Jean Crowder

[Committees of the House, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for her intervention but I would like to set the record a little straight. When she talked about us not supporting a motion, it was a motion that actually did not talk about the true record of the Liberal government. One of the things I wanted to ask the member about was the Liberal government's failure to institute a gender based analysis in its budgets.

The group called FAFIA, the Feminist Alliance for International Action, did a detailed analysis of the budgets over 10 years that the Liberals had put forward and talked about the adverse impact for women. Let us just talk about employment insurance as one example, about how employment insurance legislation was not subject to a gender based analysis which meant that women actually lost benefits under that particular piece of legislation.

I wonder if the member could comment on why there was no gender based analysis done on successive budgets under the Liberal regime.

[Member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, February 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, for the second time in four weeks, the MP for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo told her local papers that she was a member of cabinet. This is somewhat confusing as parliamentary secretaries do not sit in cabinet. Ask any child studying Grade 8 social sciences.

Could the Prime Minister explain when his cabinet grew to include the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the member has been a tireless advocate on women's rights. This bill is important in terms of ensuring that the mechanisms that are developed are culturally relevant, which has been a challenge.

Often times we develop solutions that do not respect first nations culture and traditions. We have treaty implementation right now in places like Yukon where people are working hard. The Teslin Tlingit are working toward having restorative justice mechanisms and a justice system that is respectful of the traditions. They know that it works.

In the cases of human rights violations, if we can institute some culturally relevant mechanisms we know it will help the community to solve its own problems. In addition, some of these communities do not speak English. In many northern Ontario communities, for example, many of the elders speak only Cree.

If we put together tribunals that respect the language and the tradition from those communities, I would argue that the solutions will be much more suitable to the people in those communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate spending time with my colleague on the aboriginal affairs committee.

The question that has just been raised is part of the tension in this bill, that balancing of individual and collective rights. It is one of the important issues on which we need to have that consultation. When we are talking about different cultural traditions and different heritages, many first nations have a long history around respect for collective rights and respect for individual rights. Those are the kinds of issues for which the first nations of this country need to talk about what their nation's perspective is and how that balancing act between individual and collective rights needs to be examined.

We are so proud of our Canadian Human Rights Act and we need to talk about how those human rights are protected in respecting both the individual and the collective. I would encourage all members to take the opportunity to examine that very question at committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would agree that first nations women coast to coast to coast in this country have waited long enough to ensure that their human rights are respected and honoured in this country.

However, first nations women in this country, the Native Women's Association of Canada in particular, have gone on record as saying that they want to see their involvement in any legislation that is going to directly impact on them. I think it is absolutely reasonable that we would include people in the discussion, in identifying the problem and the solutions, when we are going to develop legislation that is going to directly impact on them in their communities, not only on them but on their children and their spouses.

I would agree with and I said earlier that we support the intent of the bill, but what we want to see is full consultation. When we are talking about issues around human rights, I urge that we have full consultation around Bill C-44 and the declaration on indigenous rights. There are many other things that we need to actually bring to the forefront if we want to talk about human rights in a meaningful way and sound like we have any credibility about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-44 today. The NDP will support the bill at second reading and refer it to committee. We do support the intent of the bill, but we do have some grave concerns around a number of aspects of the bill and that is specifically what I am going to be addressing this afternoon.

There are a number of issues that I will be talking about. I will be talking about lack of consultation, resources and process.

There have been many claims that there has been consultation over a number of years and yet, when it actually came to writing the content of the bill, there was no consultation on that particular part.

Part of what has been called consultation is consultation that went back to 1999, for example, in an overall review of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the old Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act. Those are some of the mechanisms that have been deemed as consultation.

I would argue that part of the problem that we have before the House right now is the fact that we have a government and previous governments as well that have not defined what consultation has meant. So we continue to bump up against this as a problem.

For first nations, Métis and Inuit people, whether it is this piece of legislation or other pieces of legislation that are developed, this directly impacts on their lives, on their ability to live in their communities, and in their ability to maintain a living. There was no consultation and sometimes the consultation is what I call lip service consultation. They will be called in and provide an opinion, and then the door is closed when the decision making is actually going to happen.

Consultation has been a problem that has been identified by the Auditor General. Supreme courts have ruled that there is a duty to consult, but the Auditor General has identified in one of her reports that there has been very little progress made on the part of the government in defining what consultation means. I would argue that if we are going to define what consultations means, we should actually include first nations, Métis and Inuit people as well.

In the discussion of the repeal of section 67 in Bill C-44 is the fact that every review of section 67 has called for an interpretive clause. Although there have been previous attempts to take a look at an interpretive clause, they have fallen short and actually failed.

In this case, I want to go back to the October 2005 report, “A Matter of Rights” by the Canadian Human Rights Commission which did call for the repeal of section 67 legislation. In the report it states:

--provisions to enable the development, in full consultation with First Nations, of an interpretative provision, which will take into consideration the special rights and interests of First Nations in order to guide the Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act with regard to complaints against First Nations governments and related institutions.

There are two pieces in that. First, is the issue around full consultation which I have already talked about and the long foot dragging that has happened in defining consultation, but second, in the report it specifically called for an interpretive provision. This same report also called for a transitional period between 18 and 30 months to allow for that consultation and the enactment of the proposed interpretive provision.

The bill is dealing specifically with first nations on reserve. We have 633 reserves in Canada and part of the challenge when we are talking about consultation is how do we meaningfully include people. We have seen some of these challenges come up with matrimonial real property in how people are included from coast to coast in consultation.

How do we reach out to those rural and remote communities? How do we ensure there are sufficient resources to make sure that people who are different nations, who have different points of view and different cultural and traditional backgrounds, have a consultative mechanism that actually takes a look at those differences?

Further on in this report it talks about moving forward to repeal the legislation. New Democrats agree there is a need to do that, but many first nations women are concerned that moving too quickly will have unanticipated consequences, much like the aftereffects of Bill C-31. That bill reinstated a woman's status if she married a non-native person, but has had the unintended consequences of what some people are calling legislated extinction. Under subsection 6.1(b) of that particular piece of legislation, there is a provision where people who marry non-native people end up losing their status. I want to say a little more about that.

I want to quote from a press release issued by Quebec Native Women Inc. It states:

If passed into law, Bill C-44 would change the ways in which decisions are made in Aboriginal communities. Human rights protection is an issue that deserves immediate attention, but a solution must be developed that takes into consideration the unique reality of Aboriginal people. Moreover, our customs and traditions must be taken into account, as well as our Aboriginal and treaty rights. “The creation of a structure that respects individual and collective rights of Aboriginal people should also originate from a process that reflects these same principles”, stated QNW president, Ellen Gabriel.

Ellen Gabriel is a well respected woman from Quebec. She has expressed some other concerns about how this particular piece of legislation can also be compared to the unintended consequences in Bill C-31. The press release went on to say:

The experience of Bill C-31 has shown us that well-intended legislation can have serious consequences for our people in the future. In addition, Aboriginal people can no longer accept the unilateral imposition of non-Aboriginal laws, which may be incompatible with our cultural values. Furthermore, research regarding the effects of the legislation should be undertaken before it is passed into law, not five years after when the problems created may be irreversible or are simply ignored. After all, we have understood for some time now the negative impact of Bill C-31, but nothing has been done about it.

It is really interesting to have a Conservative government introduce a piece of legislation that is talking about human rights. Yet, the Conservative government had an opportunity to support the United Nations declaration for indigenous rights. The Conservatives worked hard to ensure that Canadians were not supporting that, the Canadian government was not supporting that declaration. That has signalled to first nations, Métis and Inuit communities that this particular government is not taking human rights seriously in their communities.

Recently, Monday as a matter of fact, we had National Chief Phil Fontaine talk about filing a complaint at the Canadian Human Rights Commission regarding the appalling situation concerning child welfare in this country. Then my colleague from Timmins—James Bay today asked a question about Kachechewan, a community where the children do not even have access to a primary school. Surely schooling is a fundamental human right in this country.

There have been many opportunities for the government to demonstrate its commitment to human rights for first nations, Métis and Inuit people across this country and it has failed to do that. It is a bit hypocritical, I would suggest, to argue that the government's foremost piece of legislation will deal with human rights for first nations people in this country.

Mary Eberts from the Native Women's Association participated in the Department of Justice review on section 67 in the year 2000. She made a number of recommendations around section 67. I want to talk about a couple of those because people have put forward some proposed solutions for how we might deal with section 67. These are solutions that have come from first nations communities. Surely, those are the people who should be actively involved in putting forward those solutions. She said:

To protect traditional Aboriginal rights from the impact of a CHRA without section 67, include in the Act a provision similar to s. 25 of the Charter: the guarantee in this Act of certain rights shall not be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any Aboriginal, treaty or other right that pertains to Aboriginal peoples in Canada.

She went on to say:

However, it should be recognized that some of Canada's most prominent foes of the rights of Aboriginal women have argued that the right to discriminate against and exclude women is part of the traditional heritage of Aboriginal people.

I might add that there are many people who do not agree with this opinion. This is not a universal point of view.

She states:

This argument is made, for example, by the Sawridge band in its case against Bill C-31, and in its intervention to oppose John Corbière's attack on s. 77 of the Indian Act. Accordingly, any provision drafted pursuant to recommendation 2 should include a safeguard, or rider, to the same effect as ss. 35(4) of the Constitution Act, 1982, that aboriginal and treaty rights are extended equally to men and women.

The [Canadian Human Rights Act] should apply to Band Councils, to their membership codes, and to the actions of the federal Government pursuant to the Indian Act. The Act should also include a standard provision that would make the [Canadian Human Rights Act] applicable to self-government agreements unless and until the measures to protect human rights were put in place pursuant to the agreement.

She also mentions:

--procedural rights, which could be enforced against procedural unfairness in dealing with claims for reinstatement under Bill C-31, and in the ways First Nations deal with reinstatees.

The [Canadian Human Rights Commission] needs to be provided with the funding to make it fully effective as an instrument of human rights enforcement. In the case of Aboriginal people, such funding would allow the Commission to take account of the facts that Aboriginal people live in isolated and remote areas; may not have access to sophisticated communications means; may have literacy and language issues in dealing with the Commission; do not have ready access to legal advice because of their isolation and poverty; live in small communities where reprisals for complaints may be a continuing problem or in urban centres where they may be homeless or transient; and are dealing with organizations...with a record of poor communication, so that access to required documentation may be difficult to obtain.

Ms. Eberts made a number of concrete recommendations that successive governments have failed to implement. The report was written back in 2000, I believe. I also have another section that I want to read for members, around the old Bill C-31, the old bill that reinstated women and has had this unintended consequence. She stated:

The shrinking of the status Indian community as a result of the application of the discriminatory provisions will enable the federal government to shed its responsibilities toward Aboriginal people, since it now recognizes obligations only to those who have status under the Indian Act. Bill C-31 also restricts the life choices of young Aboriginal people whose parents are C-31 reinstatees: to ensure that their children can be registered, they will have to partner with a status Indian. Policies restricting access of Bill C-31 reinstatees to their Bands or Band reserves may make it difficult to make such social connections; in any event, forcing them erects a kind of race segregation that resembles apartheid.

I am sure that nobody in this House wants to see unintended consequences from a piece of legislation that has not had that full consultation with first nations communities. The reason we support getting Bill C-44 to committee is that there must be that opportunity to hear from people who are going to be directly affected by the impact of this bill. It is essential that those voices are heard not only in examining this bill, but in identifying the resources required, in identifying the processes to make sure that we are hearing from people, and in identifying any potential amendments that might be necessary to make sure this bill reflects the needs of people in their communities.

I mentioned funding and resources. There are a couple of other things where we could talk about what might actually address some of the issues around human rights complaints. A number of first nations and reports have identified the fact that first nations are quite capable of developing human rights standards that could be equal to those of the Canadian Human Rights Act, if not better. The other issue is that there is a potential to have an ombudsperson who could work with communities that are identifying some human rights issues in their communities.

One of the things we know, of course, is that there is a financial cost to this, but I would argue that there is a financial cost to not doing it as well. We often do not examine those financial costs of not doing things. In this case, what we know is that if this bill goes ahead as it is, without any additional resources assigned to it, the Canadian Human Rights Commission could face increasing backlogs around dealing with some of these issues.

However, we also know that many band councils are not equipped to deal with the volume of Canadian human rights complaints that could come in. They do not have the resources. They often do not have the capacity. Then there are the challenges with travel, communications strategies and all of those kinds of things. If this bill is to move forward, it is essential that resources are provided to communities.

Mary Eberts and others have actually called for an ombudsperson. This person should be able to interact with communities that often have different language capabilities and that have perhaps some educational awareness issues around what could be included in appropriate mechanisms to deal with section 67.

The Native Women's Association of Canada has also recommended that the Canadian Human Rights Commission establish staff and tribunal panels composed of aboriginal people who not only have a background in human rights but also have a background in traditional dispute resolution mechanisms. That would also make sense.

We are seeing in other fields that there is a call in the criminal justice system for some restorative justice processes. Under the Canadian Human Rights Act, it would seem reasonable that we have some sort of commission or tribunal that could work with communities around their own traditional methods of dealing with complaints.

The other issue that I do not think we have touched on is the fact that the Canadian Human Rights Commission should have a special monitoring function with respect to Canada's compliance with international human rights obligations. I know that unfortunately Canada has been cited on a number of different occasions around violations of human rights in this country, particularly women's rights.

We have seen things like the cuts to legal aid that have impacted on first nations women being able to access legal aid when they have a court case to deal with. There are other issues like that which would seem to make it important to give the Canadian Human Rights Commission the ability to oversee the implementation of Canada's international obligations.

I talked about the short transitional period. The Canadian Human Rights Commission, when it made its recommendations, and we would support it, said that there should be at least an 18 to 30 month period of transition to allow the consultation and the development of the interpretive clause, which would make sure we were meeting the needs of first nations communities.

There are a number of other things that I would like to address, but I know I will run out of time so I will close with a couple of specific points.

I mentioned earlier that this is an opportunity for the Government of Canada to fulfill other obligations around human rights. I want to touch again on the United Nations declaration for indigenous rights. This is a statement of principle that has become a flagship for first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples from coast to coast to coast. Canada could signal its absolute commitment to human rights by supporting that declaration. There will be another opportunity, because it will likely come up again over the next few months.

It would be a statement that would say to first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples across this country that Canada takes human rights seriously and is committed to human rights. If we want to demonstrate that we are prepared to work with first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples across this country on human rights, that we are prepared to engage in discussions on a nation to nation basis and talk about some of the situations on the reserves in this country, this would be one way to show that we are prepared to not only talk the talk but walk the walk. That in itself would go a long way to telling people in this country that Canada truly does have a commitment to human rights.

In conclusion, the NDP will support this bill going to committee for a fuller review, where we would look forward to the kinds of consultation that could have this bill reflect the needs in communities across this country.

[Canada Elections Act, February 5th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Parkdale—High Park for her intervention. She clearly outlined the many challenges with this particular piece of legislation before the House.

In my riding, for example, many first nations communities have really had difficulties in voting. One of the things which has been discussed in this bill is that there would be some effort to improve access, both to being on the voter's list but also to voting polls. One of the things that did happen in the last election was that people in the advance poll who lived on Kuper Island had to go from Kuper Island to Vancouver Island to Gabriola Island to vote in the advance poll, which is absolutely ridiculous.

One of the things that the member talked about was enumeration and presentation of appropriate identification. I wonder if the member could talk about the benefits around enumeration for first nations people in rural and remote communities, so that they would have better access to their right to vote.

[Canada Elections Act, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, New Democrats are very conscious of the fact that we want our electoral system to be as free from fraud as possible. To that end, we have suggested a number of amendments that would not only protect the legitimacy of our system but also ensure that people wanting to vote actually can do that.

Some of the things around having someone vouch for more than one person would be a legitimate way to protect the integrity of the system as well as having people exercise their right to vote.

We put forward a number of other amendments that would ensure we were meeting those high standards, both nationally and internationally.

[Canada Elections Act, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that seniors would be discouraged. I said that we wanted to ensure there were no difficulties presented for them. Seniors could be discouraged if, for example, they are faced with constant moving because of increased problems with access to accommodation that could make it more challenging for them to have the appropriate identification.

Anyone who recognizes that seniors are increasingly struggling with poverty and their housing situation will recognize that they may run into some difficulties if an election is called before all the appropriate mechanisms are in place.

I will talk a little about the fraud. When we asked the Chief Electoral Officer if he felt there had been huge instances of fraud, he basically said that there were a few isolated incidents but that no political party had brought to his attention any systemic things going on. He said that as far as he was concerned this was not a big issue.

I would argue that if there are some isolated incidents, we need to find mechanisms to deal with those. However, we know that universal enumeration has been very effective in the past. Many people would support that. It would make sense to ensure the voter lists are accurate, are up to date and they reflect the true availability of voters in the riding.

[Canada Elections Act, February 2nd, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak about this piece of legislation before the House. It is an important consideration when we are talking about our democratic process. One of the fundamentals of our democratic process is how people actually get to vote.

The legislation before us is a bill to amend the Canada Elections Act. Part of the reasoning that has been put forward for the bill is the alleged cases of fraud throughout the country, cases of voters being able to vote who are either not part of that riding or who perhaps are misrepresenting themselves.

Yet when the Chief Electoral Officer was asked about this very situation, what he indicated was that there were a very few isolated incidents of voter fraud. This notion that there is massive voter fraud throughout the country is bogus. If our Chief Electoral Officer says that there are isolated incidents, surely we should be able to accept his word for it.

The other thing that has been talked about around the bill is that it will be used as a mechanism to encourage voter turnout. I would argue that in fact what it will do is discourage voter turnout.

Members have talked about the fact that people would show up and their names would be on the list. I fail to see how asking for more identification actually ensures that people's names are on the list. If we really want to talk about getting people's names on the list and getting an accurate list, then what we would do is universal enumeration. The NDP certainly has called for that.

There is another thing people are talking about. I might just back this up a little by again referencing the fact that we would like to see increased voter turnout. That is a major concern, I am sure, for each and every Canadian. We need to have voters engaged in that democratic process. What we are seeing is a continuing decline in voter turnout.

In the last federal election, it was in the low sixties. When we start doing the math on that, we can see that we can end up having somebody with 30% or 35% of the vote, which is 30% or 35% of 60%, actually governing the country, and then we have a very small minority who supported a particular political party making decisions that affect all of us.

I would argue that what we need to do is look for mechanisms that encourage, rather than discourage, voter turnout. There are some aspects of the bill that will discourage voter turnout and disenfranchise the most vulnerable in the country, potentially including seniors, homeless people, students and first nations.

Part of the requirements in this bill are around voter identification. One of the very troubling elements of the bill is the fact that when a voter turns up at a poll and does not have the appropriate identification, the bill allows for somebody to vouch for that person. The unfortunate part of it is that once somebody has vouched for a person once, he or she cannot vouch for anyone else.

For example, we will have situations in which workers in a homeless shelter or a transition house who could vouch for a number of people, who are eligible voters in that situation, will not be able to do so. In the past, people have been able to vouch for more than one person. That would seem to be a reasonable thing to do. This is one situation that is going to cause some difficulties for people who have been able to vote in the past.

There is another situation. The member opposite talked about the fact that there has been some agreement around the use of status cards as a mechanism to allow first nations people on reserve to vote and suggested that perhaps phone bills are one mechanism. This requirement for other kinds of identification like phone bills demonstrates a lack of understanding about what people's lives are like in many communities. I would argue that what we really need to do is work closely with first nations on reserve to find out what would work for them in their communities around encouraging voter turnout and participation in the voting process.

I have heard of some very disturbing situations in my own riding. People have turned out to vote and have been turned away for reasons that, it turned out later, were not legitimate. Their identification was not recognized even though there were people there to vouch for them. It is very problematic.

The other thing we find in this legislation is the date of birth. There is a clause in this legislation that would require voters to provide their date of birth to Elections Canada. That information would then be provided to political parties. If we were to ask voters in this country if they wanted political parties to have their date of birth, I would suggest that many Canadians would be vehemently opposed to that.

I do not think Canadians want political parties to have their dates of birth. I do not think political parties would always be responsible about how that information would be used. We have certainly heard rumours around how, when political parties have access to that information, they use it for their own political ends by sending out birthday cards and greetings and all those kinds of things.

I am sure that voters would not appreciate political parties using their dates of birth on a voters list for those ends. I would encourage political parties, if they want to send birthday greetings, to find other means to do that. I would suggest that the voters list is not the appropriate mechanism.

One of the other elements of this bill that is troubling, and I did speak briefly about it, is about people who are homeless. This is a rising problem in this country. We know that in cities from coast to coast to coast we are seeing more people living on the street. I would argue that even enumeration in high homelessness areas will not give us an answer to that problem.

In my own riding of Nanaimo--Cowichan, the city of Nanaimo, along with a number of groups, did a social status update for Nanaimo. In that social status update, they talked about the fact that residents cited the increasing costs of housing, both owned and rental. They also cited the increasing incidents of homelessness and raised concerns about the declining stock of market rental housing. They also talked about the fact that the housing vacancy rate had dropped from 3.4% in 2002 to 1.4% in 2004.

We are seeing increasing pressure on people, either from losing their homes or from being forced out of rental accommodation, in my riding anyway, because of rising rental rates. Thus, we have a couple of things.

First, we have people ending up on the streets more frequently and therefore having no fixed address. If there is an election, we see them having more difficulty in terms of turning up at polls with appropriate identification that demonstrates where they live.

On the other hand, we also have people who are moving more frequently and who may not necessarily have identification with their current address when they turn up to vote.

These are important issues that we need to consider when we are encouraging voter turnout.

A couple of other things came up in this particular study that are directly related to voters being able to identify who they are. Again, the study talks about multiple moves, saying that the lack of affordable housing leads to multiple moves, which creates instability for children and causes difficulty for service providers trying to stay connected.

It is the service provider piece of it that is also important, because we say that people who know us can vouch for us when we are voting, yet when we have people disconnecting from the very service providers who could provide that voucher process, we are seeing that disconnect here as well.

The study also talks about how there is a need to develop appropriate housing and support systems to enable seniors to live independently for as long as possible, saying that if this occurred, it would relieve demand for more costly facility care arrangements. Seniors are also in this crunch. We know that seniors think it is a really important part of the democratic process to exercise their right to vote. We know that seniors vote in higher numbers. We want to make sure that seniors continue to have that right to vote.

A number of amendments have been put forward by the New Democrats. Certainly one of the things we have suggested is that the government look at a system currently in place in British Columbia. In the current system in British Columbia, there is an opportunity for people to swear to the fact that they said who they were. This system has worked well in British Columbia and has allowed people in places like Vancouver East, for example, to exercise their right to vote.

Unless the amendments that we have put forward are supported by members in the House, it will be difficult for the New Democrats to support the legislation as it stands.