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

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I call the meeting to order.

Good afternoon, everybody. Welcome to our committee meeting this afternoon.

I was wondering what we would actually have to do here to get on the news tonight as the most-reported committee meeting today. I didn't think setting the table on fire would be enough. I expect the media are busy writing their stories about another committee meeting that took place earlier today.

There are a couple of general points before we get started. Today we have actually scheduled two 2-hour meetings. I'm not sure I was 100% clear on this the other day, when we were talking about extending the length of the meeting. In fact we are having one committee meeting from 3:30 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., and then we are convening a second committee meeting at that time. It will be from 5:30 p.m. until 7:30 p.m.

It is my understanding that a hot meal will be brought here at 5:30 p.m., so my plan is to go until 5:30 p.m. When we adjourn the first meeting, we'll take a brief recess for 10 minutes so that people can get something to eat, and then we will reconvene and continue with the same business. That's really all I need to say on that.

(On clause 1)

When we left off a week ago, we were dealing with the clause-by-clause study of Bill C-21. Amendment NDP-1 had been brought forward as an amendment to clause 1 of Bill C-21. I had ruled that amendment NDP-1 was inadmissible. That ruling was challenged and subsequently overturned by the committee. Thereafter followed some discussion and debate about amendment NDP-1. As we approached the end of that process, there was a vote taken on NDP-1, and it was passed.

We had actually come to the vote on whether clause 1 as amended would carry. I think there was some very sincere confusion or concern around the table in terms of what all this meant. At that point we chose to adjourn so that people could think through where they were and what they were doing so that we could proceed. Then on Tuesday we were dealing with business other than Bill C-21.

That's the point we're at right now.

Ms. Crowder wanted to say something.

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

Yes, thanks, Mr. Chair.

I would like to move that we rescind amendment NDP-1.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thanks, Ms. Crowder.

I have received a motion from Ms. Crowder that we actually rescind the committee's decision to adopt amendment NDP-1. Procedurally, it's my understanding that this is a vote that's taken, and that a majority is what is required.

Are there any comments? This is a debatable motion.

Go ahead, Mr. Bruinooge.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to briefly speak to the motion brought forward by Madam Crowder, though you've already encapsulated the course of action that was taken by the opposition members to get us to this stage. Of course, after you ruled this motion inadmissible, the opposition members chose to rule you out of order and make this amendment admissible.

We've been appealing since the start of this debate as to this amendment not only being inadmissible but clearly it is something our government doesn't agree with, as it takes the Canadian Human Rights Act into an area we simply disagree on. We feel the full benefits of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be extended to individuals living under the Indian Act on reserve. This is the opinion of the government members. This is something that clearly there's debate about, there's no question.

In fact, this very amendment is the recommendation that this committee received from the Assembly of First Nations. This was what they suggested to be put into the bill, and it is the viewpoint of that organization, the leadership of that organization. However, as I have stated on a number of occasions at this committee, and as have various members of our government, we feel the full benefits of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be extended to those without influence--they deserve this--within first nations communities, those first nations individuals who don't have access to the powers that might exist in the various forms of governance.

We feel that this very amendment would in all regards simply create a new exemption for people on reserve to not enjoy the benefits of the Canadian Human Rights Act. So should the opposition now choose to rescind this amendment that they voted for, of course this would be agreeable to the government side, as it is the position we've taken. We have all along said that the AFN position on this is not one we agree with. So should the opposition parties choose to vote against this, it would be something, obviously, we would also agree to.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Okay, does anybody else have any comments?

Ms. Crowder.

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

Could I just make one comment, Mr. Chair? My understanding of what the parliamentary secretary is saying is that the Conservatives will vote in support of my motion to rescind. I'm just making sure I understand what the parliamentary secretary is saying.

[Rod Bruinooge, Conservative, Winnipeg South, MB]

There's no unanimous consent required. You put this motion forward. I look forward to seeing your votes on this matter.

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

So just to finish, I have a couple of quick remarks.

As we've well seen in the last couple of days, procedural rules are not always well understood. So now that we're more procedurally clear, I want to reiterate the statement that I made last week when I first put forward this amendment and challenged the chair—

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I have to interrupt for the sake of clarifying, because I have asked these procedural questions as well. Last week when the NDP-1 amendment was moved by you, following the discussion of my ruling that it was inadmissible and the committee's decision to overturn that, before the vote was taken on NDP-1, at that time you made a request to withdraw it. It's my understanding that procedurally a request to withdraw requires unanimous consent.

Now that the vote has actually been taken on NDP-1, the procedure now is not to withdraw but actually to rescind, and to rescind something it is a majority rather than unanimous opinion.

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

Thanks for that clarification, Mr. Chair. The point I was simply trying to make is that we could have actually dealt with this a week ago if the original motion to withdraw had been accepted. Now we're in a motion to rescind, which doesn't require unanimous consent.

I was simply trying to make the point again, which was re-emphasized when you indicated the chair's ruling was an interpretation on your part based on information you had, that I think if there is any kind of doubt, there is some room for us to challenge the chair and to have the debate that happened as a result. I just wanted to make that clear.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Yes.

Mr. Storseth.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Just to follow up on that, I think the chair was quite clear on why this was inadmissible. I would think it incumbent upon members, before they put a motion before a committee, to give consideration to whether it's an admissible amendment or not. I would suggest that every single member on that side of the committee knew it was inadmissible before they overruled the chair on this.

Quite frankly, I'm a little confused. If we go back to the beginning of this, which I often find quite helpful, you see that when this legislation first came, the opposition agreed unanimously to pass it to committee.

Then they decided they didn't like the way things were going; they decided to delay and filibuster this. Then the opposition decided to pass a motion to postpone it by 10 months—Monsieur Lemay's motion.

When we once again, in our consistent, straightforward manner, insisted that it is important not only to our government but to all Canadians to have equal rights and we held a summer meeting, which is quite extraordinary, showing our dedication to this, the opposition once again delayed and filibustered it.

Finally we got back, and thinking that we were operating in good faith this fall—and I think this is the critical point to have on the record—we sat across the table from the opposition, who then said they were willing to go to clause-by-clause finally and move forward on this in a positive manner, only to overrule a ruling of the chair, which they had to have clearly known was inadmissible. Any legislative assistant on the other side would have told them that this was inadmissible, never mind going to a clerk.

Then they decided to go beyond that and pass this motion. Then they wanted unanimous consent not to pass the motion—to withdraw the motion—but they still voted for it.

Although this goes quite well with the history of the LIberal Party and their flipping and flopping back and forth on human rights, there are people watching at home who are very disappointed with the progress the opposition is making on this.

I would suggest that if the opposition is finally willing to rescind this motion, is finally willing to move forward in a cooperative manner, then in the next three and a half hours that we have left, we could get this motion to the Senate and really get some good work done before we break for Christmas. I would ask the opposition to quit playing silly bugger with these games, with which they very clearly don't even have a cognizant idea where they're going, and move forward with this in a progressive spirit of Christmas to try to get something done on this.

Maybe the opposition would like to clarify whether they're actually voting for this on this occasion, or against it this time, or.... Where are we going here?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

I'll make just a couple of points of clarification. We're talking about NDP-1, which is an amendment rather than a motion.

Secondly, it's my understanding that an agreement has been reached among the parties that the House of Commons will rise this evening and as such will not sit tomorrow, and as such we will not have the opportunity to table this in the House and have it sent to the Senate. It is my understanding, quite frankly, that regardless of what happens here today, if in the best case scenario we complete clause-by-clause today, the committee will be finished with this but it in fact will not be reported back to the House until January.

Ms. Karetak-Lindell.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm almost not sure where to start, but we were willing to just vote on a motion without someone starting partisan attacks and accusing us of stalling. We could have had this motion, the motion by Madam Crowder, voted on and put through by now. It's very difficult for me to sit here and listen to those kinds of accusations, because again, they are the government. Because they are the government, they were supposed to act responsibly, accept the first offer to withdraw the amendment, take the high road, and act responsibly. We would not have had to deal with any of this, because that's what a government does.

I have been on this committee for ten and a half years, so I speak from experience, and I've seen everything that can be seen, probably, on this committee and other committees.

You forget the history. I also sat in the House of Commons for three days solid while your Minister of Indian Affairs brought in 471 amendments on the Nisga'a. Well, you tell us that we do things for thirteen and a half years every day, so I can sit here and talk about that until the cows come home.

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

Why can you speak, and not us?

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order.

[Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

We sat for 43 hours straight, okay, so your Minister of Indian Affairs could change colons to semicolons. That's really what it was. If you want to go back and look at those amendments on the Nisga'a treaty, the current Minister of Indian Affairs spent 43 hours at $26,000 an hour filibustering in the House of Commons. That was $1 million that could have been used in any community across this country to improve the lives of people. So I find it very hard to sit here and listen to someone telling us that we're not acting in good faith.

Many of us on this side live in these very communities that are being affected. You may not think so, but we do. Again, if you want to bring up past histories and stuff like that, then I feel obligated to do so also, because it cost us $1 million to sit through the House of Commons for 43 hours straight. I will not sit here and listen to someone telling us we're wasting time, because that's exactly what he did. If he didn't make comments of that nature, I would not have. I think it's total disrespect for the House of Commons and total lack of respect for the people in this House and on this committee, because we are all equal members of Parliament.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Thank you.

There are two things.

First of all, we have a motion to rescind on the floor. Ms. Crowder moved. It is debatable. Members of the committee can speak to it, quite frankly, for as long as they want. What they speak about has to be relevant, and I'm going to take a pretty broad definition of what is relevant. So far no one's even come close to the line of not being relevant. If one of you pulls out a phone book and starts reading names, that's going to be on the other side of the line.

I would ask all members of the committee to be respectful of their colleagues and to allow people to say what they want to say on this. They're not restricted on how long they speak, and it must have some relevance to what we're dealing with, but in my opinion everything so far has been more than relevant.

At this point, I have Ms. Crowder, Mr. Storseth, Ms. Neville, and Mr. Bruinooge on the list.

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

I wasn't on the list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Okay.

Mr. Storseth.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I appreciate the comments of the members opposite. As I said, I'm trying to get clarification here. The reason I bring in past history is due to the history of the last year of the committee sitting here. Quite frankly, from what I've heard in debate around this table from the opposition critics, the position of this amendment that they overruled the chair on and moved forward on and have since voted on was the exact position they were establishing themselves as believing in.

Now I'm sitting here trying to get clarification that they actually want to rescind that position. I'm sorry, it leaves a lot of confusion all over the place. Where does the Liberal Party of Canada actually stand when it comes to human rights? It's not good enough to walk outside of this room and say “We believe in it; we just don't believe in this process”, or “We've made an amendment, and that's exactly what we believe in, and now we're going to rescind the amendment” and hope that nobody pays attention to the fact that they've once again flipped and flopped on this motion.

I very much respect the member opposite. Ms. Karetak-Lindell has spent a lot of time on this committee and works very hard towards enhancing the quality of life of the communities she lives in and works for. I remind her that many of us live in the communities and interact with the same communities on a daily basis.

But it's not just the responsibility of the Government of Canada and the members of the government to act responsibly. It is the responsibility of all members of Parliament to act responsibly on this, and the record speaks for itself.

We are simply trying to get some clarification. Is this your position? Is the position you agreed upon last week your final position on this, or are you now rescinding that and taking a new position on it?

As I said, my constituents are confused and somewhat upset about this, and they want us to move forward on this. They want us to get through clause-by-clause on this and they want this legislation to become law. They want the repeal of section 67. They want all Canadians to have the same access to human rights. I think it's important that we realize this is the fundamental goal here. The amendment that was passed destroys that. There's no doubt about that.

I'd also like to know whether the opposition is going to continue, as soon as they rescind this, to put forward amendments that are not germane to the legislation.

The last point I'll make is actually a question to you, Mr. Chair. I believe there have been some precedents in this Parliament to table legislation after the House has risen. I don't know whether that was in special circumstances; that's something you could perhaps ask your clerk. I believe, if I remember rightly, it happened in the transport committee, but that's just off the top of my head.

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my understanding that there have been very rare circumstances in the past when committees were allowed to table something. But it is not common, and at this point I have no intention to.... I don't think there's cause at this point. If the 11 other members of this committee all implore me at some point today to do all I can in my power to bring this forward, I may pursue it, but short of that, I'm not prepared to do it.

Ms. Neville.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I very much appreciate your efforts.

I will be brief. We will be supporting Ms. Crowder's motion to rescind. But I want to put it on the record that we came in here in good faith. My colleagues and I met before the meeting to determine how we would move forward; we've gone through the amendments, and we've done it. We decided among ourselves that we would take our cue from the government and see whether they were willing and able to operate with good faith and in a spirit of cooperation. I have to say to you that what I've heard and what I've seen to date doesn't give me much hope.

I do not like to see motions like this saying we're filibustering. I could suggest perhaps that they themselves are filibustering in the discussion. We are prepared to move forward and have no desire to prolong the discussion or the debate on this.

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

Mr. Chair, I'm not going to make a habit of interrupting the honourable member, but she says the motion that we're filibustering. Is there a motion presently before the committee stating that there's a—

[The Chair, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Sorry, no. The motion that is before the committee is to rescind the decision on NDP-1.

Ms. Neville.