Tina Keeper

[Canadian Television Fund, February 13th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Quebecor announced that instead of making contributions to the Canadian television fund, it would create an independent fund for its own television productions.

Losing its contribution in accordance with the CRTC guideline would be the end of the CTF. Artist unions and other stakeholders fear that the private interests are taking over the government initiatives.

Will the minister put her foot down right away and stop the destruction of the Canadian television fund?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 7th, 2007]

I apologize, Mr. Speaker. That is a part of the consultation process. This is an integral discussion in terms of the consultation process that Canada should be engaged in with first nations and aboriginal people.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I find it somewhat offensive that the member opposite would infer that there has been a 30 year consultation process. Indeed, we all know that the Indian Act has been in place and has been the source of much deliberation on how to move forward between first nations and the Canadian government to ensure first nations can participate in a society that provides equality and a standard of living.

What we are talking about is many years of inequity. I am not sure specifically about what consultation period the member was talking. I have a joint press release from the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada, issued on December 13, 2006, in which they state, “We support the repeal in principle, but only after proper consultation”.

National Chief Phil Fontaine has said:

The Government of Canada has not consulted First Nations, even though this action was anticipated almost three decades ago....Now, the government intends to simply repeal this section without due regard to the unique legal context and development of associated capacity for First Nations relating to the CHRA. This is simply a recipe for ineffectiveness and will add new costs for First Nations governments already under-resourced.

I will also quote the Native Women's Association of Canada President, Bev Jacobs, who also said in this press release:

We believe that the repeal of Section 67 without engaging in meaningful consultations with Aboriginal peoples could only lead to disaster....We are still dealing with the aftermath of Bill C-31, which was a result of not having meaningful consultation with First Nations, including Aboriginal women.

In answer to the member's question, I am not exactly sure about what consultation he is talking. I will be very happy to hear about the consultation processes. Perhaps the member could table a report or table the information and ensure that we have it on this side of the House. Certainly the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada do not seem to agree that there was a proper or meaningful consultation on this issue.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, this is a critical and important debate looking at the human rights of first nations citizens in our country. The Canadian Human Rights Act is not only based on principles upheld in this country but on international human rights principles and practices for which we are leaders on the world stage. As Canadians we are very proud.

Today I am also proud to contribute to the debate at second reading of Bill C-44, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. The intention of the bill is to effectively repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which reads as follows:

Nothing in this Act affects any provision of the Indian Act or any provision made under or pursuant to that Act.

The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development stated:

Since its inception, section 67 has been the subject of numerous calls for repeal, including calls from the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, as well as from Canada's national Aboriginal organizations. Today, this Government is moving forward to finally repeal section 67 to ensure that all Aboriginal people have the same access to human rights protections as all other Canadians.

The member for Provencher, when he was minister of justice, stated:

The repeal of section 67 represents an important step in furthering and enhancing the individual human rights protection enjoyed by all Canadians.

The departmental backgrounder states:

Section 67 was part of the Canadian Human Rights Act when the Act was introduced in 1977. At the time, discussions were underway with Aboriginal groups about possible reforms to the Indian Act. Section 67 was originally adopted as a temporary measure because it was recognized that the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act to all matters falling under the Indian Act could have resulted in certain provisions of the Indian Act being found discriminatory before the discussions with Aboriginal groups about reforming the Indian Act had concluded. Since its inception, however, section 67 has been the subject of numerous calls for repeal--

As was stated by my colleague and by the member opposite, the intention of this bill, to address the issue of human rights for first nations in Canada, is indeed something which I am also in agreement with, but I have serious concerns with the process indicated in Bill C-44. Given that Churchill riding has a high first nations population, I want to ensure that my constituents have a voice in this critical debate.

We have heard from the parliamentary secretary that the issues and concerns surrounding section 67 have been around for the past 30 years and since its inception it has been the subject of numerous calls for repeal. First nations and aboriginal groups have also made statements and have positions on this issue as well.

As a whole, first nations have voiced their commitment to human rights. They have long-standing traditions, cultures and laws, respecting human rights, both individual and collective. Indeed they have been here for thousands of years.

When the Canadian Human Rights Act became law, the unique circumstances and perspectives of first nations were recognized in the exemption of the Indian Act bands through section 67. It was never intended to be long term but it was expected that the government would engage the first nations and respectfully and appropriately reflect first nations interests and perspectives relating to human rights. That the Government of Canada intends to forcefully move ahead to repeal the section without due regard to the first nations position as voiced is a deep concern.

There was also a recommendation for a consultation process in the October 2005 special report by the Canadian Human Rights Commission entitled “A Matter of Rights”. It recommended the repeal of section 67. It recommended that:

The repeal legislation [must] include provisions to enable the development and enactment, in full consultation with First Nations, of an interpretative provision, which will take into consideration the rights and interests of First Nations.

If we are considering human rights, then it must be in that spirit that Canada work alongside first nations. How critical is this? How necessary is it for the government to fully consult with first nations on this legislation and how it relates to their future and their well-being?

We have heard over and over again in this House about the dire living conditions of first nations. The government must also fully appreciate the potential impacts on aboriginal and treaty rights that this bill may have. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples stated that aboriginal peoples must have the room to exercise their autonomy and structure the solutions.

We are talking about a position by first nations, recommendations, and consultation between first nations and government, and more specifically, the drafting and approval of an interpretative provision on section 67. The Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs, which represents 33 first nations in my riding, has recommended that any proposed interpretative provisions not become merely guidelines or policy but a legislative provision, legally binding, and also that this process be first nations specific.

We have heard from other members today about the concerns on collective rights that first nations have continually maintained and to achieve a sustainable solution for all first nations citizens. I have mentioned many of these elements in previous speeches, but unfortunately, I have to repeat myself.

In May 2005 an agreement was signed by the Assembly of First Nations and the then Liberal government, the First Nations-Federal Crown Political Accord on the Recognition and Implementation of First Nations Governments. It laid a framework for a collaborative federal policy development process that would guarantee first nations participation. Bill C-44 was not a result of this collaborative process as guaranteed by this accord.

While the bill actually has a transition provision, it does not explicitly contain any terms for a delay period in order to establish issues relating to implementation. Bill C-44 does provide a six month period of immunity for first nations from complaints as outlined in clause 3 of the bill.

Most first nations lack the resources to manage the new exposure to liability they would face if Bill C-44 was adopted or to undertake ameliorative measures to minimize potential risks. A six month immunity period will not change this situation. It will only defer the inevitable flood of complaints that will follow after a six month delay period when our communities are facing chronic housing shortages and limited access to and services for disabled people. First nations require the financial resources to minimize or eliminate potential exposure to the risk of complaints. We must first ensure that first nations are provided with adequate resource mechanisms and institutions to fulfill their new responsibilities and risks.

I agree with the intent of this bill, but I have serious concerns about the process and the lack of consultation with first nations and aboriginal groups such as the Native Women's Association of Canada. That association has voiced concerns as well about the lack of consultation in this process.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the member keeps to referring to 30 years. We all know that it was almost 30 years ago that the Canadian Human Rights Act was introduced as law.

Could the member indicate when throughout that 30 years there has been consultation with first nations? As we know, it is the premise for a collaborative partnership and relationship with and between first nations and is actually the basis of human rights. When in that 30 years has there been a consultation process with first nations and the Government of Canada?

[Points of Order, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order has to do with when my colleague from Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River asked a question in the House. When he made reference to the dire living conditions of first nations in Canada, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who has a fiduciary responsibility to first nations, made a crass and offensive statement, one which I found crass and offensive, when he said he is in a rut and there is only a little difference between a rut and a grade.

When we are facing a child welfare crisis and, as another member mentioned in the House today, first nations children are in a suicide crisis, I think this is insulting, offensive, derogatory and shameful language and I would ask for his apology.

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 7th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, if the minister was in Washington promoting oil industry business, his department should not have picked up the tab for the trip.

This little non-INAC junket to hobnob with Washington elite was more than $14,000 and INAC footed most of this bill. Why did the oilmen he was lobbying for not offer to pick up the tab?

When will the minister repay his department and turn his attention to the first nations housing, child welfare and water crises that all need his attention?

[Aboriginal Affairs, February 6th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, wasteful Challenger flights, a patronage contract to Harvie Andre, and now we learn of thousands spent on luxury hotels.

The minister continues to say that money is not the answer for safe drinking water on reserves. He slashed $400 million for water when he flushed the Kelowna accord. Now we have an international aid organization moving in to address poverty in first nations. Money is a problem.

Why is the Prime Minister allowing his big spending minister to mix oil and water?

[Broadcasting Industry, February 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the script changes almost daily on this issue, but these cable companies have to pay their dues. It is a condition of the licence that allows them to operate. We know the minister was against the CTF when she was with the CRTC, but now she is a minister with a duty to uphold the law.

Will the minister now admit her inaction is putting the domestic television industry and even our Canadian identity at risk?

[Broadcasting Industry, February 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Canadian Heritage has failed the test of leadership when it comes to the Canadian television fund. Exempting Vidéotron and Shaw from their contractual obligations to support the CTF has made television producers and other stakeholders across Canada furious and fearful about the future of the Canadian television industry.

Why will the minister not stand up for the CTF and enforce the licensing requirements of Canada's big cable companies?