Evidence of meeting #2 for Indigenous and Northern Affairs in the 39th Parliament, 2nd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was crowder.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Order.
We have three motions that we need to discuss. The first one is from Mr. Bruinooge: That the committee immediately go to a clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-21 so as to delay no further the granting of access to the Human Rights Act to all aboriginal Canadians.
Mr. Bruinooge, would you like to speak to that?
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
I will. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Of course this is something we have been working on as a committee for a long time, and it's something that is essential for the further development of all items related to first nations people. I think it is one of the most fundamental pieces of legislation that has been brought forward in a lot of years. And of course it's something I am quite proud to have been a part of.
Perhaps before I get into full flight, there was discussion earlier today in relation to proceeding to clause-by-clause. This discussion occurred at the subcommittee. I was informed that if there was a friendly amendment to this motion to change the wording from “immediately” to “December 4”, there could perhaps be some support for this. I just want at this point to see if that is the case, in order to maybe prevent further discussion at this point. I know all the members would like to talk about this item, as we have on many occasions. But should that be the sentiment of members opposite, I think we could obviously set aside long, emotional speeches on this topic at this moment in time.
Perhaps I'll just stop there and maybe poll some of the members opposite.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Yes, it was Ms. Crowder who brought the idea forward this morning.
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
I would propose an amendment: That the committee go to a clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-21 after completing a thorough review of the supplementary estimates by December 4 so as to delay no further the granting of access to the Human Rights Act to all aboriginal Canadians.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
Okay. That is a friendly amendment that would be accepted by the government side.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
The motion would read, “That the committee immediately go to a clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-21...” Is it necessary to say “following consideration of the estimates”, or can we just say “on December 4”? Oh, it's already written: “after completing a thorough review of the supplementary estimates by December 4...”.
Are there any comments on this?
Monsieur Lemay.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
We will vote in favour of my colleague's motion, but I have a question I would like to put directly to the departmental official.
Without getting into a long speech, it is clear—and I think everyone will agree— that we have heard from many people and that we would not want to go back and have all of these discussions again from the very beginning, which is to say to go back to last year.
The position of the Bloc Québécois will be the same as that taken by the Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador. Shortly, that is to say at noon, they want us to vote against Bill C-21 and to do everything possible to prevent the bill from being passed or even studied clause by clause. However, I said earlier that we would not object to the study being done or to the start date of December 4 or thereabouts.
The Chief of the Assembly of First Nations of Canada, Phil Fontaine, appeared before us. He tabled a very interesting brief that was reaffirmed by aboriginal women and by many others. In this brief, the Assembly of First Nations made four recommendations, that I do not wish to revisit at this time.
My question is for the departmental official. If these four recommendations were introduced as amendments to Bill C-21, would they be debatable and in order, which would allow us not to get caught up in days and days of debate? The parliamentary secretary was made aware of the tabling of the brief by Mr. Phil Fontaine of the Assembly of First Nations. Could these recommendations be considered debatable as draft amendments to Bill C-21?
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
Of course I have seen the brief and the recommendations. These are things we have already debated and can continue to discuss during clause-by-clause. However, I believe that much of what has been suggested by the AFN will need to be incorporated into the development of policies that the Canadian Human Rights Commission will utilize to implement the various ways they will deliver access to first nations people through the transition period.
Before prorogation we committed to extending that transition period to 18 months. It's something we're still committed to doing during clause-by-clause. It is my hope that those recommendations will be incorporated into the work the Canadian Human Rights Commission does leading up to the actual date that these rights become available.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
I don't want to get too far into discussing this. At this point we're talking about when to schedule this.
Bloc
Marc Lemay Bloc Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC
Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I think it is important to be in a position to focus on our deliberations. I know there is a motion on the floor that will allow us to prepare and present draft amendments by December. We all agree that we do not need to hear other witnesses, unless there are particular circumstances...
I would like to know if we can include them or if the minister will tell us that he does not want to know anything about it and that he does not want to hear anything about the possibility of discussing certain points.
These points are a non-derogation clause, an interpretive clause, a report section, and an adequate transition period.
These are the four elements that must be part of Bill C-21. In any case, we will be able to discuss the duration: will it be 6, 8, 24 or 36 months? We can discuss it, but if we do not want to know anything about the expression “ transition period or interpretive clause“, we will be making amendments for nothing, because they will not have the government's approval. That is my question. I just want to know if we are preparing to engage in a pointless exercise from now until December 4.
I have nothing further to add.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
This is on just that point. Mr. Lemay and I have debated this on a number of occasions. To be honest, I would prefer not to continue that debate right now, and maybe I shouldn't, but I believe there was some good testimony from a very senior aboriginal professor who suggested that non-derogation was something that was simply believed to be required within all laws in Canada: no laws in Canada can derogate. The more substantive witness testimony he provided was in relation to the interpretive clause and his feeling that legislators such as we.... I know I'm not sure I myself, specifically, could ever get it right.
That was the argument that was used. I believe it is very credible to state that the experts at the Canadian Human Rights Commission would be in the best position to interpret the historic collective rights, within the implementation of this new Canadian Human Rights Commission provision, for first nations people on reserve.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
I have a speaking list. I have Mr. Storseth, followed by Ms. Neville, Ms. Crowder, and Ms. Karetak-Lindell.
Mr. Storseth.
Conservative
Brian Storseth Conservative Westlock—St. Paul, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I was just hoping you would read the amended motion to us so that we can hear how it would read.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
I'd like to clarify. It would read: “That the committee go to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-21 after completing a thorough review of the supplementary estimates by December 4”, and then it carries on, “so as to delay no further the granting of access to the Human Rights Act to all aboriginal Canadians”.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Barry Devolin
Is there a reason why we couldn't state this more simply: simply to say that the committee go to clause-by-clause on December 4, as opposed to referencing...? Is there a reason you're referencing the supplementary estimates, Ms. Crowder?
NDP
Jean Crowder NDP Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC
Yes, it's in case there's some bizarre reason that the minister doesn't appear on Thursday because his plane is waylaid in some frozen part of Canada and he miraculously can appear on Tuesday. That was the only reason.
I think it's important that we agree on the supplementary estimates as being a priority, because of a deadline we can't control.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Mr. Chairman, I guess my point is on process.
Rather than dealing with the substantive issues related to the bill right now, I wonder whether we could just clarify the process by which we're going to deal with it. Can we get into all these debates commencing on December 4?
Conservative