this bill, it had a six-month transition period. We wanted to extend human rights as soon as possible to first nations people on reserve who are having their human rights violated. However, many people asked for a longer transition period, so our government actually brought in an amendment this week extending this transition period to eighteen months.
A longer transition period was asked for by a number of people from all across Canada, from people who came before our committee, including Professor Larry Chartrand, one of the most senior aboriginal professors in Canada. When asked about the time of transition, he mentioned that six months perhaps was too short, but a year to sixteen months would be appropriate. We've actually gone further than that with the eighteen months.
Looking at the testimony of the Canadian Human Rights Commission before this committee, which was very helpful to us, they also called for a longer transition. We've done that. But they also said that they would continue to consult post-repeal with first nations groups to help draft their provisions for dealing with the implementation of this important act.
It's important to remember that at the Canadian Human Rights Commission, they are the experts. They've had 30 years in Canada to deal with this state-of-the-art legislation. They are the individuals who have brought Canada to the very forefront of human rights legislation in the world. The world looks at Canada and looks at the act we have as being the most important thing we can bring forward to individuals.
So this is something they have said they will do, and I'm sure first nations people will also work together with the Canadian Human Rights Commission to find the balance section 35 calls for.
Speaking of section 35, we often talk at this committee about the section 35 rights of aboriginal people, of first nations people specifically. Of course everyone here appreciates that that is the highest law in the land, so naturally the repeal of section 67 will incorporate that important piece of legislation just by the sheer fact that it is the highest law in the land.
Mr. Chair, just in closing, I would like to ask everyone here not only to finally extend to first nations people on reserve the Canadian Human Rights Act but to consider all the things that we have done as a committee. It is something where today we can put an historic stamp on this session and actually do what so many Parliaments previously failed to do. This is something we can do today. I look forward to hopefully seeing a positive result.
I would also like to put a motion forward to table Ms. Neville's motion so that we can get back to dealing with the important business of extending the Canadian Human Rights Act to first nations people.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
It's not debatable, so let's go to a vote. We'll go to a vote on it right away.
The motion is that we table Madam Neville's motion, the one we're dealing with now, until after--
Liberal
Carolyn Bennett Liberal St. Paul's, ON
We passed a motion that we'd like to change the agenda. This is pathetic.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
The motion is out of order. The reason is that we've already decided that we're changing the agenda of the meeting to deal with the motion. If we return to going to clause-by-clause, then we are contradicting the motion we've passed. So we're going to carry on.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
A point of order, Mr. Chair. While I understand what you're saying, Mr. Chair, I believe that what the parliamentary secretary has brought up really has hopefully changed some of the--
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
I'm not on the debate. This is a point of order on your ruling, Mr. Chair, that there's no vote.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Colin Mayes
Let's move on with the debate, please, on the motion of Madam Neville.
On my speaking list right now I'm going to move to Mr. McGuinty and then to Mr. Albrecht.
Mr. McGuinty, please.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair. I am very new to this committee, so thank you for including me today.
I've had a chance to read the minutes of the proceedings dated June 19, 2007, meeting number 60, of this committee. I've had a chance to take a closer look at Marleau and Montpetit in House of Commons Procedure and Practice. In it there's an interesting and operative passage that I'd like to read. It says:
Where a committee has not made a formal decision concerning the convening of its members, either by adopting a work plan or by concurring in a steering committee report, the Chair usually consults with members informally concerning possible future meetings.
Now, notwithstanding anything I've heard from the parliamentary secretary, which I think he's trying to frame as, effectively, using my language, a nobility of purpose, why would we convene this meeting in the summer, against the will of this committee, against the will of Parliament? Why would this happen?
There's an old Latin maxim from law that loosely translated goes something like this: A man always acts for a reason. I think Canadians would be forgiven if they were to discern and detect here a pattern of conduct from this government over the last eighteen months that is troubling. Let me review.
At the international trade committee witnesses were directly and explicitly censored by the chair. At the environment committee the chair--
Conservative
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
It's not relevant to what we're talking about today.