Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Dec. 13th, 2007

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

That's fine. I'm just saying that we will support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The last speaker I have on my list, hopefully, before the vote is Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Mr. Chair, just hearing Madam Neville speak to the fact that she seemingly is prepared to not delay the passage of this bill any longer is very exciting for me to hear, as I've been working all year to have this bill passed, taking time out of my summer, actually on my anniversary, to come here and deal with this important bill, and working all fall to deal with this bill. So you can make the statement that we're filibustering, but of course were not. We are defending our position, and we will continue to do that because we believe very strongly in parts of this bill as written.

Should the opposition members choose to rescind this amendment, originally crafted based on the AFN's position, I would be happy to see that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Are there any other comments before we go to Ms. Crowder?

Ms. Crowder.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. It seems to me that any committee has a responsibility—and I've heard comments about the fact that this bill came before the committee after unanimous consent on the floor—although I understand some bills haven't had this happen, to call forward witnesses to help shape and inform their view of the legislation that's presented to them. And because of past errors, whether it was Bill C-31 in 1985 or other bills such as--it's interesting--Bill C-31 in this Parliament, the committee has a responsibility to do its due diligence.

So hearing from witnesses and trying to craft amendments that would meet the needs of the testimony that witnesses put forward--some very solid testimony--resulted in some amendments, but unfortunately the government developed a bill that had little scope for change. And when the government prorogued the House--if you want to talk about delay--and chose to resubmit a bill that completely ignored the testimony that came before the committee, the committee members, it's my understanding, in good faith attempted to address some of the shortfalls of the bill. But because of the narrow scope of the bill we're simply unable to do some of the things that need to be done.

I think it's important that we reiterate the stance that...I haven't heard one opposition member say that they do not support human rights, the ability of first nations to file human rights complaints against the Indian Act. I haven't heard one opposition member say they don't support that position, but we have an obligation to ensure that the legislation we're considering isn't going to have unintended consequences, and this is part of this process.

We've seen certainly the government members disregard the will of the committee time and time again. So I think that's an important piece to put on the record.

I think also the constant interruptions when somebody doesn't have the floor are completely disrespectful of how we try to operate in this committee. And I appreciate your attempts to try to keep control, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you, Ms. Crowder.

I have no one else on my list, so I'd like to move forward with the motion to rescind.

I'm not sure if these are the right words for the record, but basically Ms. Crowder has moved a motion that the committee rescind the decision that it previously took to amend clause 1 with NDP-1. What this means is that if you are voting yes, you want to rescind that decision, which will reinstate clause 1 in its original form. If you vote no, you are voting in favour of keeping NDP-1 as the replacement for the original clause 1.

Yes.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. Can we get a recorded vote, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Okay.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 0)

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

This is like a Nascar track. We're right back where we started, which is at clause 1 as originally put forward in the government bill.

I have a couple of points of clarification for members as we go forward.

As you know, last week several members of the committee put forward proposed amendments to Bill C-21. Those went to our legislative clerk, and he put them in what to him was a logical sequence to deal with them as we work our way through the bill. That package was distributed to all members of the committee.

There are 14 amendments in total. We have now dealt with the first one, which is NDP-1.

Having said all that, the amendments that are in the package are not yet moved. If the members who brought them forward would still like to bring them forward, that is agreeable. If they choose not to, then we'll just move on to the next one.

Pardon me. Before I get to that point, I need to call the question on clause 1. I actually need a vote.

(Clause 1 agreed to)

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Clause 1 in its original form has carried. Now comes my explanation about the amendments.

I will just go through this package as each amendment comes forward. If you don't wish to move it....

Ms. Crowder.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I move NDP-2.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Madam Crowder is moving what we have here as amendment NDP-2.

There is a procedural issue with NDP-2, but before I rule on its admissibility, Ms. Crowder, did you have anything you wanted to say?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Yes, I'd like to speak briefly.

I think amendment NDP-2 reflects an attempt to amend the bill to reflect a number of the concerns that were raised by witnesses we heard. It would add a new clause containing a new proposed section 67.1:

(1) Every First Nation government has jurisdiction to enact laws in respect of human rights that conform to international human rights standards, including laws in respect of any matter for which provision is made under this Act and any other federal human rights legislation.

Part of this was an attempt to look at an interpretive clause that respected both the collective and the individual, and also respected some of the laws that some first nations had in place that already complied with international standards. I think it was clear that we heard this from a number of the witnesses. This was an attempt to address the shortcoming in the bill on this matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Okay. Bill C-21 amends the Canadian Human Rights Act by repealing section 67 of that act. The repeal of section 67 removes an exemption in its application with regard to the Indian Act. This amendment proposes to create a new section 67.1, which would impose several conditions in the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act with regard to the creation of legislation by a first nation.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice states on page 654, “An amendment to a bill that was referred to committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.” In the opinion of the chair, the introduction of a new framework for legislation created by a first nation is a new concept that is beyond the scope of Bill C-21 and is therefore inadmissible.

So I am ruling amendment NDP-2 inadmissible.

The next item in our package is amendment NDP-3.

Ms. Crowder.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

I'd like to move that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Okay. Would you like to speak to it?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Again, this was a matter that a number of witnesses raised around a clause that would allow a non-derogation. This amendment is an attempt to address that shortcoming in the bill to allow a non-derogation clause, and I think it's fairly self-evident.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

Before I go to Mr. Bruinooge, there is just one other point I ought to draw to the attention of the committee members. NDP-3 and LIB-1 deal with similar subject matter, and the committee will, I expect, want to adopt one or the other. So you may want to have a look at LIB-1 as well; if NDP-3 is adopted, then LIB-1 will not be put.

Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak about the amendment put forward by Madam Crowder.

The government's position all along has been that in light of the fact that there is a multitude of laws in Canada respecting section 30, to have rights within the highest law of the land, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, non-derogation is not necessary in this case. But also, all of the advice we have received is that in fact this non-derogation clause goes above and beyond the substance of the bill. The bill is simply a repeal of section 67.

There are non-derogation clauses in other bills that have been drafted—in fact the Government of Canada in the past has occasionally put non-derogation clauses into the bills that previous governments have drafted. There's no question about that. In this case it wasn't done, so right off the bat we are going above and beyond the substance of the bill, because we didn't initially put this in place for the reasons that I have already stated.

However, the previous non-derogation clauses do not go this far. I just want to refer to paragraph (c) of proposed new clause 1.1, where it calls for the law to not derogate from “any rights or freedoms recognized under the customary laws or traditions of the First Nations peoples of Canada”. And that goes considerably further than this law should, in many ways.

In fact, it will again be putting—in my opinion and the opinion of our government as well as multiple legal opinions—a considerable strain and anchor on what the Canadian Human Rights Commission will be able to deliberate on in terms of any human rights cases that are being brought forward. Because this is such a broad position, and in my opinion just not even feasible to begin to encompass all of the specific customary laws that might exist across the multitude of first nations, it simply would go down the road of what we've already discussed, which would in essence provide that exemption that we are in fact repealing.

So we do not support a non-derogation clause, but if I could be very specific, I would like to highlight paragraph 1.1(c) as being the very one area where this proposed non-derogation clause becomes something that I would suggest shouldn't be admissible. But of course I have to defer, obviously, to your wisdom on that matter.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

I have Ms. Crowder, but I presume you're going to find out why the bells are ringing. Is this an adjournment?

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Because you did not rule that this amendment was out of order, I'm presuming that it is in order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I did not rule that it was inadmissible, and as such it is, in my view, admissible.

[Jean Crowder, NDP, Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC]

Okay. Thank you.

I have a comment about NDP-3 and LIB-1.

Paragraphs (a) and (b) of my proposed amendment 1.1 were actually to highlight the fact that there were the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763, and the rights and freedoms that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired. I thought it was important to highlight those two points.

As to paragraph (c), I'm amenable to an amendment on that. If somebody wants to propose an amendment to remove paragraph (c), I would be amenable to it. I'm not sure if there is a wish to do that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Well, we'll get a couple of views on that.

Mr. Storseth was next. Is there anyone else?

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

Could I ask a question, through you, for a quick clarification from the legislative clerk?

I'm assuming that your advice is that both NDP-3 and Liberal-1 are allowable within the confines of this bill. Is that correct?