Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on March 19th, 2013

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I look at residential schools and, having had to work on the first nations, I've seen the effects of alcohol abuse, solvent abuse. People have talked about residential schools for so many years, what they had to go through—the abuses, from sexual to physical. There's just no reason to have it in the act. Why do we have to have it now?

[Stella Ambler, Conservative, Mississauga South, ON]

You've used the word “survivor”, which is very telling in itself.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you very much.

We'll turn to Mr. Bevington now.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and my thanks to our colleague.

I want to talk a little about the consultation process that you've outlined here. It's a collaboration. The wording in your bill is that you want some collaboration between the minister and interested first nations organizations.

How does that outline any formal consultation process? It simply says we should have some collaboration between the minister and interested first nations organizations. That's a pretty weak direction to the minister.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I don't think so. What I'm saying about formal consultation in my private member's bill is that I'm requiring the government to meet with first nations in a formal consultation process. There's nothing in the act that compels government to meet with first nations to consult with them about the Indian Act. That's my intent.

Individuals can talk about it and talk about it. What I find disheartening is that everyone gets caught in the preamble phrase “duty to consult”, but it's never been clearly defined. First nation communities, just recently with FSIN, were sitting down, trying to define the phrase “duty to consult”. They couldn't do it.

I'll quote. With the formal consultation process—and everyone talks about it—

The Crown is not under a duty to reach an agreement; rather the commitment is to a meaningful process of consultation in good faith...the duty to consult and accommodate applies to the provincial government.

The duty cannot be delegated to third parties. This was from the Supreme Court, under section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, where the B.C. and Haida....

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

If you had included a meaningful consultation process in this bill, you would have been subject to having a royal recommendation for the bill because there would have been costs applied to the government. Don't you agree that your ability in this bill to tie the government to any meaningful consultation, by the nature of it being a private member's bill, is very limited?

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

Currently, the federal government has the mandate to do a formal consultation. They have the capacity. They have the budgets. They have the individuals and human resources to do the formal consultation. What I'm trying to set up—

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

It still requires resources to do that.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

What I'm trying to do, Dennis, is to set up a legislative process that starts a legislative framework to do a consultation.

Currently, there's no money being expended. What I'm trying to do is to start a process that will compel the government, bring the government to the table, to consult and talk to first nations about the Indian Act. It's happening every day now where first nations are being engaged. When we're sitting here talking about fiduciary responsibility, you're talking about money that is not being spent. What we're trying to do is to start the process of a consultation framework.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

Is the main focus of your bill basically the requirement to report annually on work undertaken in collaboration?

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

What I'm trying to do is to start the process of reporting annually to the House of Commons, or to the committee, on what the minister is doing to make progress in the relationship for a more meaningful, a more open and transparent dialogue, and to create a more modern and respectful agreement or act.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

You've said, and I quote what you just said before this, that we have had too much dialogue. We've had 139 years of dialogue. Why should we have two more? What you've created is a process for more dialogue. That's it.

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

What I've started, Dennis, is a framework to start looking at the Indian Act and a more modern and respectful act.

When I look at the NDP constitution it is very interesting. The New Democrats believe in working with Canada's first nations, Inuit, and Métis people to move toward self-government with practical and concrete steps, supporting the settlement of land claims and backing up these actions with investment in the urgent social needs of aboriginal communities. Working with first nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples to implement self-government, fostering economic opportunity, and lasting prosperity for first nations, Inuit, and Métis people in Canada by advocating for shared resource management and decision-making resource revenue sharing, and to increase access to capital—

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

And your point is? Are you talking to your bill, or are you talking—

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I think you are done—

[Rob Clarke, Conservative, Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River, SK]

I'm not done, Dennis. What I'm doing is starting the process—

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I think Mr. Bevington's time is up. That actually does bring us to the end.

Mr. Bevington and you, Mr. Clarke, could probably continue this dialogue for some time.

[Dennis Bevington, NDP, Western Arctic, NT]

I don't want to continue the dialogue. It's going nowhere.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Colleagues, we have now come to the end of our allocation of time.

Ms. Bennett.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

In view of the consultation that Mr. Clarke says has taken place, I would ask that he table the names of the groups that he has already met with and what they said to him, which could inform us as to the witnesses we could call here. If he has already met with them, that might help us as long as we know what they said. It would be interesting for committee members to be apprised of that consultation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I'm certain that Mr. Clarke will make every effort to have those conversations with you.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Will he table it, though?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I'm not sure what the process is in terms of tabling, but I'm certain that the committee would welcome anything that Mr. Clarke wanted to table.

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

But is there perhaps a consultation report that he could table?

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

I don't know the answer to that, but I think Mr. Clarke is hearing it. If there is, I'm certain he'll make an effort to circulate that.

Colleagues, it's been determined that rather than going to the committee business of the entire committee, it would be more expeditious at this point to have the subcommittee meet. Of course, members are welcome to join the subcommittee—but other folks, you're welcome to depart. We can just have the subcommittee members meet.

The committee is adjourned.