Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 21st, 2013

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

I would again point out the opt-in nature of this legislation. If the minister would go down the road that Ms. Crowder suggests he could or may, I would suspect there would be no first nation that would choose to opt in.

These regulations will be made in consultation with those organizations and first nations leaders who have indicated they support this bill and want to see it implemented. Obviously we will be working with them. If they are unhappy with the regulations that are developed, there is nothing to compel them to opt in to this system.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. Crowder.

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

Except for paragraphs 3(1)(b) and (c), which then gives the minister the authority to require first nations to be covered under this piece of legislation.

Certainly many first nations will choose to opt in or not, but there will be first nations that are forced under this legislation, so that argument simply doesn't fly.

If the government is to operate in good faith, they would indicate clearly when the legislation is being developed what that process would look like, so that first nations could have some degree of comfort that the regulations will reflect the needs in their communities.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. Kustra.

[Brenda Kustra]

If I may, perhaps I'll add a clarification.

In addition to the work we will do with partners up front in actually crafting the regulations, we also need to remember that the regulatory process requires that regulations be published through the Canada Gazette. There is a period of consultation associated with regulations that are put up for public review. All of the feedback that comes as a result of that publication period is taken into account. The regulations are then republished before they actually come into force.

So not only is there an opportunity for first nations to participate in the crafting of the initial document that will go up, but there is the regulatory process, which governs the development of all regulations by departments in the Government of Canada. It would kick in, and there would be further public consultation on the draft that had been developed, providing another opportunity for first nations and others who wish to raise concerns and issues to bring them forward.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Ms. Crowder.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With respect, publishing in the Canada Gazette and having an open period for public input does not constitute a consultation process, and there are many tests around the duty to consult. This does not meet those tests.

I agree that the standard process around a period of time to allow for input will be in place, but it does not meet those tests. If the government is operating in good faith, it would outline an adequate process and resources to meet the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples' duty of seeking free, prior, and informed consent and other tests that have been outlined in a variety of court decisions around “duty to consult”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. Hughes.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

As a follow-up, let me remind you of some of the comments Chief Nepinak made in his recommendations. He went on to say:

That the AMC recommends the existing Indian Act be amended, minimally and exclusively to deal with the option to extend terms of office and the common election date and that all other provisions be omitted. If the Government of Canada is sincere in its claim that the proposed legislation adds no powers to the Minister [other] than those already possessed, and further asserts that the legislation makes improvements by providing for four year terms of office and optional common election dates; then, the AMC sees no reason why the federal government would object.

As opposed to going through all of this exercise, the chief is basically saying you could have just amended the Indian Act a little bit to allow that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. Hughes, have you any comment specifically related to clause 41?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Well, it's with respect to the four-year term. This is again a place where you could put it into the existing legislation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Okay. Not seeing any additional speakers to clause 41, I will call the vote on it.

(Clause 41 agreed to)

Ms. Crowder, you have an amendment that would follow clause 41.

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

We are proposing an amendment that would add the following new clause:

41.1 (1) Within one year after the coming into force of sections 2 to 5 and 30 to 42, and every two years thereafter, the Minister must prepare a report on the following:

(a) any amendments made to the regulations;

(b) any amendments made to the schedule respecting the additions or removals of, or the changes to, the names of First Nations;

(c) orders of the Minister respecting the coming into force of any community election codes;

(d) names of persons who have been convicted of an offence under this Act and penalized accordingly;

(e) applications submitted to a competent court regarding the contested election of the chief or a councillor of a participating First Nation and any decisions made by the competent court; and

(f) any petitions for the removal from office of the chief or a councillor of a participating First Nation.

(2) The Minister must cause a copy of the report to be tabled in each House of Parliament on any of the first 15 sitting days on which that House is sitting after the Minister prepares it.

Mr. Chair, the reason we are proposing this amendment is to provide some parliamentary oversight with regard to a piece of legislation that could have some significant impacts on communities. I think it is incumbent upon us to determine whether there are any problems, any challenges, or sections of the legislation that require review. It would provide a mechanism by which we could review the legislation and by which the minister could look for any changes that might be necessary.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Mr. Strahl.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you very much.

I would argue that parliamentarians already do have an opportunity to review that. Some of us have had the privilege of sitting on the Joint Standing Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations and have definitely seen these sorts of regs come before that committee. As far as I can tell, paragraphs (a), (b), and (c) as proposed are already required to be reported under the Statutory Instruments Act. It says that those amendments have to be published in the Gazette, as was indicated previously.

Certainly anyone who is convicted of an offence, is penalized, or goes to court under this act...those are already publicly reported as well. It seems redundant. It seems to inject the minister unnecessarily into a process when we're trying to remove the minister from the elections process altogether. Put the onus of reporting on first nations leadership to their own electors. This seems to be continuing a paternalistic approach that we're trying to get away from here.

There are two problems that I see with the amendment. One is that it injects the minister unnecessarily, and two, any changes that need to be reported here are already reported publicly through other venues.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Ms. Crowder.

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

I completely disagree with the parliamentary secretary. This is not about a minister interfering with the affairs of a first nation. This is about parliamentary oversight over a piece of legislation. So it's not adding anything additional in terms of ministerial interference with regard to that.

This particular amendment doesn't just deal with the regulations; it deals with other aspects of the legislation. Again, reporting to Parliament is an important function, and if we're talking about accountability and transparency, this will be an important mechanism to ensure accountability and transparency in terms of how this piece of legislation is being unrolled and what some of the implications of it are.

I would urge us to support this particular amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Not seeing any additional speakers—Ms. Hughes.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

I just want to remind our colleagues across the way that the witnesses who did appear before us did indicate that the current legislation goes further into a paternalistic approach, contrary to what Mr. Strahl has said. It's his view that he thinks this is going away from the paternalistic approach, but those people who are actually living the current Indian Act and those who are going to be affected the most by this legislation indicate that that's not the case. This is actually going further into the paternalistic approach.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Thank you.

Not seeing any additional speakers to amendment NDP 1—this is the amendment that was proposed that would become a new section 41.1.

All those in favour of NDP 1?

(Amendment negatived)

We will now consider clauses 42 through 44 inclusively.

Not seeing any speakers to those three clauses, we go to a vote.

(Clauses 42 to 44 inclusive agreed to)

Shall the schedule carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Shall clause 1 carry, which is the short title?

(Clause 1 agreed to)

Shall the title carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Chris Warkentin]

Shall the bill carry?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.