AANR Committee Meeting
Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.
For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources
EVIDENCE
CONTENTS
Wednesday, April 2, 2003
| ¹ | 1550 |
 |
The Chair (Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)) |
| Á | 2320 |
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| Á | 2325 |
| Á | 2330 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Á | 2335 |
| Á | 2340 |
|
Le président |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| Á | 2345 |
| Á | 2355 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| 0000 |
| 0005 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| 0010 |
| 0015 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| 0020 |
| 0025 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| 0030 |
| 0035 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| 0040 |
| 0045 |
|
Le président |
| 0050 |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| 0055 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Le président |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| · | 0100 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| · | 0105 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| · | 0110 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| · | 0115 |
| · | 0120 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| · | 0125 |
| · | 0130 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| · | 0135 |
| · | 0140 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| · | 0145 |
| · | 0150 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| · | 0155 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Wednesday, April 2, 2003
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¹ 
(1550)
[English]
The Chair (Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Order, please.
The first motion is Mr. Vellacott's. Are you ready for the question?
Á 
(2320)
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Chair, we have speakers on the motion.
I have a question first. Why are we not dealing with the motion about payment of Jodie-Lynn Waddilove?
The Chair: It's because we're dealing with the notice of motion for Mr. Vellacott.
We're here for the duration. We'll deal with everything tonight.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier(Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Chairman, Mr. Vellacott isn't here.
The Chair: If I can continue, I'll say that Mr. Vellacott isn't here, but someone else may put the motion in his place. Give me the chance to do it. Mr. Martin had the information to submit.
[English]
Mr. Vellacott is not here. Is there anyone who wishes to move his motion for him?
It is not duly moved; therefore we'll return it to him, I guess.
Mr. Pat Martin: What becomes of Mr. Vellacott's motion? Does it not just go to the bottom of the order paper?
The Chair: No. I just said we'll return it to him.
Mr. Pat Martin: Why does it not stay on as an item of business for future meetings?
The Chair: It's because we're dealing with business tonight and he's not here. If he shows up before we adjourn this evening, we'll reintroduce it.
We are now dealing with a motion by Pat Martin:
| That the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs request the immediate release of any and all legal opinions that the Government of Canada has either developed or commissioned.... |
Shall I dispense?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: Dispensed.
Are you ready for the vote? Those in favour of the motion?
Mr. Pat Martin: I wish to speak to the motion.
The Chair: That's why I asked if you were ready for the question. You will speak to the motion?
Mr. Pat Martin: No, you didn't. You didn't say “Are you ready for the question?” You said “Shall I dispense?”
The Chair: Shall I call the question?
Mr. Pat Martin:“No. You should not call the question because I wish to speak”.
The Chair: Go ahead. You have 10 minutes.
Mr. Pat Martin: The Indigenous Bar Association made representation to the committee as a witness on March 21, 2003. At that time they brought forward their legal opinion that Bill C-7 does in fact infringe upon constitutionally recognized aboriginal and treaty rights. In other words, Bill C-7 as it stands would be subject to a constitutional challenge in the matter of constitutionally recognized aboriginal and treaty rights under section 35 of the Constitution.
The Indigenous Bar Association, representing a number of lawyers, have done an in-depth analysis of Bill C-7. It is their professional opinion that this bill is unconstitutional, if you will, and they have developed legal opinions to that effect.
It would have been an advantage to the committee members if we had been aware of this earlier. If there were any legal opinions to the contrary, they should have been made available to us by our technical people with Justice.
When this was brought to the attention of the minister's office, the Indigenous Bar Association was told there were legal opinions to the contrary, this was not a constitutional matter, and nothing in Bill C-7 infringed upon or had the effect of extinguishing aboriginal rights. But when the Indigenous Bar Association asked to see those legal opinions they were told they could not be released to them. In fact, they even did an Access to Information request and were told at that time they could not be released to the Indigenous Bar Association because they were confidences of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
We find this outrageous. We believe that if the government is convinced that nothing in Bill C-7 deals with the Crown-Indian fiduciary relationship, then the onus is on them to illustrate clearly why they believe that is so, because lawyers with the Quebec Bar Association and the Indigenous Bar Association have made it abundantly clear they believe it does.
It's ironic that a bill that purports to deal with transparency and accountability for first nations people should be shrouded in this atmosphere of mystique, where they're unwilling to release documents that are clearly pertinent to the whole issue at hand here. As a transparent and accountable government, if Canada is to be credible it must apply the same standards of transparency to itself, in terms of releasing these important documents.
I'd be very upset if we were told the same thing as a committee; that these papers and research documents, whether they were written by the justice department of the Government of Canada or commissioned on behalf of the minister or INAC or DIAND.... Either way we need to see these legal opinions the government says illustrate there's nothing in Bill C-7 that acts as an infringement on the inherent rights of aboriginal people.
According to the test laid out by R. v. Sparrow to determine whether there has been an unjustifiable infringement of aboriginal or treaty rights, it's necessary to provide some proof of the right, determine whether there has been an infringement, and whether any infringement is justifiable.
The Delgamuukw and Sparrow Supreme Court rulings made it abundantly clear that if such time occurs that the government deems it advisable to infringe upon inherent rights, they have to show justification as to why it's necessary. The justification process would be to weigh the damage done by the infringement to the benefit or the common good done by the infringement.
Á (2325)
In order to deny altogether that there has been any interference with constitutional rights, we'd want to see any documentation to that effect, because more and more we're hearing that Bill C-7 does in fact have that effect. Without belabouring the point, I might point out it's an historical fact that indigenous people exercise the rights of self-government and nationhood. Any piece of legislation that might diminish or interfere with those inherent rights would be unconstitutional.
Equally as important, in order to trigger constitutional obligations around meaningful consultation and accommodation, first nations are not required to prove the existence of section 35 rights in a court of law. In fact, that's the whole point: the constitutionally recognized rights. There's no obligation on the part of aboriginal people to prove inherent rights, the existence of section 35 rights; the onus is on the Crown to prove that what they're doing is not in fact interfering with this acceptance.
If this bill is passed in its present form, first nations legal counsel say that the FNGA will be an imposition over a right that has existed and has been exercised by indigenous people since time immemorial. Although it's clear that the current Indian Act is an infringement in many aspects of the inherent right to self-government, that alone is insufficient justification to impose Bill C-7 over those who would not accept it through a process that does not meet the legal standards, even in relation to meaningful consultation, that have been established by the courts.
We have the case, Mr. Chairman, of a lack of consultation and the possible infringement on these rights. The process by which the Crown has undertaken to bring Bill C-7 forward doesn't meet even the minimum requirements of meaningful consultation as required in Delgamuukw and in Sparrow. It does not engage first nations with the intent of fully addressing the concerns of first nations. That in itself, the lack of meaningful consultation, constitutes a violation, I suppose, of the inherent rights aspect.
INAC has offered to meet with first nations to discuss the bill but did not offer to enter into a dialogue with first nations to create the bill in the first place. That has been the point made by many, many people who have made representation. INAC has offered to meet with first nations to answer questions about the bill but has not engaged first nations to fully participate in the development of the bill, nor has it discussed with first nations why INAC believes that such a bill is relevant. So INAC has not been open and transparent around the sharing of information.
Key and paramount, the most compelling information they should have been sharing is the legal opinions that give them licence to interfere with or to infringe upon inherent rights. Consequently, the very process of developing and promoting Bill C-7 to date is inconsistent with the court's requirements.
Justification requires at the bare minimum meaningful consultation. In some cases, if the matter will fundamentally impact the rights of indigenous people, consent will be required. Well, surely no one can make the case that the consultation was adequate or met any of the definitions of broad and genuine consultation. Surely nobody would be presumptuous enough to say that consent was achieved in this case.
The Indigenous Bar Association submitted to us that determining the process of leadership selection, financial accountability, the structure of first nations governance, and its institutions is at the very foundation of the right to self-government. It raises the degree of meaningful consultation required by the Crown to the highest level. In other words, it's our view that the subject matter of the bill and the nature of its impact on the inherent right will trigger the requirement of full consent and not just consultation.
I remind the chair again that in Delgamuukw vs. British Columbia, on the matter of consultation, the Supreme Court of Canada said that even in the rare cases where the minimum acceptable standard is consultation, this consultation must be in good faith and with the intention of substantially addressing the concerns of aboriginal people whose lands are at issue. In most cases it will be significantly deeper than mere consultation. Some cases may even require full consent of an aboriginal nation, particularly when provinces enact hunting and fishing regulations in relation to aboriginal people.
Mr. Chairman, I think it's abundantly clear to anybody here that at the very least, in terms of disclosing the government's overall objectives, the lack of a non-derogation clause alone should flag in the minds of any thinking person that there is the full knowledge on the part of the Crown that they will be infringing upon and even extinguishing inherent aboriginal rights by the introduction of Bill C-7.
Á (2330)
I find it outrageous that the Crown has refused to release the legal opinions to the Indigenous Bar Association on the basis that--and I quote in the letter--
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Monsieur Loubier, dix minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, like my NDP colleague, Mr. Martin, I agree that certain testimony, including that of the Indigenous Bar Association and the Barreau du Québec, enabled us to see the legislative problems that could arise--with respect to the Charter of Right and Freedoms, in particular, but also with other statutes of a more administrative nature which are administered by the federal government--in the context of the implementation of Bill C-7, if that bill were passed.
The Barreau du Québec, in particular, warned committee members that Bill C-7, far from reducing the number of legal disputes, could increase it. The Indian Act will not disappear with the passage of Bill C-7; the two will be joined together. As a result of that phenomenon, a number of sections of Canadian statutes will directly contradict the provisions contained in Bill C-7 and the Indian Act.
The Barreau du Québec also warned us that there were grey areas in Bill C-7 and that those areas could create a kind of legal vacuum. That problem can't be resolved by Bill C-7 or the Indian Act, even less by the combination of Bill C-7 and other federal statutes.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that it would be wise to seek legal opinions on the application of the new provisions of a bill as important as this one. Furthermore, it is common practice to request such legal opinions when Parliament is not sure of the scope and especially of the legality of actions it is preparing to take.
Mr. Martin's motion tends in that direction. In fact, that motion is designed to protect us. It aims to avoid the stumbling blocks that could arise if numerous legal challenges occurred, if the lack of clarity of certain provisions or the lack of wording consistent with that in other clauses of Bill C-7 gave rise to flagrant problems of legal interpretation.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that it would be fundamentally prudent to test the validity and legal scope of such an act before passing it. It is obvious--my NDP colleague and I had occasion to speak of this--that the scope of Bill C-7 is immense and that that will lead the Aboriginal nations to raise a kind of challenge that has rarely been seen to date.
The Aboriginal nations have recognized almost unanimously that this bill is worse than the Indian Act and that, instead of settling matters, it would increase the number of legal disputes between the Aboriginal nations and the federal government. I'm sure the government doesn't want to aggravate those legal battles or that it wishes to find itself in a situation in which there are more court challenges than there are today. If we come to a worse situation with regard to legal action than we observe today, that will mean that we have missed a golden opportunity to prevent the new relations between the Aboriginal nations and the federal government over the coming decades from becoming worse than those prevailing in recent years.
Á (2335)
We have debated the failings of Bill C-7 in camera, unfortunately, because we were not permitted to debate them in public. We have placed particular emphasis on the fact that all the genuine problems experienced by the Aboriginal nations found no response in Bill C-7, that problems related to the absence of drinking water supplies on many reserves in Canada, a problem normally associated with the Third World--we have our own Third World in Canada--education problems, problems of suicide among young people, alcoholism problems, problems of fetal alcoholism and multiple substance abuse were not addressed. There is no hope for improvement in this bill.
To this pointless aspect of the bill, we must add a harmful aspect, because it will cause even more needless legal disputes because of a kind of top loading, because there will be the Indian Act, Bill C-7 and various federal statutes. We're not out of the woods. We could well find ourselves in a situation in which, far from improving things and finding solutions to the flagrant problems of the Aboriginal nations, we will add to their distress, to their problems and to the legal challenges that the Aboriginal nations have had to institute for years now in order to assert their rights, challenges which are already too numerous.
The right of the Aboriginal nations is not a right granted to them by us. It is an inherent right. It is a right that exists on its own. It is a right to self-government in particular. These are Aboriginal rights based on existing treaties. The oral tradition tells us today that there were agreements between our ancestors and the Aboriginal nations, agreements with which we do not comply as a result of the infamous Indian Act, which has existed now for more than 130 years.
We already have problems and legal action over the expression of Aboriginal law under the current provisions of the Indian Act and other statutes. Imagine how it will be when we have added another major instrument such as Bill C-7, which, in the opinion of the specialists--we're not talking about a partisan interpretation, but that of the Barreau du Québec, for example--is a kind of amalgam of gangrenous legal tissues.
Examples have been cited. When the Barreau du Québec appeared in Montreal, it cited examples of inconsistencies in the bill and contradictions between the bill's provisions and those of certain federal statutes. I'll give you an example from the Barreau du Québec's brief. At page 7, it states, and I quote:
| The financial management code must include rules respecting “the remuneration of members of the council and employees of the band” (clause 7(e)). But according to the Canadian Labour Relations Board [...], the provisions of such a code may not contradict any other statute passed by Parliament such as the Canada Labour Code. |
The Barreau du Québec also states:
| ...if the employees of a band were unionized, once the notice to bargain collectively were given or a collective agreement negotiated, the band council would be able to change neither wage rates nor other benefits without violating sections 50 and 56 of the Canada Labour Code because that act of Parliament prevails over the instruments made under an act, such as a code adopted under the Governance Act. |
And here's the conclusion the Barreau du Québec reached on this aspect of labour relations and the Canada Labour Code:
| Thus, unlike the federal government, which, through its statutes, can supersede the collective agreements it has negotiated, band councils will be bound by the act passed by Parliament, notwithstanding their financial management codes. |
There is already a problem with the application of the Canada Labour Code and the very provisions of the process.
Á (2340)
Le président: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.
[English]
Mr. Martin, do you wish to rebut? You have 10 minutes, Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, there are a number of questions raised by Mr. Loubier I'd like to address with the 10 minutes remaining under our spanking new rules of order. I'm glad to take advantage of the 10 minutes we have to at least address this question.
The motion I put forward that we're debating now has two aspects to it, and I notice that the chair, when he was reading the motion, only read part of it.
The two things we're asking in this motion are:
| That the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs request the immediate release of any and all legal opinions that the Government of Canada has either developed or commissioned regarding whether any aspect of Bill C-7 infringes upon or derogates from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights.... |
The second thing is “whether Bill C-7 will have any effect or impact on the over two hundred plus outstanding court cases” that currently exist in the arena of aboriginal and treaty rights with the Crown.
So it's both of those aspects I'm interested in learning about. I think it's a legitimate question to ask as a committee member. As members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, we should have that information at our fingertips, but we've heard from people in the public, as Mr. Loubier has pointed out, that they're having a very difficult time getting access to that valuable information.
Now, particularly galling is the fact that one of the minister's justifications for introducing this bill is to try to reduce the backlog of litigation the government is currently having to fight on aboriginal issues and to in a way curtail the volume of future court cases. In this regard, it's particularly galling in that we want to know what in Bill C-7 assists the minister in this. What qualities of Bill C-7 does the minister think will affect or have any impact on the current court cases? That is of material benefit to the government, I suppose; they must feel there's some effect.
This is what the Honourable Robert Nault said in a newspaper article on January 2, 2002: that these changes to the Indian Act were necessary because of the volume of litigation respecting certain provisions of the act. Mention was made on several occasions of the more than 200 cases currently before the courts. Consequently, we simply seek to understand the impact of Bill C-7, what impact it would have on the litigation currently before the courts.
We know that on January 4, 2002, lawyers made a formal request to the Department of Indian Affairs access to information and privacy office for a list of all the cases referred to by the minister and for an indication of how the proposed legislation would address the matter subject to the litigation.
Now, the access to information and privacy office within DIAND would not help, so a formal complaint was subsequently filed by lawyers for the Indigenous Bar Association with the Office of the Information Commissioner. The initial request to the Office of the Information Commissioner was made well over a year ago, and to date, as of March 21, 2003, there is no response. They can't get this information. We know there must be opinions about the 200 outstanding cases, yet they're not being released to the very people who represent the principals involved or who will be most affected by the legislation being contemplated.
After the INAC consultation process was concluded and after Bill C-7 was introduced, these requests were made and no information was forthcoming. That's why I think it's incumbent on this committee to request that same information for our use, if not for anybody else's use. If there is a privacy aspect that's in the national interest that this information not be made public, then maybe we could agree by motion of this committee that it not be made public beyond the use of this committee. But surely the members of the committee should have access to the legal opinions developed by DIAND or by anybody else on their behalf regarding the possible impact of Bill C-7 on the 200 outstanding court cases.
So in addition, we are seeking information by this motion from the department respecting the potential impact of Bill C-7 on both the inherent right to self-government and the Crown-Indian fiduciary relationship.
Á (2345)
If Bill C-7 is going to have any effect, positive or negative, on language pertaining to the inherent right to self-government in the Constitution, or on the Crown-Indian fiduciary relationship, we want to know about it. And that allegation certainly has been made.
Now, the search I'm conducting here was actually inspired by the release of the Joint Ministerial Advisory Committee report. The JMAC report was predicated on the assumption that the proposed legislation would not affect the fiduciary responsibility, would not infringe on the inherent right to self-government. Otherwise, I don't think you would have had these principled people willing to participate on the advisory committee. They made it clear that they would not participate in the introduction of any legislation that affected fiduciary responsibility.
We also understand that Minister Nault at that time made statements to the same effect, that nothing in Bill C-7 would have any effect on or infringe upon the inherent right to self-government, or have any effect on the fiduciary relationship. Again, we have seen lawyers on behalf of the Indigenous Bar Association make formal requests seeking any information that would either confirm or contradict the underlying assumptions found in the JMAC report and often repeated by INAC officials.
If it's true that INAC firmly believes nothing in Bill C-7 affects the fiduciary relationship or infringes on the inherent right to self-government, then show us the legal opinions. Show us the empirical evidence. Show us the research documents that would lead people to be able to make those very absolute statements. They're made with great fanfare, with great panache, that there's nothing to worry about in Bill C-7, and yet the very authorities on these issues are very concerned, very apprehensive, that Bill C-7 does in fact trample all over constitutionally recognized and inherent aboriginal treaty rights.
On August 14, 2002, a letter was sent to the access to information and privacy office at Indian Affairs for “any information in either the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs or the Department of Justice that either supports or contradicts these assumptions.” Subsequently, a further letter of complaint had to be filed with the Office of the Information Commissioner, because to date absolutely no information from the department relating to those assumptions has been forthcoming.
Again, the excuse used is that we know the information exists, but no one can have access to it.
In a letter dated October 16, 2002, from the access to information and privacy office within INAC, they advised that the information requested would not be released because of requirements for--and I quote--“confidences of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada”. So they didn't deny that such information existed; they simply refused to release the information to the very people who are the legal counsel for the first nations affected by this information.
This, Mr. Chairman, smacks of a conspiracy to defraud, a conspiracy of silence, a conspiracy to withhold pertinent and valuable information. You and I know that in a courtroom setting there's an obligation to disclose, to disclose information that may be used in the subsequent proceedings. Well, this is pertinent evidence, if you will, and if the evidence is favourable to the government, why wouldn't the government take out a billboard, paste these documents to the billboard, and promote and advertise themselves? But if they're ashamed of the documents, or if there's something to hide, then they won't release them to the legal counsel of the first nations of Canada.
So I'm using my right and my privilege as a member of Parliament to move a motion in this committee that we, at least, as a committee be made privy to the confidential information of those documents that DIAND and INAC may have commissioned. We know such documents exist because it hasn't been denied. All they've said is that they refuse to release them to the legal counsel for the Assembly of First Nations.
I find this atrocious. I find this offensive. In fact, if my request is voted down, I believe my privileges as a member of Parliament will have been violated, because it will mean important, relevant, and pertinent information dealing with Bill C-7 is being withheld from me. I will be denied access to the very information the government has been using to give legitimacy to the bill that they're promoting right now, now that--
Á (2355)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin. That completes your time. And as the mover, you're the last to speak on this.
We're ready for the question.
(Motion negatived)
Mr. Pat Martin: I'd like to request a recorded vote.
The Chair: It's too late. We've voted.
Mr. Pat Martin: How can it be too late?
The Chair: You have to ask for one. It's too late.
Motion 6, moved by Pat Martin--
Mr. Pat Martin: I would like to request a recorded vote.
The Chair: It's too late. There's no question of that, no debate. It's too late. We have voted. And that is so basic, it's embarrassing to even be talking about it.
It is moved by Mr. Martin:
| That in light of the findings of the 2003 cross Canada hearings of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs I, Pat Martin, move that this committee report back to the House of Commons a recommendation that Bill C-7 be withdrawn from the order paper and redrafted in consultation with representatives from the Assembly of First Nations. |
It's almost redundant, because you voted here on having representation, but I will allow it so that we can dispose of it without appeals.
Mr. Martin, 10 minutes.
Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I didn't quite understand your last remarks about the debate.
The Chair: I'll repeat them if you don't understand.
Mr. Pat Martin: I'm happy to speak to my motion. In light of the findings from our tour across Canada, hearing from first nations, we move that the committee report back to the House of Commons a recommendation that Bill C-7 be withdrawn from the Order Paper and redrafted in consultation with representatives of first nations across the country. That is my motion, and that is my ultimate wish. Frankly, that is the wish of the vast majority of presenters who made representation to the standing committee as it toured the country.
Mr. Speaker, we heard from the legitimately elected leadership in virtually every province across the country, and we heard from their national central plenary organization, the Assembly of First Nations, that Bill C-7 does not address the Indian Act in a way that they deem to be appropriate or timely or necessary. I don't think anyone in the country still maintains that the Indian Act is a document worthy of any free democracy. They believe it should be eliminated.
Most Canadians are prepared to accept that the Indian Act is an obsolete document that is responsible for nothing short of 130 years of social tragedy. Most Canadians are also prepared to accept, as we heard in our tour across the country, that Bill C-7 does nothing to mitigate the damaging influences of the Indian Act as it affects the lives of first nations people. In fact, most Canadians we heard from agree wholeheartedly that, if anything, Bill C-7 accentuates the problem. Unbelievably, instead of transferring true governing authority to first nations, it accentuates and augments the discretionary authority of the minister to interfere in the lives of first nations people across the country.
Mr. Chairman, from every respect we're disappointed that Bill C-7 fails to address the legitimate concerns and hopes and aspirations of first nations people across the country. Even more, I regret that our activities and the minister's initiative have set back relations with first nations people in this country by more than 50 years, because never has the relationship between the Crown or the Government of Canada and first nations people been more strained and more at risk of total collapse.
Mr. Chair, a lot of us went into this initiative to amend the Indian Act with some hope and some optimism that our attitude and our approach towards first nations people had matured beyond the colonialism of the Indian Act, but we regret to acknowledge and recognize that there's been no maturity. If anything, there's been a regression to an even more distasteful form of colonialism, modern colonialism, which goes beyond even the naïveté of the past. We can no longer use naïveté and ignorance as an excuse, because we've been aware of the failures of the Indian Act, and we have chosen, consciously chosen, not to address the concerns that have been brought to our attention but to tinker with colonialism, to tinker with the Indian Act in a way that only augments and accentuates the shortcomings of the Indian Act.
We heard from the legitimate leadership, the legitimately elected leadership, of first nations across the country, and they are unanimous in their condemnation of Bill C-7. We could find no one in our travels who had anything positive to say about Bill C-7. Most see it as a waste of time, as a complete and phenomenal waste of time, and as a phenomenal waste of money. The only people who seem to support Bill C-7 are those who were bought and paid for by the minister in their sham of a consultation process.
We're offended to be wasting our time here tonight, Mr. Chair, and we believe the only responsible thing to do is to put this bill to bed, take one step back, start all over again with genuine consultation, and introduce legislation to amend the Indian Act based on the implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
As a starting point, Bill C-7 should really limit its scope, limit its parameters, to simply giving meaning and definition to section 35 of the Constitution and the implementation of the treaty process; to returning to the negotiating table; and to giving life and meaning to the language in treaty documents that aboriginal people still have confidence in, despite their recent experience with the Government of Canada.
As an opposition member of Parliament, the only thing I can say about Bill C-7 is that the minister should do the honourable thing and take one step back and redraft Bill C-7, revisit Bill C-7, in cooperation with and accommodation of concerns brought to their attention, to give redress to some of the shortcomings of the bill, and to make meaningful changes to the Indian Act, with the goal and objective of eventually dismantling the Indian Act within a reasonable timeframe. The minister should endorse and support the negotiating process at the tables where, in various provinces, framework agreements are under way and memorandums of understanding already are under way that would help first nations people get out from under the shackles of the Indian Act. Nothing in Bill C-7 gives satisfaction to that process.
Many people have made the point that Bill C-7 really has little to do with accountability and transparency, that there's a secondary objective to Bill C-7 that's far more sinister. It's being treated as a Trojan Horse, because there's a very real belief amongst first nations that the real goal, the real intention here, is to infringe on and undermine constitutionally recognized inherent and treaty aboriginal rights, and to get out from under the fiduciary responsibility of the Crown towards first nations people.
The changing of the legal status within first nations communities is abhorrent to all those who were consulted with when the consultation process actually did take place. When we had time to actually go across the country and ask first nations people what they thought of an already drafted bill, their opinion was that changing the legal status to that of a municipality, which is really the end effect of Bill C-7, is a negative move, and a move they don't support.
So first nations people across the country do not support Bill C-7. They've said it loud and clear in an overwhelming majority, and the only responsible thing to do, by a responsible government that even pretends to be accountable to the people it represents, is to back off Bill C-7, withdraw Bill C-7, go back to the drawing board and undertake meaningful consultation, or simply let the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples report fall open to virtually any page, and implement the changes of the commission, because every one of those recommendations was carefully crafted and thought out, and developed with real consultation with first nations people.
So instead of insulting first nations even further with a colonial, paternalistic, Eurocentric approach, we have to acknowledge and recognize the inherent right to self-government. We have to recognize the sovereignty of nations. We have to accommodate a third level of government within Canada--that is, the governance structure as always enjoyed by first nations people before European contact, and never ceded. We have to start discussing the legitimate sharing of land, resources, and the management of those resources if we're going to encourage and foster economic development across the country within first nations.
This bill does not have the enabling legislation to encourage true economic development. It simply tinkers with the bookkeeping and accounting practices of first nations leadership, and it's based on the racist assumption that first nations currently are inept or corrupt, one or the other. We find it offensive that the very premise of Bill C-7 is the assumption that there's widespread corruption in first nations leadership and first nations communities. We find it offensive and fundamentally wrong, and it insults first nations communities. It's also an insult to those of us on the opposition benches who have been trying to make this point abundantly in recent times with whatever opportunities we have--
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: --in spite of closure being moved on our debate on this subject.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Monsieur Loubier, dix minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I entirely agree with the assumptions and analysis of my colleague Mr. Martin of the NDP. It is our duty to recommend that the government take this bill, throw it in the garbage can and replace it with a genuine alternative that will meet the needs of the Aboriginal nations of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, the extensive testimony we heard from the First Nations from across Canada and the many briefs that we have read have taught us one thing: there is unanimous opposition to this bill. Virtually all of those most concerned by it, that is to say the representatives of the First Nations, told us that this bill had to be withdrawn. Why? Because this bill is in no way a response to the many problems facing the First Nations in Canada: problems of under-employment, social problems of all kinds and problems of economic under-development.
Second, we were told that the initial assumption of this bill was incongruous. All the reports that have been published in recent years, including the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the report of the Erasmus-Dussault Commission, have told us--and we should take note of this fact--that, if we are to redefine relations between us and the Aboriginal nations of Canada, we must do so on different bases from those that have presided over those relations over the 130-year application of the infamous, shameful and detestable Indian Act, the act under which we park members of the Aboriginal nations on reserves, take away their lands, take away their resources and benefit from those resources in their stead, while impoverishing them and attempting, decade after decade, to assimilate them.
We give nothing to the Aboriginal nations. We give nothing to the members of those Aboriginal nations of Canada. We give them no rights. They have Aboriginal rights. They have an inherent right to self-government. They were here before us. They did what they wanted with the land, in accordance with their culture and their Aboriginal fishing, hunting and trapping practices.
We crowded them onto reserves, and we often forced them to move a number of times because we discovered natural resources on the lands they claimed or occupied. We devastated the lands of some of the First Nations. Logging companies have proceeded with clear-cutting, taking away their hunting, fishing and trapping lands. We have the example of the Lubicon First Nation, whose land claims were quashed to make room for an oil company which refines oil on its land and causes obvious environmental problems, which in turn cause health problems for the members of that First Nation.
Mr. Chairman, we thought that, after the report of the Erasmus-Dussault Commission and the many Supreme Court judgments in favour of Aboriginal people, we would have a better bill than this, a bill consistent with the realities of the twenty-first century.
Moreover, in 1969, when the current prime minister was Minister of Indian Affairs, an attempt was made to do the same thing we are preparing to do to the Aboriginal nations with Bill C-7. I believe the Prime Minister is bound and determined to finish the job. In 1969, we tried to extinguish their Aboriginal treaty rights. We also tried to eliminate their land claims. We tried to assimilate them by integrating them into Canada's tax, land and municipal systems. We tried to do this through the 1969 White Paper. Today we're repeating the exercise.
As members of this committee, we heard a cry from the heart from a number of representatives of the First Nations of Canada. We also witnessed the aggressive attitude of members of the First Nation toward a bill which treats them even more as children than the Indian Act.
We witnessed the rage of the witnesses who've appeared before us, the main parties concerned, that is to say the representatives of the Aboriginal people of Canada. After seeing all that, I think we should be aware of the fact that this bill must be thrown into the garbage can. We must shoulder our responsibilities and not prepare the ground for pointless disputes, even confrontation over the coming years.
Furthermore, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the Erasmus-Dussault Commission, concluded in its recommendations that, if nothing were done in the short term to promote the Aboriginal nations' right to self-government and to ensure that the Aboriginal nations took charge of themselves and their development through their customary rights, through what they are, through what they want in the way of development and the social objectives they pursue, we were preparing ourselves for aggression and even violence. While that conclusion of the Erasmus-Dussault Commission was true years ago when the report was published, it is even truer today.
The Aboriginal nations' assessment of Bill C-7 should sound the alarm. If this conclusion of the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal peoples, which is not a report issuing from the Holy Spirit, which is a solid report, was true at that time, it seems to me it must be that much truer today.
But no. We continue on as though nothing had happened. A gag order has even been imposed on us. We had to fight for two days to convince the government that this bill had to be discussed publicly and that we had to have the necessary time to discuss it because there could well be incredible fall-out in the future.
Do you think you're going to steamroller us and force us to swallow a bill such as this one, which dissatisfies everyone, makes everyone aggressive and sets the scene for violence, and that nothing will happen? Do you think that young Aboriginals, who represent 50% of the Aboriginal population of Canada, will close their eyes and that all will be for the best in the best of all worlds? Absolutely not. The elders already have trouble holding them back. It's hard to tell them that we're going to continue this process, that we're going to negotiate and that there's still hope. It's tough, especially when we present them with rubbish such as Bill C-7.
If I were a young member of an Aboriginal nation, if I saw my opportunities limited, as is currently the case, if I saw no promising prospects for my community or for myself, as a young person, I would long ago have told you that in an aggressive way.
It's not normal that, after years and years of studies, conflictual legal relations and conflictual relations generally--everyone recalls the events in Oka, and there were others--or that, after 130 years of the infamous Indian Act, we should find ourselves with another Indian Act which is as bad as the first, particularly since the first isn't even disappearing.
We're going to have legal fights like we've never seen. If we think today that we can call upon the courts because things aren't clear, imagine how it will be if we add a bill that is so complex that even the Barreau du Québec says there are contradictions between the provisions of the bill and those of the Indian Act and various federal statutes, including labour legislation and so on. It will be abominable. The only people who will come out winners in this will be the lawyers, who thrive on legal disputes, and the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. It's a little like Fisheries and Oceans. There's no more fish, but we've doubled and tripled that department's staff and budget.
They say there will soon be no more Indian Act, that there will be governance, but the budget of the Department of Indian Affairs has increased from $1.3 billion to $13 billion in 10 years. I don't understand. Something's not right.
Either we give the Aboriginal nations back their self-government and have less need to keep them under guardianship and treat them like children through the department...
[English]
The Chair: Merci, monsieur Loubier.
Mr. Martin.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Martin, do you wish to make concluding remarks, ten minutes?
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, I'd like to address some of the many concerns brought forward by my colleagues.
The Chair: If you wish, Mr. Martin, as a courtesy, to both of you as a courtesy, I can turn on the mike when there's a minute left. Would that help, or does it matter? I don't like coming in and saying, time's up. Would you like me to give you a one-minute warning?
Mr. Pat Martin: No, I don't think that's necessary, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
Speaking to some of the many points Mr. Loubier raised, I'm glad to have a moment to conclude, because my motion, I suppose, is the most absolute of any of the motions we're dealing with. My motion is simply that we recommend the bill be withdrawn, that we make a report back to the House of Commons to withdraw Bill C-7. A great many witnesses made that recommendation, and many of the witnesses we heard felt that the bill couldn't be improved by amendment, and there was really only one avenue of recourse and that would be to withdraw.
Many of the presentations we heard made the point that the First Nations Governance Act professes to be addressing a number of legitimate matters concerning accountability, transparency, or other aspects of governance. However, with what we've heard in mind, the review of the First Nations Governance Act that we heard from first nations leadership leads one to the opposite conclusion, that despite the stated concern with self-governance and with helping first nations develop effective tools of self-governance, what's most striking is the degree to which matters of governance in the First Nations Governance Act are not left to first nations. In fact, the provisions of the First Nations Governance Act make us question the extent of the federal government's commitment to self-governance for aboriginal people at all. So in spite of the language in the preamble of the bill, recognizing, they say, the inherent right to self-governance, there's very little in this bill about self-governance. So it fails at the start even before we get into the substance of the bill.
The timeframes set out by the legislation make it almost impossible to take seriously because in effect it asks a first nation to produce a government in two years. It's a complex task for any society, but one that involves not only the design of institutions, but internal dialogue and the resolution of internal mechanisms or disagreements. So what impact will the timetable have on the quality and effectiveness of the resulting institutions and on the degree of support they win from indigenous communities? The two-year timetable alone, Mr. Chairman, is reason enough and rationale enough to do away with Bill C-7, because it's doomed to failure. It's set up to fail; any initiative dealing with true self-governance is impossible within that two-year timeframe.
We believe, Mr. Chairman, and many of the presenters believe, that the Canadian government is in danger of following a common, but flawed, approach to government decentralization, which is developing a cookie-cutter template for government and then imposing it on local communities against their will. This process, Mr. Chairman, ignores diversity across local communities, it ignores the fact that communities are more likely to support institutions that they helped to create, and it often leads, Mr. Chairman, to that attitude to government that local communities do not want and do not support.
The Canadian government, frankly, is at risk of entering into a completely failed enterprise because they fail to recognize, or they either will not or cannot recognize, that the first step required for good governance is self-governing sovereignty. Sovereignty has to be acknowledged before instruments of good governance can be introduced. The saying that I've said over and over again at other hearings is that good governance without sovereign power is about as likely to be effective in improving the welfare of first nations as sovereign powers would be without good governance.
The First Nations Governance Act pays a great deal of attention to issues of accountability; however, decision-making and accountability are linked. Without the transfer of jurisdictional powers in terms of real authority to make decisions, the accountability will not necessarily follow. So if the federal government wants to hold indigenous nations accountable for what happens, then it has to vest those nations with genuine decision-making authority. If, on the other hand, it wants to retain decision-making in its own hands, then it has to bear primary responsibility for the outcomes, Mr. Chairman. It's as simple as that.
So many of the presenters who made representation to the committee were concerned that the First Nations Governance Act paid insufficient attention to the diversity among first nations, and they believe the one-size-fits-all, cookie-cutter approach is doomed to fail.
Mr. Chairman, this committee should be recommending that we return this bill to the House to be redrafted in consultation with representatives of the Assembly of First Nations, because there are at least three general reasons to doubt that the First Nations Governance Act will ever achieve its stated objectives.
First, it largely ignores jurisdictional issues. It does not devolve jurisdictional authority to first nations, as per the promise made in the preamble, at least, or the implied promise. Second, in specifying details of government structure and practice and compelling first nations to adopt those details, the legislation undermines the very idea of self-governance, which in any modern thinking view includes the task of designing effective governing institutions that fit community ideals. The third reason this bill is doomed to fail, Mr. Chairman, is as I've expressed, the one-size-fits-all approach that characterizes much of the legislation, neglects diversity of cultures and circumstances, and raises serious issues of legitimacy.
So despite the stated purposes of the FNGA, we're certainly uncertain that the Canadian government can achieve its objectives, and it does make one question, does it wish simply to improve administrative and electoral practices among first nations or is it really about self-governance? I think the answer is self-evident, Mr. Chair, if we listened to any of the presentations made by the leadership of first nations across the country.
We're of the opinion, Mr. Chair, that we can't make a good bill out of Bill C-7. First, we have no confidence that there's a willingness on the part of the committee to make serious amendments, in spite of the assurance of the minister that if it came to committee, at first reading there would be more opportunities to make substantial amendments. We haven't seen any evidence of that kind of willingness from this committee in our experience to date, and we're still uncomfortable with the process given that we've been subjected to time allocation and closure, and even in introducing the themes we want to address in the amendment process that is to come as we enter into clause-by-clause.
We don't see any sincere and legitimate attempt on the part of government to introduce even the fundamentals of self-governance, because bookkeeping and accountability come after the independence is achieved. The accountability is dependent upon self-governance. So we're comfortable, Mr. Chair, that there's very little that can be done to make Bill C-7 worthy of our support. We're of the opinion that we're not going to be able to move sufficient amendments to make it worthy of our support.
We're critical that the First Nations Governance Act stands as a lost opportunity, because right across the country what we saw was a great hope and optimism in the eyes of the many presenters who came before us. They took this opportunity very seriously, and they acknowledged it's only once in a generation we have the opportunity to make amendments to the Indian Act and to try to drive a stake through the heart of the Indian Act so that it ceases to plague first nations people with its offensive restrictions.
Until we're talking about practical sovereignty, we're not going to be able to talk about accountability and transparency. Until we're talking about capable governing institutions that are culturally appropriate and that are of the design and within the customs and traditions of first nations, we're not going to be able to talk about serious accountability and economic development. And until we talk about the cultural match that is so necessary to find a fit between the formal institutions of governance and the indigenous conceptions of how authority should be exercised and organized, we won't win the support of the community for the institutions themselves.
In fact, the community will reject and oppose the imposition of these institutions. It's not only a recipe for social unrest and for dissatisfaction, but it will be an enormously expensive waste of time, because if we force codes of governance on 633 first nations who neither need them nor want them, they will oppose them. And I don't know how government will find enough money, and energy, and resources to allocate to force these communities into compliance.
Ultimately, you're making the Minister of Indian Affairs the--
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin. Now I will call the question.
Mr. Pat Martin: We want a recorded vote.
The Chair: Un appel nominal, a recorded vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 2)
The Chair: Number 7. It is moved by Mr. Pat Martin:
| That the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs do not proceed with the study of Bill C-7 or Bill C-19.... |
Should I dispense?
An hon. member: No.
The Chair:
| ...until an official Gender Based Analysis (GBA) of these Bills is completed, and presented to the committee. These Gender Based Analyses are to be done in accordance to the Status of Women Canada guidelines which responds to provisions in documents such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the federal plan for gender equality, and the Canadian Human Rights Act. |
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): I have a point of order.
The Chair: We'll hear your point of order before Mr. Martin speaks.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: I'd like to table with the clerk the gender equality analysis that was done with the legislation as presented by the department.
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: I'd like to speak to my motion, because this information was never made available to us. We have no idea what the content of it is, or how thorough it is, or if it addresses the many clauses in the bill that we seek to have addressed, or if it includes, as is required, or as is contemplated in my motion, an analysis Bill C-19 and in fact the analysis of the Indian Act itself, because by extension of doing a gender-based analysis of Bill C-7, it's also incumbent on government to visit the Indian Act itself and to recognize and acknowledge some of the clear biases that are built into the Indian Act as it affects women and issues pertaining to property and other rights.
The Government of Canada, we believe, and we note with sadness, has demonstrated that it does not consider that the correction of past injustices in the Indian Act in order to ensure fair treatment in the future is a major component of good governance. That's the only thing we can conclude, Mr. Chair, because even if an overview of the effect of Bill C-7 has been conducted--and I'll take the parliamentary secretary's word for it that there is a document to that effect tabled--we don't see that analysis extended to the main body of the Indian Act, and it's the main body of the Indian Act that needs to be addressed.
So our reason for raising this issue is that Bill C-7 is lacking if it doesn't include measures to correct the historic injustices inherent in the Indian Act itself. We do question whether the commitment to good governance includes the correction of past injustices as it pertains to inequities dealing with aboriginal women. Apparently the Government of Canada doesn't consider respect for fundamental human rights as it pertains to women to be a cornerstone of the government initiative regarding governance; otherwise we would see a comprehensive sweep of the Indian Act to flush out and cleanse it of any offensive language that is not in keeping with, for instance, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the federal plan on gender equity, or the Canadian Human Rights Act.
So Bill C-7 is lacking, and once the Indian Act has been opened up to achieve and amend certain clauses, it's incumbent on government to take advantage of that opportunity to also remedy the many clauses that offend those three documents I cited: the charter of rights, the Canadian Human Rights Act, and the federal plan on gender equity.
Now aboriginal women are suffering from some of the most egregious forms of discrimination, both at the hands of first nations governments, some of them claim, and at the hands of the Government of Canada, and through the Indian Act, through the fiduciary responsibility of the federal government, it's the government's responsibility to ensure that this persecution and discrimination doesn't take place.
No amount of fiddling around with accounting practices is going to change this. So this is the argument we're making, that there's a shortfall in Bill C-7. For example, the problem of accountability occurs when band councils simply choose to defy the 1985 amendments of the Indian Act by refusing to allow reinstated women and their children to return to their own communities.
We know what the origin of this is, and it was addressed many times by many presenters, but specifically it was addressed by the Quebec Native Women's Association, which is a charter member of the Native Women's Association of Canada. They make the argument that with Bill C-31, in 1985, there was not commensurate funding to accommodate the reintroduction of Bill C-31 people into the community so they could have the benefit of the rights and benefits that flow from membership in the band. So the matter of financing and enabling Bill C-31 to be implemented has not been addressed in our review of the Indian Act, and many people are disadvantaged as a result.
How is Bill C-7 going to improve any of these situations? It won't, because the Government of Canada clearly is interested in window dressing, we believe, in its treatment of issues pertaining to women in Bill C-7. The government's focus on administrative matters is designed to deflect attention from the fact that its continued discrimination against first nations women is in breach of the Constitution of Canada and its international obligations, and it is one of the primary causes, frankly, of real misery among aboriginal women and their children. Bill C-7 could be called a missed opportunity and a failure in the obligation of the Government of Canada to address the inequities within the Indian Act as it pertains to aboriginal women.
We're calling for a comprehensive review of the entire Indian Act with this motion. I think you'll see by the language of it that part of the guidelines according to the Status of Women Canada, or the Secretary of State for the Status of Women, is that any time they revisit any piece of legislation, be it federal, provincial, municipal, school board, or even in the private sector or civil institutions, a comprehensive sweep of that legislation should take place to ensure that nothing about the legislation in any way treats one gender preferably to another gender, and that there's equity in every aspect of the legislation, or even mission statement, they might be dealing with.
Mr. Chairman, we feel that Bill C-7, for this reason alone, should be delayed. It should be postponed until satisfaction can be given to the many issues raised before us by aboriginal women dealing with real property, with dower rights, with the reintroduction of Bill C-31 beneficiaries, and, in the case certainly that exists today under the Indian Act, in dealing with membership and who should be considered an Indian for the purposes of the act. The fact is that under the current situation, fewer and fewer people will in fact be listed under the current definition as Indians in Canada. This will result in the ultimate assimilation of aboriginal people, and it flies in the face of the right to self-determination and self-governance. Therefore, Bill C-7 is flawed and lacking in that it fails to address many of the legitimate concerns brought forward by aboriginal people--aboriginal women--at the many consultations undertaken.
I quote the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba when, quite aside from questions of legality and the lack of protection and fair treatment for aboriginal women...it encourages and leads to other forms of discrimination against them by both DIAND and sometimes even by band councils. The Aboriginal Justice Inquiry put it very succinctly saying that:
| There is no equal division of property upon marriage breakdown recognized under the Indian Act. This has to be rectified. While we recognize that amending the Indian Act is not a high priority for either the federal government or the Aboriginal leadership of Canada, we do believe that this matter warrants immediate attention. The Act’s failure to deal fairly and equitably with Aboriginal women is not only quite probably unconstitutional, but also appears to encourage administrative discrimination in the provision of housing and other services to Aboriginal women by the Department of Indian Affairs and local governments. |
The Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba specifically recommended that the Indian Act be amended to provide for the equal division of property upon marriage breakdown. We don't see those issues addressed in Bill C-7, Mr. Chair, and we don't see any effort made at the amendment stage now. Seemingly, there isn't any willingness on the part of government members of the committee to entertain these amendments as per the motion I have put forward here today.
Canada's failure to act upon these recommendations is contrary to its international obligations as well. As recalled by the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations, its general comment on equity between men and women states:
| In becoming parties to the Covenant, States undertake, in accordance with article 3, to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the Covenant, and in accordance with article 5, nothing in the Covenant may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights provided for in article 3, or at limitations not covered by the Covenant. Moreover, there shall be no restriction upon or derogation from the equal enjoyment by women of all fundamental-- |
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Martin.
Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think it's unfortunate that my colleague couldn't continue his excellent demonstration, but those are the disadvantages of the gag order imposed on us. This is such an important question that we should have talked about it for hours and hours, since it is precisely to this type of problem, when we talk about gender equality, that Bill C-7 does not respond.
Furthermore, the many debates that my NDP colleague, Mr. Martin, and I started two days ago in an attempt to deflect the committee members' decision to impose a gag order on us and to hold us to very restrictive rules for discussing these fundamental problems should have enlightened you as to the fact that Bill C-7 contains no response to the problems facing the First Nations of Canada.
We find no response to the land claims. And yet plenty of negotiations are currently under way. We would have expected those claims to be expedited so as to provide a basis for exercising the right to self-government. We should have found a way to expedite compensation for past wrongs. We should have seen a section on sharing resources, since those resources are on lands already ceded or on lands on which the Aboriginal nations rightly have land claims.
We should have found a response concerning the federal government's support for Aboriginal nations to enable them to achieve their social objective, and we should have found responses, among other things, to the many forms of discrimination to which native women are subjected.
Instead of that, we find ourselves with an administrative bill of broad scope in that it presides over the extinguishment of the Aboriginal nations' rights, that is the inherent right and the treaty-related Aboriginal rights. We find a bill that adds insult to injury, a bill that settles absolutely nothing with regard to the discrimination and injustice suffered by native women.
A tour is designed precisely to hear from witnesses so that they can instruct us, as committee members, so that we can form a judgment and shed light on the deficiencies or positive aspects of a bill.
During our tour, when we heard from witnesses in Montreal recently, the Quebec Native Women's Association shed invaluable light on the situation native women have experienced for a long time, on cases of discrimination, on decisions made against them and against the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Quebec Native Women's Association, through its president, Ms. Michèle Audette, made seven recommendations so that the government could attack, on a priority basis, the real issues, that is to say the discrimination they face.
The first of those recommendations is:
| That DIAND be required to report to this Committee the details of program monies disbursed by them to bands who refuse to provide benefits and services to reinstated women and their children and the details regarding monies spent in creating parallel services for those unable to obtain services from their bands because of discrimination, including a listing of those bands and the amounts involved. |
My Liberal colleagues should listen to what they're told and to what Quebec native women have to say on the discrimination they suffer.
The second recommendation made by Ms. Audette reads as follows:
| That program funding be withheld from First Nations who defy the Indian Act by discriminating against reinstated women and children in the provision of programs and services. |
The third recommendation is:
| That section 5 of the draft First Nations Governance Act be amended so that all leadership selection codes must respect the rights of all members, and that there be no distinction allowed between different classes of members' rights to vote. |
I believe we should take note of this and that our Liberal colleagues should listen to what Quebec native women and Canada have to tell them.
The fourth recommendation is this:
| That the Indian Act be amended so as to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women. This would require the reinstatement to both Indian status and band membership of not only the women who lost their status as a result of the historical discrimination against them, but also of their children and grandchildren. |
The fifth recommendation aims precisely at corrective action with respect to women which my colleague, Pat Martin, would like to take in introducing his motion. It reads as follows :
| That the Indian Act be amended so as to ensure that non-Indian persons who are married to Indians have a right to reside on reserve with their spouses and that the children born of these marriages be ensured of their right to reside on reserve. |
The sixth recommendation is:
| That the Indian Act be amended to ensure equality between husband and wife in regard to property and to ensure that there is equality in the division of assets in the case of divorce. |
And, lastly, here's the seventh recommendation:
| That the administrative policy of the Department of Indian Affairs which requires the identification and/or admission of paternity of the father of a child born to an unmarried woman be immediately changed to a requirement that the mother of the child sign an affidavit or statutory declaration as to the status of the father of the child. |
These are concrete problems, Mr. Chairman, and these are concrete solutions to those real problems. But I see that my Liberal colleagues' greatest concern is to deal with a shabby bill that in no way addresses the fundamental problems and priorities of Aboriginal nations. When we talk about that, they're all ears, but when we talk about the actual problems facing Aboriginal nations, native women in particular, they prefer to talk about the weather, their next golf season or other pointless topics of no public interest.
Bill C-7 contains no solutions to the actual problems. And the spirit of the bill is as shabby as the bill itself, since it is a spirit worthy of the former apartheid in South Africa. It is a spirit that calls for the infantilization of Aboriginal nations, which continues the 130-year effort to enforce the infamous, lunatic and utterly indecent Indian Act. That's what we're continuing, entirely in opposition to the recommendations of a royal commission on whose report the ink has scarcely begun to dry.
What is worse, do you know what information the Quebec native women have given us, through their representative, Ms. Audette? Well imagine that, in the time that the Quebec Native Women's Association has opposed Bill C-7 and requested immediate corrective action to eliminate the discrimination exercised against them, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has cut Quebec Native Women's funding.
They were entitled to a grant of $50,000 a year, but as soon as this women's association objected to Bill C-7, alleging that the bill did nothing to correct the discrimination to which they're subjected, their funding was reduced to $4,000. And this year, they've been told to come back next year because there is no more money.
That's how things work in this government : by intimidation. Organized crime works that way. The Liberal government is acting like organized crime, through intimidation. It cuts resources, crushes and annihilates the Aboriginal nations, denies their rights and aims to extinguish those rights. And the Prime Minister of Canada, a former Minister of Indian Affairs, has been dreaming since 1969, since his White Paper was published, to start off on a new foot in relations with Aboriginal peoples, but by essentially doing two things : by presiding over the extinguishment of their Aboriginal rights, the inherent right to self-government and treaty rights, and by pursuing a policy of systematic assimilation such as that observed during the 130 years in which theIndian Act applied.
This is unspeakable, condemnable and unworthy of a Parliament. It is also unworthy of and inconsistent with many Supreme Court judgments and everything in the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Furthermore, Canada has often been criticized for its treatment of Canada's Aboriginal nations. International bodies have often requested that Canada consider Aboriginal nations as equals and that it respect them.
Le président: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.
[English]
Anyone else?
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: I'll use the remaining 10 minutes I have to emphasize the point that motion number 7 that I've put forward calling for an official gender-based analysis of Bills C-7 and C-19 can be read to include, or can be meant to include, the Indian Act itself. And nothing has been done in a comprehensive way to address the many historic inequities that were built into the Indian Act at a time, in 1873, when Canada was naive or unwilling to recognize legitimate concerns of aboriginal women as pertains to the Indian Act.
We find there are shortcomings in Bill C-7 in many areas, but most glaringly it's the omission, or the unwillingness, to address the many issues that the federal government is fully aware of in terms of the unfairness of the Indian Act as it pertains to aboriginal women.
So I was interested to hear the presentation from the Quebec Native Women's Association and the many points raised by Mr. Loubier on their behalf. And we believe their presentation is in keeping with the positions of the Native Women's Association of Canada, which is the legitimate organization representing native women by election across the country.
We should also voice our concern that when the Native Women's Association of Canada made it clear that they did not support the First Nations Governance Act, their funding was cut and a new separate, parallel native women's association was created with funding of $2 million. We find it offensive that the minister is using this carrot and stick approach to garner support for a bill that no one in the legitimately elected leadership of first nations people wants.
Mr. Chair, we've pointed out the representation made by Doctor Judith Sayers in Prince George, who is the elected chief of the Hupacasath First Nation and is the author of a comprehensive study for the policy research centre for the Government of Canada called First Nations Women, Governance and the Indian Act. I won't have time to go through many of the points she makes, but I do want on the record that we support the recommendations of the comprehensive report by Doctor Judith Sayers and the shortcomings in the Indian Act that she cites. We think it's worth noting, and we would use that in defence of the argument we're presenting that Bill C-7 in its current form is unworthy of our support in that it fails to incorporate many of the legitimate grievances brought forward by aboriginal women across the country.
Among the recommendations Dr. Sayers cites, she points out that first nations women across Canada should be recognized in a far greater way than they are now, or their legitimate aspirations and concerns should be recognized. There is no comprehensive gender equality analysis policy among Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, or it's certainly not reflected in the bill we have before us now.
So, Mr. Chairman, it's unfortunate that we're going to conclude our debate tonight on an issue that I think most Canadians would agree deserves our support and our attention as a committee. It would be disappointing to me if the committee members decided to vote against such a fundamental issue as a gender-based analysis for the Indian Act when I think it's not exaggerating to say that every person around this table is fully aware of the inequities that exist within the Indian Act as it pertains to aboriginal women.
We believe the Indian Act should be in keeping with the guidelines, provisions, and documents such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the federal plan for gender equality, and the Canadian Human Rights Act. It should be in keeping with the guidelines put forward by the Secretary of State for the Status of Women in the package she recently circulated, which encouraged that all levels of government, in any piece of legislation they're working on, undertake a comprehensive gender-based analysis to correct and give remedy to many of the situations that have been brought to our attention in the tour we did across the country.
First nations women are doubly disadvantaged in many respects. Many women who are disenfranchised from their home communities are living off reserve in the inner city of major Canadian cities such as Winnipeg. Clearly, the benefits due them by virtue of their membership in first nations do not necessarily flow to them as they're living off reserve, often because of the inadequacy of resources afforded to the first nation to provide for the basic needs of their constituents.
The larger issue of transfers in terms of contribution agreements should be addressed at the same time. I don't think you can deal with gender issues in isolation. There are larger issues of adequate funding in the contribution agreements if we're going to ensure the basic needs of first nations women are met, and often we're dealing with the issues of children at the same time.
That concludes my remarks, Mr. Chairman. I'm out of gas.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
We'll go directly to the question on a recorded vote.
(Motion negatived: nays 8; yeas 2)
The Chair: We will now deal with the scheduling of Bill C-7.
Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: I move that the committee adopt the following schedule for dealing with Bills C-7 and C-19. It's attached to the order for meeting 58, subject to the following: that on Friday, April 4, all amendments to Bill C-7 be presented to the clerk no later than 7 a.m., and that on Monday, April 7, all amendments are to be delivered to members' offices by 9:30 a.m., with a technical briefing that--
The Chair: In case we're writing it down, we'll just take Monday--
Mr. Charles Hubbard: I will table it for you.
The Chair: Yes, but this is for everybody, so they can write it down.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Okay.
The Chair: That the amendments be delivered to the members' offices on Monday--
Mr. Charles Hubbard: By 9:30 a.m., and that the technical briefing be arranged for 7 p.m. in room 104 of the Justice Building.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier : Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise a point of order.
The Chair : Just a moment, he's in the middle of his...
Mr. Yvan Loubier : I don't understand what he's saying.
Le président : You'll understand; we're going to start again afterward.
[English]
Mr. Hubbard, do you allow us to interrupt you--Mr. Loubier interrupts--while you're explaining your motion?
Mr. Charles Hubbard: I think it would be difficult.
The Chair: Do you wish to continue?
Mr. Charles Hubbard: To continue: that on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday, April 8, 9, and 10, the committee consider clause-by-clause, and that the chair of the committee present the tabling in the House of Bill C-7 on Friday, April 11.
Furthermore, Mr. Chair, dealing with Bill C-19, I move that our committee consider Bill C-19 on April 29 and 30 and May 1, which is Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday--all days are holy; we're glad to be on the side of the green most days, Mr. Martin--and that we do clause-by-clause on Tuesday, May 6.
I'll table those with you, Mr. Chair.
· (0100)
The Chair: Now for the benefit of Monsieur Loubier and others, if we look at Tuesday, April 8, down, the only thing we add is “Friday, April 11, table report to the House”. Just to clear it up we'll put in Bill C-7. I think that's what you said.
If we go back up, Monday, April 7, it says technical briefing at 7 p.m., room 104, Justice, and that the copies of the amendments be delivered to members' offices by 9:30. Before that, it says that on Friday, April 4, amendments be submitted to the clerk by 5 p.m. Anything before Friday, April 4, is cancelled out from the previous recommendation.
Are we clear on the motion of Mr. Hubbard?
Mr. Pat Martin: On debate.
The Chair: First of all, does Mr. Hubbard wish to debate? No.
On debate, Mr. Martin, 10 minutes.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to speak against the proposed schedule on the strongest possible terms on the basic principle of natural justice. It's an unreasonable schedule to accommodate the great many issues we have to deal with on Bill C-7. It's simply not fair to expect people now to have a deadline for amendments by Thursday at 3 p.m., if that's my understanding. The deadline for the submission of amendments, as I understand it, is Thursday at 3 p.m.
The Chair: No, it's Friday, April 4, at 3 p.m.
Mr. Pat Martin: That gives us less than one working day to develop these amendments and to have these amendments submitted. I should remind everybody here--because some people aren't regular members of this committee--that we were hearing witnesses on Monday, March 31, in Val d'Or, Quebec. This is not an acceptable timeframe.
In the interest of basic fairness, I would appeal to members of the committee that this is not a timetable that accommodates anybody's best interests. If we're serious about crafting decent legislation, this kind of trickery, if you will, is not going to serve anyone's benefit, really, because ultimately we're just going to be handicapped in terms of dealing with the bill properly.
So in my opinion, there's no justification for fast-tracking this bill. It's an arbitrary goal to table the report in the House by April 11, because, frankly, as of April 11, the House breaks for two weeks, so we can't do anything with the bill in the House of Commons until after we return on April 29, at the very earliest, and even then, of course, subject to scheduling by the House leaders to introduce the bill for second reading in the House of Commons. It's to no one's benefit or interest, and I would argue that it's greatly against the interests of the very people who this bill will most profoundly affect, first nations peoples whose lives are about to be tampered with by the introduction of this bill.
So there's no defendable reason why we should be fast-tracking this bill at this time. The Indian Act, of all things, has been 130 years of social tragedy. Why the urgency now to ram this bill through, even before the general public or the population it most affects are even aware of the details of the bill, before the information has even percolated down into local communities where there's some understanding and comprehension, some ability perhaps for them to contact their members of Parliament to voice their concerns or have some input? None of that will be possible with the parameters of this timeframe.
So this is an agenda set by the minister or the Prime Minister. It certainly has nothing to do with the well-being of the people that Bill C-7 purports to serve. So speaking on behalf of the many, many people who have come to me asking for us to do something about Bill C-7, I object in the strongest possible terms to this restrictive schedule. This schedule denies me the right to adequately develop amendments and give them the time they deserve in terms of developing amendments that will make meaningful changes to a flawed piece of legislation.
There's nobody in the country who wants this bill in its current form. There's only one person I've met who wants this bill, and that's Stan from Thunder Bay, who seems bound and determined--he seems convinced that all first nations leaders are thieves, so we have to impose some rules, defend the rights of Stan and his immediate circle of friends. Well, I say Stan is failing to really try to understand what this bill is all about. So he's being an instrument of the minister, a pawn of the minister, a stooge of the minister, even, in his activities--
· (0105)
The Chair: Hold it.
Mr. Pat Martin: --and he has started to irritate me even more than before.
The Chair: Order.
I let you go when it wasn't attacking the individual, but a “stooge” is not a term that is appropriate. I'm ruling that it's not appropriate, and I'm asking you not to use that any more and not to refer to other members of the committee in a negative way.
Mr. Pat Martin: The fact that there's such overwhelming opposition to this bill right across the country is even more reason it shouldn't be fast-tracked with this urgency.
I don't know whose interest it's serving to ram this bill through the House of Commons, but if the government is trying to come in under the radar with this and hoping the public doesn't notice, the public has noticed. The people it affects most have noticed, and they are appealing to everyone they can possibly find who will listen. They are appealing to people to stall this bill until there's adequate time to revisit it and make meaningful amendments.
Pushing the clause-by-clause through, as it's anticipated here, I don't believe is allowing adequate time for the clause-by-clause analysis either. There will be over 100 amendments that I know of, and to do justice to those amendments, I don't think they can be debated properly in the middle of the night.
So if it's the intention of the chair to try to make us stay up all night and debate these clauses, that's doing a disservice and trivializing the importance of the bill and the importance of the amendments, to try to win this thing by exhausting the opposition. Keeping people here until one o'clock in the morning is an offensive strategy and an offensive tactic.
On behalf of the NDP caucus, I want to state officially that I resent the strategy, and I resent the tactics of the chair and of the committee for trying to wear us down physically so that we can't adequately represent the many arguments we need to put forward to garner support for the amendments that we'll be putting forward in the clause-by-clause analysis.
So I resist, oppose, and object to this particular schedule. On behalf of many first nations leaders who oppose this bill...I apologize to them, being a member of this committee. We're doing a disservice to first nations leaders across the country.
I have to apologize for my colleagues, because they're embarrassing me in their treatment of this serious subject matter, and I hope people realize that by this intervention now, this government does not have the support of all members of this committee in ramming this unfortunate piece of legislation down the throats of first nations people, who have made it abundantly clear that they neither want it nor need it, and they resent it.
So if the government is bound and determined to destroy any semblance of a relationship between the federal government and first nations people, this will be the instrument that will achieve that. They are doing a disservice to Canadians; they are doing a disservice to aboriginal people, who had some hope and some optimism that maybe if the Indian Act gets amended, some of their legitimate concerns will be addressed.
Clearly within the parameters of this committee's schedule, we won't be able to do justice to many of the important issues brought before us. We won't even be able to give an adequate review to the many presentations that were made to the committee in the cross-country tour.
There's not adequate time in this recommended schedule to undertake an analysis of the recommendations made. If the government doesn't intend to accommodate any of the presentations made, then they're not listening, and this bill, then, wasn't crafted by any consultation whatsoever and we've been misled from day one by the minister.
The minister implied that if this bill came to committee at first reading, there would be ample opportunity for amendments, that he would take seriously what was heard by the committee, and he would introduce that into the legislation. It sounds like we began this process with a bald-faced lie--that's all I can say--because I see no evidence of any willingness whatsoever on the part of the government to accommodate any of the legitimate concerns that have been brought forward. The final piece of evidence we need that this bill is not about anything to do with what first nations need is the introduction of this particular schedule and agenda.
So we're disappointed on the opposition benches that the government is not accommodating any of the concerns we've brought forward. We protest and object in the strongest terms.
· (0110)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier, you have 10 minutes.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: In accordance with the new rules we have just adopted pursuant to Mr. Finlay's motion, I ask that we have more than the prescribed 10 minutes to dispose of the schedule. It is very important that we know this since the schedule is quite extensive. So I request a vote, Mr. Chairman, to enable me and to enable Mr. Martin to go beyond 10 minutes.
The Chair: You asked the question. I don't need speeches. It's two o'clock in the morning.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Loubier is asking for support to speak longer than the 10 minutes. There will be no debate.
Those in favour, raise your hands. Those opposed?
The request is defeated.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I request a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: It's too late.
[English]
It's defeated.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier : What do you mean it's too late?
The Chair: Read the book and you'll see that you have to request it before the vote.
Mr. Yvan Loubier : You're crazy. Look, I have a right to request a recorded vote. He's blowing a fuse. From one o'clock on, he's incapable of reasoning.
The Chair: Continue on; the clock's running.
Mr. Yvan Loubier : I requested a recorded vote. Why are you telling me it's too late?
The Chair : You requested it after the vote was held.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: The Chairman blows a fuse after one o'clock in the morning. With the tight schedule we have, imagine how much worse it will get when we proceed with clause-by-clause consideration if he can't work later than 1:15 a.m., whereas we can work all night without a problem.
An hon. member: First vote on the new rules.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Absolutely. Yes, new rules; that's good. This positive aspect alone could have helped us somehow, but, no, it's defeated from the outset when the time comes to discuss a work schedule such as this one.
I oppose Mr. Hubbard's motion on the schedule because I think it makes no sense. In view of today's date, instead of setting Friday, April 4, as the deadline for delivering amendments to the clerk's office, we should have set it at April 11, because there's only a day and a half left before that fateful date.
The same goes for the technical briefings. We're also forgetting that we're on leave from April 14 to 27. We would have held the technical briefing around April 28, instead of April 7, if we had been intelligent enough to suggest a sensible work schedule and calendar. But no, we weren't; we propose dates that make no sense. In view of the progress of our work, clause-by-clause consideration should take place on April 29 and 30 and May 1, rather than April 8, 9 and 10. That makes no sense. How do you expect us to get a clear idea of the bill, in view of the latest testimony we heard and the analyses we need, particularly on the legal aspects, and meet that schedule and do our work properly? We'll never do our work properly with a schedule of this kind. The report is scheduled to be tabled in the House on April 11.
I don't understand anything in all this. The minister came to see us and told us that it was a far-reaching bill, the tentacles of which were going to reach out to all the Aboriginal nations' ways of doing things and their future, and we have three days to consider it clause by clause. That will be done starting next week, whereas we won't even have finished analyzing the briefs. We want to proceed quickly, in a rush, with a proposed schedule utterly devoid of intelligence.
The same is true for Bill C-19. We decided on April 29; we should have proposed May 6. As to the motion of Wednesday, April 30, we should have proposed May 7 or 8, and we should have decided on May 13 for analysis and the clause-by-clause vote on Bill C-19.
I find it makes no sense to impose this pace and work schedule on us for such an important bill. I'm beginning to think that you couldn't care less about anyone, that you don't give a damn about the Aboriginal nations, that you spit on their future, that you don't give a damn about what they might think or do or not do with this bill, that you're not worried about establishing the basis of an equal relationship between nations with the Aboriginal. I'm beginning to believe that you don't give a damn about improving their situation or worsening it, since Bill C-7...
If we had even more time to discuss this before proceeding with clause-by-clause consideration, we could prove to you that we're improving absolutely nothing with this bill. Instead of improving things, you're exacerbating the problems that already exist.
Why be so closed-minded and want to pass, in haste, in accordance with an utterly ridiculous schedule, a bill no one wants, a bill that is utterly disrespectful of the Aboriginal nations, a bill which is unworthy of this Parliament, a bill that abuses the Aboriginal nations' treaty rights, Aboriginal rights and the right to self-government?
How can you impose this ridiculous, stupid and indecent schedule for the hasty adoption of a bill that will undermine the fundamental rights of Aboriginal peoples?
· (0115)
How can you adopt such a cynical and contemptuous attitude toward Aboriginal nations? How do you think the Aboriginal nations are going to consider you? How do you believe young Aboriginal will view their future, as you will be imposing it on them in a few days, based on a bill that is utterly detestable and insane? Can you explain to me this urgent need to pass a bill that is rejected by the main parties concerned, from eastern to western Canada, which is accepted only by those you have bought or threatened through the kind of intimidation worthy of organized crime, threatening, for example, to cut off subsidies that support the Aboriginal rights defence groups?
My NDP colleague and I are going to take a lot of public action to explain the ineptitude of this government, to explain the utterly odious approach you are adopting to chart the course of the future relations we have with the Aboriginal nations of Canada, relations in which they are considered as children, which are contemptuous of them, which are utterly inconsistent with the many judgments of the Supreme Court, which go against the course charted for you by, among others, the recommendations of the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. How can you be so closed-minded, so limited by the idea, imposed on you by an utterly incompetent minister, of the relations that should be established between the Aboriginal nations and the federal government? How can you be so impervious to all criticism and say that you are right in such a completely arrogant and cynical way, to say that you hold the truth, to claim that you know better than the Aboriginal peoples what is good for them?
Mr. Chairman, the more things go on, the more detestable the government members of this committee become. I find it utterly unseemly, utterly contemptuous of Aboriginal peoples to want to proceed in haste to pass a cynical bill which does nothing to solve the problems and the aim of which is to assimilate them. Some of the First Nations representatives are even talking about legislative genocide. These are things that we should consider. But no. You dictators! I've never seen people like you.
I feel like moving an amendment to table the amendments on April 11, not April 4, which would at least give us a bit of a chance. I'm tabling an amendment which moves that we set April 11 as the deadline for tabling the amendments to at least give us a chance. So have the decency to accept that motion.
· (0120)
The Chair: Wait a minute. We're going to discuss your amendment.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Look, I haven't finished my 10 minutes.
The Chair: Yes, you finished by moving an amendment.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: My 10 minutes are up?
The Chair: You still have 10 minutes for your amendment.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: All right, perfect.
The Chair: And you'll have another 10 minutes at the end.
So what are we changing?
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Instead of April 4, it would be April 11, to give us at least a few days...
The Chair: I can't accept the amendment because we can't do the clause-by-clause consideration of the bill before the amendments are delivered.
So I can't accept the amendment.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: But we would move back the clause-by-clause consideration accordingly.
The Chair: Your amendment states that you want amendments on April 11.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, I want to replace April 4 with April 11 and move the dates back on the schedule.
The Chair: So please tell us about that. What is your amendment?
Mr. Yvan Loubier: My amendment is that we replace Friday, April 4 as the date for delivering amendments with Friday, April 11, and move back all the other dates by one week so that we do the clause-by-clause consideration around May 15 instead of April 29.
The Chair: So you have an amendment. So tell us about your amendment.
Mr. Yvan Loubier : I had already started to talk about my amendment, Mr. Chairman, at the end of my presentation.
If we really want to do a job that is in the least bit serious, in any case as far as possible, in view of the gag order imposed on us and the functional rigidity for the clause-by-clause consideration and delivering the amendments, we need more time, particularly to present amendments. With the deadline leaving us less than a day and a half, we can't deliver amendments and meet the schedule you're imposing on us. That makes no sense, particularly since there are a lot of amendments.
If we want to improve this bill in the slightest, and if we want to correct the incredible deficiencies that will have inordinate and, for the moment, immeasurable consequences, because it's over the long term that we'll see them, we need a lot of amendments. And to prepare those amendments, we need time. We opposition party members don't have the machinery of government to help us prepare amendments that make sense and that can help to improve Bill C-7.
Moreover, it seems to me that you have confined us to extremely rigid rules of debate. You have passed a time allocation motion that interferes with our rights as members. You are imposing a schedule on us that makes no sense as regards the pace of work, not to mention the serious effort required to develop amendments that are valid and conducive to improving the bill.
You disregard the opposition of the First Nations that have appeared before you, vehement opposition that could well become even more so if we hastily pass a bill that is utterly unacceptable and does nothing to solve fundamental problems experienced by members of the First Nations. You display quite incredible arrogance toward the First Nations' demands and toward the representativeness of the Assembly of First Nations.
Earlier you voted, and this completely surprised me, against the motion advanced in an attempt to correct the discrimination suffered by native women. You all voted against improving the situation in that regard. That's somewhat consistent with what I anticipated when I began taking part in this committee.
You do not respect the Aboriginal nations. You don't respect them as partners. You don't respect them as nations with rights. You don't consider that those rights are inherent. You don't consider that there are treaties clearly setting out those rights. You absolutely fail to understand that there have been a number of Supreme Court judgments that have confirmed and continue to confirm the Aboriginal rights and treaty rights of the Aboriginal nations, as well as the inherent right to self-government.
You don't understand that we're in the twentieth century and that Aboriginal rights, treaty rights and the inherent right to self-government are all rights that are vested in Aboriginal people. They aren't rights that we grant them because they are rights they have, and we cannot preside over the extinguishment of those rights. But you continue to claim, as you did with the Indian Act, that, through Bill C-7, you're going to be able to proceed to extinguish the fundamental rights, the inherent right, the treaty rights and the Aboriginal rights of the Aboriginal nations.
· (0125)
What century are you living in? What are you thinking? What philosophy animates you to the point where you take pleasure in striking at the rights of the Aboriginal people, ignoring the incredible problems facing the First Nations in Canada, concrete problems, not the problems of Department of Indian and Northern Affairs bureaucrats anxious to wield power, but social problems, economic problems, problems of injustice, problems of stolen lands, stolen resources, non-compliance with Aboriginal treaties sharing resources, sharing the land?
You want to impose a schedule as crazy and insane as this one on us. In addition to that, not content to proceed in this manner with Bill C-7, to disregard the claims of the Aboriginal nations, to interfere with their rights, even to go against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, you disregard the criticism you've received in the past over federal government policies and the way you address Aboriginal demands.
You don't even comply with the judgments of the Supreme Court. But what kind of members are you? What kind of government do you make up? A banana republic government? I think we've gotten to that point. To present things like this with so trivial and imbecilic a procedure, we must have become a banana republic.
The worst is that, in wanting to pass this bill in haste, you are increasing the incredible frustration of the Aboriginal nations. We saw some examples of that during our tour. We saw examples of that every day as well. Do you think Aboriginal people will sit back and watch you proceed and accept the fact that you're expediting passage of a bill they don't want? Do you think young Aboriginals will allow their rights to be taken away, their future stolen, their prospects limited by a pretentious government consisting of equally pretentious members with an arrogant and cynical attitude toward the Aboriginal nations? Do you think they're going to let you do that?
You think you're brilliant this evening? You think you're really brilliant with all the manoeuvres you made to withdraw our right to speak and the necessary freedom and flexibility we need to do our work. You think you're brilliant when you laugh at the demands of Aboriginal people, when you deny their right to be different, their right to development, to the preservation of their language and culture, to respect for who they are. You find that funny today. You have no idea of the effect you're going to have on the First Nations and particularly on young people, who are already spoiling for a fight because they're fed up with being discouraged like this.
It seems to me that, during the tour, unless you're utterly insensitive, or have no heart, or lack intelligence, which I doubt, you could sense that it was time, not for speeches and imposing a bill nobody in the First Nations wanted, but for dialogue.
The Erasmus-Dussault Commission invited us to dialogue and committed us to resuming discussions with the Aboriginal nations on a nation-to-nation basis, in a respectful manner, with the idea of giving Aboriginal nations the means to rebuild, to remake themselves, to regain their lost dignity, to regain pride, or rather, since they already have that pride, to further burnish the pride they have.
I find it hard to understand your haste in wanting to pass a bill as detestable and shabby as this one, and your haste to use tricks to withdraw our right to do our work properly. You know, you're going to pay for it at one point. As my father would have said, you can't disappoint people indefinitely without them revolting. And in the case of the Aboriginal nations, we've reached a breaking point.
· (0130)
Even the co-chairs of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Mr. Erasmus and Mr. Dussault, came to that conclusion.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.
[English]
Is there other debate on the amendment?
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: On the amendment, Mr. Chair, I feel strongly that Mr. Loubier makes a valid point in that the timeframe you're proposing is not adequate to do justice to the issues we are charged with the responsibility of dealing with.
Now, an added bonus to Mr. Loubier's recommendation or the suggestion he brings before the committee is that there would be time, in Mr. Loubier's view of how this agenda could unfold, for the technical briefings and the additional witnesses that many of us were interested in hearing. In fact, there was even an optimism that we could bring the minister himself before the committee prior to the introduction of amendments or the clause-by-clause process, because the committee could report to the minister the findings of the committee as we toured across the country.
Now, the minister has a terrible reputation that he won't attend meetings where there are any Indians. He doesn't like to go into the room if there are Indians there, because the Indians don't like him. This has been a problem in many of the meetings--that the Minister of Indian Affairs won't be in the same room with aboriginal leaders because they fight all the time whenever they get together.
I've been in meetings where the minister ran like a rabbit out the back door. He wouldn't listen to the concerns brought before him. This is most recently in The Pas, Manitoba, where Grand Chief Francis Flett and Grand Chief Margaret Swan co-hosted an economic development council meeting--the two regions of Manitoba met in The Pas to compare best practices regarding economic development in their communities. There was nothing political about it; in fact, politics were off.
The minister was invited as the guest speaker that night, and all the chiefs from around Manitoba gathered there--this is only a few months ago; last month, as a matter of fact--and the minister ultimately was a no show. Again, he wouldn't attend.
This would have been an opportunity at least for the Minister of Indian Affairs to find out what Indian people are thinking around the country. He's given us the responsibility of going around the country and hearing submissions from first nations people, and you'd think he would be interested in hearing our opinions of what we have heard across the country.
It would have been useful if, in the way Mr. Loubier anticipated the schedule unfolding, on Wednesday, April 9, we could have had consultations in the a.m. and p.m., as it says now for Wednesday April 2: “possibly the minister”. I think we should most assuredly have the minister. The minister should be here before we finish tabling amendments and he should be here before we begin the clause-by-clause analysis.
Another rationale is that it's unique, or it's unusual at least--it's not very common--for us to be dealing with amendments after first reading. We haven't even spoken at second reading to this issue in the House of Commons. We've never had an opportunity in the House of Commons to hear from our fellow members of Parliament what their view of Bill C-7 is, because in this unique application, the bill was given to the committee after first reading. So there's been no debate in the House. Ironically, these broad, sweeping, comprehensive amendments to the Indian Act will be introduced and amended even before it gets dealt with in the House of Commons.
So there's all the more reason we need more time to do this adequately, to consult with our own caucuses, even consult with the many members of Parliament who are not members of this committee but who represent many first nations communities or at least aboriginal people in their ridings.
There's an abundance of good reasons we should not be fast-tracking this bill. We should be taking the advice of the amendment put forward by Mr. Loubier. By extending the bill in a fairly modest amendment, I thought Mr. Loubier moved a very practical and realistic amendment.
· (0135)
I think if Mr. Loubier was trying to be frivolous, or just talking for the sake of talking, he would have said, let's extend this schedule by a month, or let's extend it until the summer recess, for instance. He didn't say that. He said, let's extend it by one week, so that where you read April 4 on this schedule it would mean April 11, and everything would be pushed on in a proportional way.
I believe it's important that we entertain the logic of Mr. Loubier in the interest of trying to do what's right. Surely there's justification here that we need to have Justice Canada technicians in front of this committee before we can conclude our clause-by-clause review of the bill.
One thing I learned only after the fact is that after second reading in the House of Commons, the bill won't come to the committee again. There won't be a second opportunity to do what we traditionally view as the work of the committee, at committee stage, after second reading. This is our one shot at it. There will come a time later, under third reading, I suppose, when you can make amendments in the House, but we can't make those amendments. Those of us around this table cannot move amendments at third reading. Only other members who are not members of this committee can move amendments after third reading.
So this is our only opportunity to make recommendations for amendments to change the bill and to be able to speak for those amendments. Otherwise, it's far more restrictive in the House of Commons. Everyone knows that it's at the committee stage that amendments generally are presented and argued.
Now we don't have time, within the narrow confines of the motion put forward by the parliamentary secretary--and I know that's by design, he doesn't want us to have time--to prepare amendments and prepare the arguments necessary to speak to those amendments. If there is going to be a significant number of amendments, we want to be able to consult outside, with the people we're representing, as those amendments are developed. No one could make the case that there would be adequate time between when we get out of here tonight and tomorrow morning, when we begin work on the amendments. There is absolutely no possible way we could, for instance, sit down with the technical advisers from the Assembly of First Nations and consult on amendments, because there's simply an inadequate amount of time.
So they've been silenced again. They've been shut out of the equation twice, you could say, because originally, when they voiced any dissatisfaction with the First Nations Governance Act, their budget was cut. They lost 50% of their funding and had to lay off a great number of the technical experts on the issues around self-governance. Now that there's an opportunity to make amendments to try to mitigate some of the damage caused by Bill C-7, they're not going to have an opportunity or an adequate period of time to have input even into the amendment process leading up to this bill.
So they've been doubly shut out of the process. The very people who are authorities on this issue, the very people who went to university specifically to learn about and become experts in the field of first nations self-governance, have been denied access to the process.
They've been denied access to the process in three ways. First, there was no consultation process, by anybody's estimation. Second, they've been undermined in that they had to lay off the very people who are authorities in this field at the Assembly of First Nations. Third, we won't have adequate time to take the issues forward, given all the testimony we've heard around the country, and we won't have adequate time to take issues to them and allow them input in the crafting of amendments to this bill.
Therefore, the participation of aboriginal people into the development of this bill is nil, absolutely negligible. Even the Joint Ministerial Advisory Committee, who met for 18 months preceding the introduction of this bill, had recommendations that were not dealt with in the bill. There were aboriginal people on JMAC. Very well-respected first nations leaders participated on that advisory committee with the hope and optimism that they'd be able to make some meaningful changes. Even their specific recommendations were ignored in many respects and didn't find their way into the bill.
We won't have an opportunity to even get on the phone to speak to the principal members of JMAC, because there'll be no time.
· (0140)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Is there more debate?
Are you ready for the question?
[Translation]
Do you want a recorded vote?
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I have 10 more minutes.
The Chair: When I ask whether there are any further comments, tell me whether there are any.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: That goes automatically with the new rules.
The Chair: You don't move. Am I supposed to guess?
Mr. Yvan Loubier : Don't play the smart guy.
The Chair: Do you want to speak?
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Of course I want to speak.
The Chair: Mr. Loubier, you have 10 minutes.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: It seems to me that's automatic with the new rule we've adopted. How arrogant can you get! It's incredible! It's just like his government. What a shame to come to a situation like this, where the Chair no longer respects the members of this committee. I'm willing to believe it's nearly two o'clock in the morning, but it seems to me we should stay calm. We should also stay in a good mood since we have to discuss the proposed schedule, which is before us, whether we like it or not. We have to debate it before we can come to a consensus.
I think that it makes no sense to propose delivering amendments for Friday and that you should instead schedule an extra week to enable us to do our work properly.
In addition to penalizing us with deadlines, you treat us as though we were nobodies, Mr. Chairman. You'd better watch out because, at one point, that's going to come back to haunt you. Moreover, tomorrow, we'll have an initial discussion in the House of Commons on how you've behaved today, in violation of the rules governing the committee's work, by agreeing to have Mr. Hubbard's motion put to a vote, when you should not have done so. But that's another question.
Why must our report absolutely be tabled in the House on April 11? What's so urgent? What is pressing the government to pass this bill quickly, when Aboriginal people have been waiting 130 years for the infamous Indian Act to be replaced with a new basis for relations between the Aboriginal nations and the federal government, relations respectful of what the Aboriginal nations are, that is to say true nations that want to rebuild and ensure that all the wrongs they have suffered in the past 130 years are righted? The Aboriginal peoples want to start off on a new foot. They want to be respected and they want to be respected for what they are and what they were before the Europeans arrived. What we took away from them, they are reclaiming today.
They have quite incredible allies : the United Nations, the Supreme Court of Canada and the U.S. Supreme Court, which, in their many judgments, have found in their favour. Why are you in such a hurry to pass a bill that does not in any way replace the indecentIndian Act, but adds to it, considerably complicating things that are already complex today?
I have trouble understanding why the government, and especially the members of the Aboriginal Affairs Committee, are in such a hurry to proceed, with lightning speed, with the analysis of the bill and amendments we are going to debate, to impose a straightjacket, a kind of gag order, on us, a time allocation on questions as fundamental as these.
It seems to me we've gone further than what Bill C-7 proposes. We've gone much further, since publication of the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The observation made during the proceedings of that commission is truly remarkable. Among other things, when you carefully read the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, one conclusion stands out, and that is that we must absolutely not reproduce the errors of the past. Allow me to cite a passage from that report:
| Our central conclusion can be summarized simply: The main policy direction, pursued for more than 150 years, first by colonial then by Canadian governments, has been wrong. |
| Successive governments have tried--sometimes intentionally, sometimes in ignorance--to absorb Aboriginal people into Canadian society, thus eliminating them as distinct peoples. Policies pursued over the decades have undermined--and almost erased--Aboriginal cultures and identities. |
Today we can no longer plead ignorance. What we're doing is intentional: you want to extinguish their rights.
· (0145)
The Erasmus-Dussault report states that the policy direction pursued for more than 150 years by colonial and, subsequently, Canadian governments was wrong. That implies, then, that we should not do the same things and that we should stop pursuing in the same way relations--which, in this instance, are more an attempt to crush--that we have created and maintained with Aboriginal nations, particularly since the adoption of the Indian Act.
We must therefore start over again on a sound footing which features mutual respect and respect toward Aboriginal nations, for what they are and for what they have represented in history and the building of this country. We must take into account what we have taken away from them, the treaties we entered into but did not comply with, for example. Indeed, the Canadian government has failed to comply with a number of treaties. A number of them were brushed aside, and many rights were denied to the Aboriginal nations. We must restart the debate on other bases and, especially, involve Aboriginal representatives in developing those new bases so that they are consensual.
How can we tell the Aboriginal nations that we're imposing on them a bill that concerns them and concerns their governance, that they can take it or leave it, and that the offer is final, while at the same time telling them, on the other hand, that it's not what we want, that it resolves nothing and that, furthermore, it's only going to create problems? How can we establish the basis of a partnership through a process such as that?
On a number of occasions, when there was some question of redefining those bases, we proposed that we call upon the services of Aboriginal representatives. They know better than anyone around this table what they need, what they want for the future, what they hope to accomplish in rebuilding their nation and what they wish for in terms of prospects for their young people. It seems logical to me, in the perspective of rebuilding partnerships--in this case, the idea is in fact to build partnerships that do not currently exist--that we should associate with our future partners from the outset. It seems to me that's entirely logical. It's pointless to work on our side and to impose things on them, then present them with the new basis of partnership. That's not a logical and proper way to proceed.
But each time my colleague Pat Martin and I have proposed to invite the representatives of the Aboriginal nations to take part in our work, we've been told that that makes no sense and that it would not be acceptable for unelected representatives to be part of a standing committee. What are senators, if not unelected? And yet they sit on joint committees. We sit on sub-committees with them. Those people aren't elected.
What's the difference between the prime minister appointing senators to sit on our committees and appointing Aboriginal representatives--based on recommendations made by the First Nations--to redefine, together with us, the basis of a new partnership and to bring forward a bill that is more acceptable than the kind of mishmash of stupidities in Bill C-7?
They say that time is money. Time is also an invaluable resource that can enable us to properly assess the situation and to suggest viable and acceptable alternatives to the main parties concerned, that is to say the people who constitute the First Nations of Canada. To date, we have failed at this task. We have for decades disregarded the fair and proper demands expressed by the Aboriginal nations. We have denied their rights, and we are now perpetuating the attitude adopted 130 or 150 years ago, depending on our perspective on the analysis. At some point, these things have to stop, and we have to put an end to this strategy of confrontation whereby we force down their throats things the First Nations don't want.
· (0150)
Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ask that my motion be put to a recorded vote because I want us to identify...
[English]
The Chair: D'accord.
We're ready for the vote. A recorded vote has been asked for on the amendment.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 2)
The Chair: Now for the main motion--
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, I'd like to speak on the main motion, before the vote.
The Chair: Mr. Hubbard, you have the floor, on the main motion.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think it should be noted, just for the record, that on three days now--March 27, and again April 1 and 2--this committee has listened to a monologue from two members opposite with a great deal of information that led to very little. Members on this side of the table have been insulted; they've been said to be stubborn. Mr. Chair, I assure you, we may be stubborn, but we're not stupid.
Also, for the record, the two members opposite talk about a consensus. If I were part of their consensus, I don't think I ever would have come to Ottawa. Their type of consensus and what they advocate in terms of their vision of what this legislation might do is something I'd never want to be part of.
I was disappointed as we travelled the country, because one member of this committee, at nearly every occasion possible, spoke out against the legislation, and furthermore, distorted the legislation to the point where he gave false impressions to a great number of first nations peoples.
With that, I'd like to see the vote taken, and hopefully the night will soon end.
· (0155)
The Chair: On the main motion....
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: A recorded vote, please.
The Chair: You requested it in time.
[English]
This is a recorded vote.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)
The Chair: Now we'll go back to the beginning of the agenda, and we'll start with working snacks. That shouldn't take too long. I guess we've eaten some of these already.
| That working snacks ordered during the Committee's study of Bill C-7 be paid for from the Committee's budget. |
Do I have a mover?
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): I move that.
The Chair: Do we need debate on that? Are you ready for the question?
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: On motion number 2, identified as Jodie-Lynn Waddilove:
| That in relation to its study of Bill C-7, The First Nations Governance legislation, the committee retain the services of Jodie-Lynn Waddilove to summarize briefs at an hourly rate of $20.00 per hour, not to exceed 200 hours and a total cost of $4,000.00 plus GST. |
Do I have a mover? Moved by Mr. Pacetti.
Is there debate? Are you ready for the question?
(Motion agreed to)
The Chair: This meeting is now adjourned.