Anita Neville

[Business of Supply, May 29th, 2008]

Again, Mr. Chair, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Is it the minister's view that indigenous collective rights are not human rights? This appears to be the view of his government, even though the Human Rights Council and other international and regional bodies regularly consider indigenous collective rights under their respective human rights mandates.

[Business of Supply, May 29th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, that is in spite of 101 legal experts in this country.

Canada has continued to play mischief and has continued its defensive campaign against the rights of indigenous people both in Canada and around the world by maintaining its rejection of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as the starting point or minimum outcome for further negotiations on the OAS Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

How can the government defend cherry-picking which human rights standards and instruments it will respect when doing so violates the rule of law in Canada and threatens the stability of the international human rights system?

[Business of Supply, May 29th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, the declaration came after two decades of negotiation in which Canada played a large role. One hundred and forty-four countries voted for it and four countries voted against it. One hundred and one legal experts in this country have indicated the authenticity of this declaration.

Again, my question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs. How can you justify your government's opposition to this declaration?

[Business of Supply, May 29th, 2008]

Mr. Chair, in your opening remarks, Minister, you spoke about principles being connected with interest. I am wondering if you could comment.

Canada was only one of four countries to vote against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The minister knows that his government's opposition to the declaration came in spite of recommendations to support it from three departments: the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, the Department of National Defence, and your own department.

I wonder if you could tell me how you justify the government's opposition to the declaration.

[Aboriginal Affairs, May 29th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, today's second National Day of Action is yet another blemish on Canada's international reputation. Our reputation was already tarnished when Canada voted against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples last year.

Canada is now blocking a similar instrument at the Organization of American States.

When will this government listen to the concerns of aboriginal peoples, give up its artificial legal and constitutional excuses and honour the declaration?

[Canadian Human Rights Act, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to stand today to speak in support of the amended Bill C-21.

Members will recall that the bill was first introduced into the House in the 39th session of Parliament as Bill C-44. It has been re-introduced into the House as Bill C-21 and has gone through a very lengthy committee process. It has now come back to the House in its amended form for final conclusion.

To recap, members will remember that the act would repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which excludes Indians who live or work on reserve from filing human rights complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in respect of any alleged human rights violations that relate to any action arising from or pursuant to the Indian Act.

I want to make it very clear from the outset that this party, this official opposition, has supported the intent of the bill. The repeal of section 67 of the Human Rights Act has been a long time in coming and it is something that we support very much.

What we did not support was the manner in which the bill was brought forward, both in its initial introduction and in its subsequent introduction as Bill C-21. It was brought forward without any consultation with first nations communities. We heard that there were significant concerns about the legislation, but there seemed to be absolutely no will, commitment, effort or respect on the part of the government to address some of those concerns.

I am repeating myself, but I want to make it very clear. I said, at least 18 times, in the House or in committee, as did my colleagues, that we supported the repeal of section 67 of the Human Rights Act. We did not support the process in which the government chose, as one of the chiefs from Alberta said, to ram it down their throats.

We are proud to support the amended legislation. We are proud of the process that went on in committee. We heard from a host of witnesses who came before the committee. I emphasize that this is not a substitute for consultation; it was about hearing witnesses and their concerns. Out of the 21 or 22 witnesses we heard, only 1 witness supported the legislation in its original form. We heard learned presentations from academics. We heard from leaders in the aboriginal community. We heard from individuals in the aboriginal community. We heard concerns from the men and women who the bill would affect.

We were concerned that there was no interpretive clause. We were concerned that there was no non-derogation clause. We were concerned that there was no attention given to the fiscal capacity. We were most concerned that the transition period was very short. We were also concerned that no study or analysis had been done on the impact the legislation would have on first nations communities. We know an analysis was done on what the impact would be on INAC, but no study was done to determine what the impact would be on first nations communities.

The amended legislation was a model of cooperation by the opposition parties, listening to the representations we heard from individuals, working together to amend the bill to make it a stronger, fairer bill for aboriginal people in our country.

Many times we heard in the House that we had gutted the bill. Far from it. Misrepresentations were mailed out to every household in my riding, misrepresenting my position and the position of my party as it related to the bill.

We proposed a number of important amendments to the bill. We proposed and passed through committee, a non-derogation clause, an interpretative clause, an extension of the time for implementation for three years. This is important. The government originally proposed six months. It was willing to extend it to 18 months, but not beyond that. I am pleased to see the government has allowed it to go in at three years now.

The implementation period of three years will allow first nations to determine their capacity and to look at the implications. It will allow them to prepare their communities for the actual final implementation of the bill.

As the House may recall, the government tried at one point, through a point of order, to remove the non-derogation clause and the interpretative clause. We are pleased that it has come back with amendments. Although they are not what we would have preferred, we will accept the amended non-derogation and interpretative clauses in the bill. They deal with the intent and the protection of the collective rights of first nations communities. We do, however, prefer the amendments put forward in committee, but as an expression of good faith and a desire to get the bill passed, we will support the amendments put forward by the government.

With the amendments, we would be able to grant human rights to first nations people in a way that balances their collective rights with individual rights as well as maintaining all existing aboriginal and treaty rights, as recognized under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

With respect to the transition period, first nations will now have an adequate amount of time to prepare for the legislation. In doing so, the government will have a chance to properly consult with all affected first nations peoples. I sincerely hope the government will take advantage of the opportunity to do this. I hope it will not just tell them but engage them in a meaningful consultation process whereby it will listen to them and work with them to implement the bill.

Once the bill comes into effect, first nations will work with the government to undertake the extensive preparation, the capacity, fiscal and human resources required.

The important part of this is the amended legislation, and it was amended not without acrimony or without challenge, is an example of parliamentarians working together to fix flawed legislation and amend it to reflect the best interests of first nations people.

As I said at the beginning, the Liberals have always maintained our support for the repeal of this section. It was not done in a way which we supported. Since the bill is now in front of us, we are proud to say that we improved flawed legislation to reflect the views of first nations communities throughout the country. They will be able to work with this legislation, and we are proud to support it.

[Justice, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I suggest the minister read the bill I sent over to his office yesterday that I tabled some weeks ago.

The Prime Minister is seriously lacking in judgment if he thinks Manitobans will roll over and accept this hypocritical appointment. The Treasury Board President named the panel that will decide on his own judicial appointment. The Conservative government is planning to appoint a man to the bench who pleaded guilty to breaking the law.

Why is it that behaviour the Prime Minister finds unacceptable for a cabinet minister qualifies him to be a judge in Manitoba?

[Justice, May 28th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we do not hear much from the President of the Treasury Board these days. He keeps a low profile in Manitoba. He does not answer questions in the House. His parliamentary stand-in takes the heat on Conservative election financing.

Is the President of the Treasury Board, and wannabe future judge, avoiding questions on election financing because he was convicted of violating the election laws in the province of Manitoba?

[Justice, May 27th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the justice minister refused to answer whether the President of the Treasury Board was in the running for a federal judicial appointment in Manitoba. I took his refusal to answer as confirmation that the minister has in fact completed a personal history form and is now a prospective nominee.

The hypocrisy of such an appointment discredits the judicial appointment process.

Will the justice minister now be honest and admit that this appointment is rife with conflict? Will he confirm that as the minister responsible he will not participate in such an abuse of power?

[Justice, May 26th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, Manitobans deserve a better answer than that. The President of the Treasury Board and former justice minister appointed the members of the advisory committee that would be asked to recommend his own appointment.

How can the minister in good faith let his name stand for consideration when the conflict of interest is so blatantly obvious?