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
Monday, May 26, 2003
| ¹ | 1525 |
 |
The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)) |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| ¹ | 1535 |
|
Mr. Warren Johnson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Lands and Trust Services, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
|
Mr. Bill Pentney (Senior General Counsel, Public Law Policy Section, Department of Justice) |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
|
The Chair |
| ¹ | 1540 |
|
The Right Honourable Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC) |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
| ¹ | 1550 |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
| ¹ | 1555 |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| º | 1600 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
| º | 1605 |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
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 |
|
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 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| º | 1650 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| º | 1655 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
| » | 1700 |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Right Hon. Joe Clark |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| » | 1705 |
|
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 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Warren Johnson |
| » | 1720 |
|
Mr. Bill Pentney |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| » | 1725 |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| » | 1730 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| » | 1735 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| » | 1740 |
| » | 1745 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| » | 1750 |
|
Mr. Bill Pentney |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
|
Mr. Bill Pentney |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
|
Mr. Bill Pentney |
|
Mr. Maurice Vellacott |
| » | 1755 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC) |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Maurice Vellacott) |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Maurice Vellacott) |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Maurice Vellacott) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.) |
|
Mr. Warren Johnson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| ¼ | 1850 |
| ¼ | 1855 |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
| ½ | 1900 |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| ½ | 1905 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| ½ | 1910 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| ½ | 1915 |
| ½ | 1920 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| ½ | 1925 |
| ½ | 1930 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière) |
| ½ | 1935 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
| ½ | 1940 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Warren Johnson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| ½ | 1945 |
| ½ | 1950 |
|
The Chair |
| ½ | 1955 |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| ¾ | 2000 |
| ¾ | 2005 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| ¾ | 2010 |
| ¾ | 2015 |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| ¾ | 2020 |
| ¾ | 2025 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| ¾ | 2030 |
| ¾ | 2035 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| ¾ | 2040 |
| ¾ | 2045 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ) |
| ¾ | 2050 |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
Mr. Warren Johnson |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
Mr. Warren Johnson |
| ¾ | 2055 |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier (Senior Counsel, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) |
|
Mr. Warren Johnson |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Warren Johnson |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 2100 |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| ¿ | 2105 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Warren Johnson |
|
The Chair |
| ¿ | 2110 |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
| ¿ | 2115 |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau (Senior Adviser, First Nations Directorate, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) |
| ¿ | 2120 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| ¿ | 2125 |
| ¿ | 2130 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| ¿ | 2135 |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
| ¿ | 2140 |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP) |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
| ¿ | 2145 |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
| ¿ | 2150 |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
The Chair |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
| ¿ | 2155 |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Ms. Francine Lalonde |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| À | 2200 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| À | 2205 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
| À | 2210 |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ) |
| À | 2215 |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
| À | 2220 |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
| À | 2225 |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
| À | 2230 |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
| À | 2235 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques (Counsel, Justice Canada) |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
| À | 2240 |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
| À | 2245 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
| À | 2250 |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Ms. Nathalie Nepton (Acting Director, Band Governance and Estates, Lands and Trust Services, Department of Indian Affairs and Northren Development) |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Ms. Nathalie Nepton |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Ms. Nathalie Nepton |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Ms. Nathalie Nepton |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Ms. Nathalie Nepton |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
| À | 2255 |
|
Ms. Nathalie Nepton |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
| Á | 2300 |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Á | 2305 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Á | 2310 |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Á | 2315 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
| Á | 2320 |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
| Á | 2325 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Á | 2330 |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| Á | 2335 |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Á | 2340 |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
| Á | 2345 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
M. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Joe Comartin |
| Á | 2350 |
| Á | 2355 |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
| 0000 |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
| 0005 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| 0010 |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
M. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| 0015 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| 0020 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Le président |
|
M. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
M. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
M. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.) |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| 0025 |
| 0030 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
| 0035 |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| 0040 |
| 0045 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
| 0050 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
| 0055 |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| · | 0100 |
| · | 0105 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| · | 0110 |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Mr. John Bryden |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| · | 0115 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| · | 0120 |
| · | 0125 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| · | 0130 |
| · | 0135 |
|
The Acting Chair (Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.)) |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| · | 0140 |
| · | 0145 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
| · | 0150 |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
| · | 0155 |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
| ¸ | 0200 |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| ¸ | 0205 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| ¸ | 0210 |
| ¸ | 0215 |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
| ¸ | 0220 |
| ¸ | 0225 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
| ¸ | 0230 |
| ¸ | 0235 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| ¸ | 0240 |
| ¸ | 0245 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| ¸ | 0250 |
| ¸ | 0255 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
| ¹ | 0300 |
| ¹ | 0305 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| ¹ | 0310 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| ¹ | 0315 |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Mr. John Bryden |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Bryden |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
| ¹ | 0320 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
| ¹ | 0325 |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
| ¹ | 0330 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| ¹ | 0335 |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| ¹ | 0340 |
| ¹ | 0345 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Mr. Réal Ménard |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Jeffrey LeBlanc (Legislative Clerk) |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| ¹ | 0350 |
| ¹ | 0355 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| º | 0400 |
| º | 0405 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| º | 0410 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| º | 0415 |
| º | 0420 |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
| º | 0425 |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| º | 0430 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| º | 0435 |
| º | 0440 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
| º | 0445 |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| º | 0450 |
| º | 0455 |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| » | 0500 |
| » | 0505 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| » | 0510 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| » | 0515 |
|
M. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| » | 0520 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Bryden |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. John Bryden |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River) |
| » | 0525 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| » | 0530 |
| » | 0535 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| » | 0540 |
| » | 0545 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Brent St. Denis |
|
Mr. Derek Lee |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| » | 0550 |
| » | 0555 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| ¼ | 0600 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| ¼ | 0605 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| ¼ | 0610 |
| ¼ | 0615 |
|
The Chair |
| ¼ | 0620 |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| ¼ | 0625 |
| ¼ | 0630 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
| ¼ | 0635 |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| ¼ | 0640 |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| ¼ | 0645 |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.) |
|
The Chair |
| ¼ | 0650 |
|
Mr. Stan Dromisky |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stan Dromisky |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stan Dromisky |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Dave Boileau |
| ¼ | 0655 |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Karl Jacques |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Stan Dromisky |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| ½ | 0700 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
| ½ | 0705 |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
| ½ | 0710 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ) |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
| ½ | 0715 |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
| ½ | 0720 |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| ½ | 0725 |
| ½ | 0730 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
| ½ | 0735 |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
| ½ | 0740 |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
| ½ | 0745 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| ½ | 0750 |
| ½ | 0755 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
| ¾ | 0800 |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Warren Johnson |
| ¾ | 0805 |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Paul Crête |
| ¾ | 0810 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| ¾ | 0815 |
| ¾ | 0820 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
| ¾ | 0825 |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
| ¾ | 0830 |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Paul Salembier |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
|
Mr. Yvan Loubier |
|
Mr. Pat Martin |
| ¾ | 0835 |
| ¾ | 0840 |
|
The Chair |
|
Mr. Charles Hubbard |
|
The Chair |
| ¾ | 0845 |
|
The Chair |
CANADA
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources |
|
l |
|
l |
|
EVIDENCE
Monday, May 26, 2003
[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
¹ 
(1525)
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Welcome, everyone.
We'll resume our work on clause-by-clause of Bill C-7. We are at page 229, amendment CA-52.
(On clause 41)
The Chair: Mr. Vellacott.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): I'll get the original proposed subsection 16.1 here. I move that the English version of clause 41 of Bill C-7 be amended by replacing lines 6 to 9 on page 21 and substituting the following:
| 16.1 In relation to a complaint made under this Act against-- |
The Chair: There is a point of order.
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): I have a point of order. By my count, Mr. Chairman, I don't believe we have quorum.
The Chair: Mr. Loubier is not here now, so we probably lost it.
We've lost quorum.
¹ (1525)
¹ (1530)
The Chair: Mr. Vellacott.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott:
Mr. Chair, we're making reference to the Canadian Human Rights Act. According to Bill C-7, it's amended by adding the following:
| 16.1 In relation to a complaint made under this Act against an aboriginal governmental organization, the needs and aspirations of the aboriginal community affected by the complaint, to the extent consistent with principles of gender equality, shall be taken into account in interpreting and applying the provisions of this Act. |
We're changing it so it would instead read:
| In relation to a complaint made under this Act against an aboriginal governmental organization, the interests of the aboriginal community affected by the complaint, to the extent consistent with the principles of fundamental equality, shall be taken into account. |
In summary, our proposal notes that the community interest be taken into consideration, but only to the extent that they are consistent with the principles of fundamental equality.
The protections and guarantees provided by the Canadian Human Rights Act should be enjoyed equally by all Canadians, our party believes. Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act currently exempts band councils from this provision. Reserve residents, therefore, cannot seek redress or file complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. The Canadian Human Rights Act has denied aboriginal Canadians the same rights and protections as all other Canadians, at least to this point.
Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be repealed and every individual, regardless of residency or race, should enjoy its full protection. We fully oppose adopting a conditional application clause, as in the government bill, Bill C-7. It's a step forward in some respects, but the fact that it may be providing a far too easy out, an exemption or waiver, if you will, is where we have the concern.
So we think there should be the full application instead of adopting a conditional application, as in this clause before us in the present bill that would replace section 67. Implementing such a clause would entrench a two-tier system of rights.
If I might note here, if it were deemed the needs and aspirations of the aboriginal community were such that you waived some of these principles of fundamental equality, then they would not have to abide by what would seem to be basic and fundamental protections.
We're talking, in this amendment here, about there being a watching out for or taking into account the interests of the aboriginal community affected by the complaint, the whole overall picture, interests of that community, but only to the extent consistent with the principles of fundamental equality. In other words, you cannot have someone say the current needs and aspirations of this aboriginal community trump the application of justice, the principles of fundamental equality.
I think all of us, if we look seriously at this, would have to have a concern about that, because why would we be saying within our country of Canada that some people are not as important or it's not as necessary for them to have the same rights, freedoms, and protections as anybody else?
Saying needs and aspirations can trump fundamental equality and justice I think is just plain wrong, in terms of recognition and respect for the dignity of every person--aboriginal people, non-aboriginal people--in an equal manner. That's the big concern we have with this, and the point of the amendment is simply that.
I guess I'd put to our witnesses, to draw out from them, if I could--and I mean this in a proper way--why can we not go with the full application of the Canadian Human Rights Act? I'd put the question to either Bill, Paul, or Warren, whoever chooses to answer. Why would we make this proviso here? Fill me in. Why would we not just go to the full application of the Canadian Human Rights Act at this point in the bill?
¹ (1535)
Mr. Warren Johnson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Lands and Trust Services, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): If I could, there are two aspects to the question. One is the equality provisions in the charter. The other is the specific recommendation before you.
The question of the equality provisions in the charter and the ability of first nations to undertake affirmative action was a matter commented on at committee earlier, although there wasn't substantive discussion on that item. There was some concern first nations would not be able to take full advantage of the law-making provisions in Bill C-7 to deal with the special problems of their community because of the equality provisions of the charter.
First of all, I should note that the charter includes in subsection 15(2) the statement that subsection 15(1)--that's the equality provision--
| does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its objective the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. |
This is, if you will, the charter provision that allows all governments to undertake affirmative action programs to deal with these conditions.
Further, though, with respect to the special situation and rights and interests of first nations, the Supreme Court, in its decision on Corbiere, gave special attention to that issue, because in fact it was a charter challenge--the ability of off-reserve members to vote. In the context of that decision, if I could quote again, because I think it's important for the committee in this area, in the course of its decision the court stated that the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms must be interpreted in the light of other constitutional rights of aboriginal peoples:
| Thus, in the case of equality rights affecting Aboriginal people and communities, the legislation in question must be evaluated with special attention to the rights of Aboriginal peoples, the protection of the Aboriginal and treaty rights guaranteed in the Constitution, and with respect for and consideration of the cultural attachment and background of all Aboriginal women and men. |
In that context, there was a commission put in place by the Minister of Justice to look at human rights issues, the La Forest commission. It undertook extensive consultations with first nations. The current language is in fact based specifically on the recommendations of that commission.
If you wish to go into it further, I'd introduce Bill Pentney from the Department of Justice, who's joined us specifically on this issue.
That's the context of the general question and the source of the specific recommended clause that's now in Bill C-7.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Are we, in effect, saying then that one can have a violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act justified because of some of these needs and aspirations of the aboriginal community affected by the complaint? Is that, in effect, what it comes down to--to cut to the chase and cut right through here?
Mr. Bill Pentney (Senior General Counsel, Public Law Policy Section, Department of Justice): No.
This is an interpretive clause. It's not specifically an exemption or a defence clause. But it does say that if the Human Rights Commission, in receiving a complaint, is examining the nature of that complaint, it shall take into account the needs and aspirations...the context of that complaint.
In interpreting this, I would add to what Mr. Johnson mentioned earlier. In looking at the charter, when the charter was enacted in 1982, not only was subsection 15(2) put in, but section 25 was put into the charter to serve exactly the same purpose. It's not an independent guarantee of rights, but it does indicate that in looking at an equality claim involving aboriginal people, one has to consider the particular context.
The proposed amendment is intended to provide a balancing of the equality rights of individuals, whether they're members of the first nation or people from outside on first nation land, against the needs or aspirations of the first nation community.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: You say--and I'm not sure how that will stand up in courts of law at some point along the way--that it's not a defence. What if a first nations community were to make the point that--
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Vellacott. You'll have 10 minutes at the end.
We're on amendment CA-52.
¹ (1540)
The Right Honourable Joe Clark (Calgary Centre, PC): Mr. Chair, I have a point of order that I want to raise--
The Chair: We have a point of order.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: --and draw to the attention of the committee.
Members of the committee will recall, naturally, your own motion here, which in effect limited amendments from a certain point forward. You will also recall that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has himself publicly invited one member of Parliament, the member of Parliament for LaSalle--Émarde, to propose new amendments to the bill.
The Chair: Mr. Clark, that is not a point of order.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. I wish you'd hear me out. You and I both know parliamentary procedure.
The Chair: No, I'm not interested in what's going on between Minister Nault and Minister Martin. This has nothing to do with them. We're doing work for the Speaker of the House, so if you have a point of order, I want you to go directly to it.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: I am going directly to the point of order, Mr. Bonin, and I appreciate your experience and authority on these matters. I have some myself.
The Chair: I'll explain that, Mr. Clark, because in all fairness, you came new to the committee.
We've broken all the records for time on this committee, and the way I treated you last meeting is the way I've treated everyone since the beginning. There's a history behind it, and I can't be different for anyone coming on board now. I will be as rigid as I have been for all these members for 106 hours already.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Chairman, it's a little piece of irony that I've been on this committee longer than you have, and I came to this committee well before you were elected to the House. I'm privileged to have the opportunity to be back. But let me get to the point.
The point I was raising--and I have also acted today to write the minister, and if it would help--
The Chair: It's not a point of order, Mr. Clark.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Yes, it is, sir. It relates very directly--
The Chair: No, I want--
Right Hon. Joe Clark: It relates very directly to the business of this committee, so it obviously is a point of order.
My point is--
The Chair: There is no point of order. Did you wish to speak on this amendment?
Right Hon. Joe Clark: No, I'm raising a point of order, and I--
The Chair: I want you to go to the point of order.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: The point of order is that the minister responsible has indicated publicly that new amendments will be received from at least one member of--
The Chair: Mr. Clark, it's not a point of order.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Of course it's a point of order.
The Chair: Turn that microphone off.
I'm going to rule on that.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: It's a point of order, Mr. Chairman. It is quite clearly--
The Chair: I will rule.
No, you will not--
Right Hon. Joe Clark: You cannot rule until you've heard the point.
The Chair: Yes, I am going to rule right now.
I am not interested in what is going on between the Minister of Indian Affairs and Mr. Martin.
We will suspend for five minutes until we have order in this committee, Mr. Clark.
¹ (1542)
¹ (1547)
The Chair: I'll resume proceedings.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order--
The Chair: Is this a new point of order?
Right Hon. Joe Clark: It's a point of order, sir, relating to the--
The Chair: I want to know if it's a new point of order.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Since no judgment was taken on the earlier point of order, Mr. Chairman, perhaps you might let me--
The Chair: No, hold it there.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Here is my point of order.
The Chair: Mr. Clark, when the chair speaks, you listen. That's the way it works.
I've ruled on the point of order. I'm going to explain it to you now.
If the Prime Minister introduces an amendment, as chair I will not accept it. There will be no more amendments accepted by this chair on Bill C-7, because it's beyond the deadline. That's why you--
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Well, then, we do have a very serious issue here for the committee and for Parliament--
The Chair: I know we do, but is that a point of order?
¹ (1550)
Right Hon. Joe Clark: --because the government has taken one position on amendments and--
The Chair: It's not a point of order.
Cut him off. That's it.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: --the committee chair is taking a quite different--
The Chair: We will suspend for five minutes.
¹ (1548)
¹ (1552)
The Chair: On a point of order--
Right Hon. Joe Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Chair--and I will be very quick about this--this committee has taken a decision with respect to the receipt of amendments, where you're in effect prohibiting subsequent amendments.
The Chair: That's not a point of order.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Sir, let me make my point, if I might.
The Chair: He wants to make a speech.
We don't want to hear a speech. We want your point of order.
¹ (1555)
Right Hon. Joe Clark: This is not a kangaroo court, but I am moving forward very quickly, sir.
While the committee has taken that decision, the minister responsible for this bill has made it clear publicly that he would welcome amendments from at least one member of Parliament. I have written the minister today, and with your permission, I'd like to circulate copies in French and English of the letter that I have sent to him, so that you will be--
The Chair: No, Mr. Clark, we're not going to spend two hours fighting that. We want to move on with the amendments.
If anyone wants the floor to speak to amendment CA-52, the floor is open. Who wants the floor?
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Chairman, you cannot dismiss a point of order without hearing it.
The Chair: You won't get to the point, so I'm moving on.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: I'm quickly getting to the point, but I keep getting interrupted by the chair.
The Chair: It takes you an awfully long time to get to the point of order.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: If you would perhaps take a deep breath, Mr. Chair, in the period of that time, I might be able to make the point of order.
Clearly the committee is seized with a quite fundamental dilemma here. The committee itself has judged that there will be no new amendments. The minister responsible has judged that he will accept amendments from at least one member of Parliament.
That member of Parliament is not a member of this committee, but I am, Mr. Martin is, Mr. Loubier is, and others are. If the member for LaSalle--Émard has the right to introduce amendments, as the minister has said he does--
The Chair: He does not.
Mr. Joe Clark: --then so do we have the right to introduce amendments. There are no second-class members of Parliament here.
The Chair: Now you take a breath.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: It may well be helpful if I circulate the letter, Mr. Chairman, which is--
The Chair: Mr. Clark, hold it.
Turn off the microphone.
I will not accept any amendments from Mr. Paul Martin. It's public. I will not accept amendments from the Prime Minister. If that's an error, they can fix it in the House. So what's your point of order?
Right Hon. Joe Clark: We can't fix it in the House.
First, we have an obligation for this committee to do this committee's business, and this committee's business has to do with amending this proposal. Bear in mind, sir, that this matter has been referred here without the customary procedures at second reading in the House of Commons precisely to allow the widest possible consultation on these questions.
We now have a situation where, in that spirit, the minister...and you may know the Prime Minister's mind better than I; perhaps the Prime Minister himself is also preparing amendments. They want amendments that would change the rules that have been adopted by this committee.
The sponsor of the bill, talking about amendments that would change--
The Chair: So what is your point of order?
Right Hon. Joe Clark: My point of order is that the committee has to consider how it will deal with this position now taken by the minister responsible for the bill, that he is going to open these proceedings to new amendments from at least one member, which by extension means from all of us, none of us being a second-class member of Parliament.
With your permission, sir--
The Chair: No, just a moment.
Mr. Hubbard, on the point of order.
Mr. Joe Clark: Would I have your permission to circulate--
The Chair: Cut the microphone.
Mr. Hubbard, on Mr. Clark's point of order.
Mr. Joe Clark: May I have the permission to circulate copies of the document?
Mr. Charles Hubbard (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Mr. Chair, if I may comment on that point of order, the committee a long time ago established its method of operation.
I don't like to put this in the record, but the party of the honourable member who just spoke has had an opportunity to participate in this committee for a long period of time. They did not as a party come to this committee, probably with good excuse--
Mr. Pat Martin: On a point of order, you can't comment on who's here and who's not here.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: I'm commenting on a party, not on a person.
Mr. Pat Martin: It's out of order.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: With that, every member on this committee, including the member from his party who has not been well, could have been substituted for, and they could have come and brought amendments to this committee when amendments were due.
I know the honourable member has a lot of experience in the House, but committees are masters of their own destiny. The destiny that was set here was that there was a deadline for submitting amendments. That deadline was accepted by all members of the committee. We have been proceeding for over 100 hours through the amendments that were suggested.
With that, Mr. Chair, I would point out--
The Chair: Thank you. Let's get to the point of order.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: The main point I'd like to make is that the House is open to amendments after report stage. If any minister or any member of the House has amendments to make to this bill, those can be brought before the House when it goes back at report stage.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Monsieur Loubier, on the point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Clark is right in making that request. As you mentioned, Mr. Hubbard...
The Chair: We don't name the members of the committee.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: As you mentioned, Parliamentary Secretary, the Minister invited Paul Martin to come and table his amendments here after we adopted a certain work method and after you imposed a gag order. Either you didn't do your job as the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary when you told him it was impossible for Paul Martin to appear before this committee to present his amendments. Or, you did inform him and the Minister made a political public statement by inviting Paul Martin and others while knowing full well it was impossible for them to appear here.
The Chair: Mr. Loubier, we didn't invite Paul Martin.
[English]
I will rule on the point of order.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to intervene as well on the same point of order.
The Chair: Mr. Martin, on the point of order.
Mr. Pat Martin: I have some views and opinions as well, Mr. Chairman.
My view is that the rules of the game, my privileges as a member, have been compromised and jeopardized, in a way, in that earlier today I tried to move an amendment to a clause that otherwise had no amendments. Simply, we were debating whether or not a clause--I believe it was clause 39--should carry. At that time I was told you couldn't accept my amendments from the floor as such, but now we find that the minister is publicly stating that another member of Parliament does have the right; in fact, he was openly invited to come forward and move these amendments. That's the other P. Martin, who seems welcome to do this.
Because there's this contradiction going on, it makes you wonder who has more rights around this table. If the minister is micromanaging the affairs of this committee from above, as a puppet show of some kind, and he's saying, well, at any time we certainly want the member from LaSalle--Émard to come and make amendments....
I think, incidentally, it coincides with Mr. Nault throwing support behind Mr. Martin, in the Montreal Gazette--
º (1600)
The Chair: We're debating now. Let's get back to the point of order.
Mr. Pat Martin: My comment on the point of order is that we should cease the clause-by-clause analysis of this bill until this can be addressed.
The Chair: That's not on the point of order.
I'm prepared to rule on the point of order. Minister Nault doesn't have the power to invite people to this committee, and Minister Martin, if he wants to replace any member of this committee, cannot introduce new amendments. I've said this three times. I don't care what goes on in the newspapers and in the back rooms. I'm the chair of this committee. I will not accept new amendments. That takes care of this point of order.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: No, Mr. Chair, I'm afraid it does not. That expresses the very firm, if not very democratic, view of the chair, but it does not reflect the opinion of the committee.
The Chair: Well, that's fine. You can always appeal to the House, Mr. Clark.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: There would have to be a vote on the ruling by the chair on this matter.
The Chair: Does anyone wish to speak to CA-52?
Right Hon. Joe Clark: I would like, Mr. Chair, in the interests of order and in the interests of ensuring--
The Chair: Suspend.
º (1601)
º (1604)
The Chair: We'll try again to go directly to the speaker on CA-52.
º (1605)
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am appealing--
The Chair: You don't have the floor.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Chairman, I am appealing your decision and I would ask that the vote on that appeal be a recorded vote.
The Chair: Okay. A recorded vote on whether the rule of the chair will be sustained.
(Chair's ruling sustained: yeas 7; nays 3)
The Chair: I need a speaker on CA-52.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Chairman, on another point of order.
The Chair: Just a moment. Hold it, hold it. If you want to speak, let me know. You don't take over here. Do you have a point of order?
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Excuse me, I have a point of order.
The Chair: Mr. Clark.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: I had sought to have circulated to members of the committee--
The Chair: That's not a point of order.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Well, yes, if you would hear me out, sir--
The Chair: Well, get to the point.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: I've never heard a judge before who rushed for judgment before the argument was made.
The Chair: I know. You're wasting a lot of our time, Mr. Clark.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: But let me make my case. My case is very simple. I had sought to circulate copies of correspondence between myself and the minister. They were in the process of being circulated when a member of the committee, the parliamentary secretary to the minister, stopped the circulation of the document. And surely--
The Chair: That's not a point of order.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: --Mr. Speaker, a member of the committee has the right to circulate to fellow members of the committee--
The Chair: They don't have to accept them.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: --a document that he believes to be--
The Chair: They don't have to accept them.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: It was not a question of his not accepting them. It was a question of his prohibiting my assistant from other members who may want to accept them.
The Chair: That is not a point of order.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: It's quite clearly a point of order.
The Chair: Who wishes to speak on CA-52?
Right Hon. Joe Clark: It has to do with my rights as a member of this committee--
The Chair: Suspend.
º (1606)
º (1611)
The Chair: I will try again to have the speaker on CA-52.
Mr. Hubbard.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I think I may have found a way that we can simplify this. Could I ask the judgment of the chair?
Do I have the right as a private member of this committee to circulate documents, whose consideration would, I think, be helpful to my colleague members?
The Chair: There are two ways of doing it. One is offering it to the members and they refused it--some of them. The other way is to do it through the chair, who asks the clerk to do it, and then it's distributed in both official languages, normally. There's been difficulty on some subamendments.
But when you present a point of order you don't get into a long speech and documents and all kinds of stuff. You get to the point. That's the issue.
Now Mr. Hubbard--
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Thank you for your answer. Mr. Chair, I would like then to submit to you in both official languages an exchange of correspondence between myself--
The Chair: That is not a point of order.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Sir, I've asked you for an opinion and you've given me the opinion and I'm now seeking to act on the opinion. Surely you gave me the opinion with the expectation that I would act on it, so I would like to do that.
The Chair: No, no. It's not a point of order. That's what you raised and I'm ruling that it is not a point of order. We are going to Mr. Hubbard.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Chair, how then--
The Chair: Suspend for half an hour.
º (1613)
º (1640)
The Chair: We will try again.
Mr. Hubbard.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I might have the opportunity to ask the chair, on a point of order, to circulate--
The Chair: You have a point of order. You're asking me if you can circulate it through the clerk?
Right Hon. Joe Clark: I would ask you if you would extend to me the courtesy of circulating--
The Chair: You can ask that when you have your ten minutes. You're going to have your ten minutes to speak.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: No, no, I'm doing this on a point of order, Mr. Chair. I have the documents in front of me. Let me bring them to you, and I would very much appreciate--
The Chair: No, I won't distribute them. You just want to waste my time now. I told you how you could do it.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: No, I'm not. I'm following the rules of the committee.
The Chair: Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We're looking at clause 41. This clause, Mr. Chair, is a very significant part of the legislation under Bill C-7.
Before we start to look at clause 41, I would like to put into the record--
Right Hon. Joe Clark: I would like a ruling on my request, Mr. Chair, that I be allowed to circulate letters that I believe would be of interest to members of the parliamentary committee. I think there would be many members of the parliamentary committee who would be interested in this exchange of correspondence. And I ask the chair, on a point of order, if he would--
The Chair: You can't keep up with it. Mr. Hubbard has the floor.
Mr. Hubbard, you have the floor.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Chair, this is quite simple to deal with. We can all have the opportunity to listen to Mr. Hubbard after you have accepted this quite simple request that a document be circulated. Is there any reason not to circulate these documents?
Mr. Chair, you're bound by certain rules of the House of Commons and this committee--
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I may speak to clause 41--
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, sir. On a point of order, I appeal the ruling of the chair that these documents are inadmissible, and I would ask for--
The Chair: The meeting is suspended for fifteen minutes.
º (1642)
º (1648)
The Chair: We will resume proceedings.
Mr. Clark's documents--
Mr. Pat Martin: A point of order.
The Chair: Can I just rule on the other point of order first? No.
Mr. Pat Martin: There may be something out of order, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, I note that the time is 4:45 and my point of order is simply that when the agenda sheet was circulated, it didn't specify any end time to this committee.
The Chair: That's right.
Mr. Pat Martin: Now, this is very unusual in any standing committee I've ever sat on. I'm proposing--and I raise it as a point of order because it has specifically to do with the order of this committee or the order of business as it is dealt with. With no end time, theoretically, we could still be sitting at midnight or 1 o'clock or 2 o'clock in the morning.
Now, we started at 9 a.m. this morning.
The Chair: Okay, your point of order is that there is no end time.
Mr. Pat Martin: My point of order is that we should--
The Chair: There's no end time.
Mr. Pat Martin: --adjourn at 5:30 p.m. this afternoon.
The Chair: No, that's not a point of order.
Mr. Pat Martin: Well, my point of order then--
The Chair: It's not a point of order.
Mr. Pat Martin: I wish to discuss further the logic surrounding the agenda, and that surely is in order, because we had no agreement--
The Chair: That's not a point of order.
Mr. Pat Martin: --around this table about the agenda. There was no motion to approve the agenda, as is customary, and the agenda was written up without our input or participation. It calls for unreasonable lengths of time, which jeopardize not only my health but I also sometimes worry about the health and well-being of the chair and the sedentary lifestyles that some of the committee members have. I'm concerned that they may be pushing themselves to the point where somebody's going to have a cardiac arrest around this table.
In the interest of fairness and in all things reasonable--
The Chair: Would you like me to rule on your point of order?
Mr. Pat Martin: --I want us to revisit--
The Chair: I will rule on your point of order.
Mr. Pat Martin: I want us to suspend the action of this committee right now, so that we can--
The Chair: That's not a point of order.
Monsieur Loubier.
Mr. Pat Martin: Well, Mr. Chairman, my point of order hasn't been dealt with. I've not finished the debate on this point of order because--
The Chair: Mr. Loubier, you have the floor.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I share Pat Martin's point of view in that respect.
º (1650)
[English]
The Chair: Do you have a point of order?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Let me finish before saying it's not a point of order. Just a minute.
The Chair: We're not interested in what you have to share.
[English]
Do you have a point of order?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I never worked that way. To tell the truth, I sat on the Finance Committee for nine years and except for a few cases, any time we had to work...
[English]
The Chair: Do you have a point of order?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: ...the work was to begin at a specific time and end at a specific time.
[English]
The Chair: Monsieur Loubier, do you have a point of order?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I can see that since we began examining the bill...
[English]
The Chair: You don't have a point of order.
Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try again.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Since we began examining this bill, there's always been a time for the meeting to begin but nothing said about what time it will finish.
[English]
Mr. Charles Hubbard: I've never had to speak before such noise as is being generated on the opposite side of the table.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: At the Finance Committee it did happen a few times and the result was utter confusion...
[English]
The Chair: Turn off the mike.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Like Mr. Martin, I think we should...
º (1655)
[English]
The Chair: Suspend.
º (1651)
º (1655)
The Chair: Mr. Hubbard, you have the floor--Mr. Martin has a point of order.
Mr. Pat Martin: The issue I'd like to raise, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that the televised broadcast has been terminated in this room, even though--
The Chair: That's not a point of order.
Mr. Pat Martin: It is a point of order, Mr. Chair, because the chair acted in a unilateral and arbitrary fashion.
The Chair: It's not a point of order.
Mr. Hubbard, you have the floor.
This meeting is suspended.
º (1656)
º (1658)
The Chair:
Before we resume, I will read from Marleau and Montpetit:
| The Chair may, at his or her discretion, interrupt a member whose remarks or questions are repetitious, or not relevant to the matter before the committee. If a member's comments continue to be repetitious or irrelevant, the Chair may recognize another member. If the offending member refuses to yield the floor and continues speaking, the Chair may suspend or adjourn the meeting. |
You wanted a ruling on that. You have it.
Mr. Hubbard.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: Mr. Chair, on that issue, we still have a--
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll try now. It's about the fourth time, but I will try again.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: I have a question, sir, on that ruling.
The Chair: No, you don't have the floor.
Mr. Hubbard.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Yes, Mr. Clark.
» (1700)
Right Hon. Joe Clark: The chair has just given a ruling with respect to--
The Chair: No, I didn't give a ruling. I read something from the book.
Right Hon. Joe Clark: The chair has just read from Montpetit and Marleau. The relevant question now is indeed the word “relevant”. Standards have to be established as to what is relevant and what is not.
We have had a situation today in which, I believe, no fewer than five times, as a matter of mood, the chair has suspended the hearings of this committee. Surely, it is an abuse of the rules he has just cited in Montpetit and Marleau to suggest that--
The Chair: What is your point of order?
Right Hon. Joe Clark: --he can find relevance or irrelevance with such regularity. I'm asking the chair to indicate to us--
The Chair: You don't call a point of order to ask the chair a question.
Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll try again, because I'm very disappointed that a member of Parliament with such--
Right Hon. Joe Clark: My point of order, Mr. Chair, is to ask the chair to spell out the standards of relevance--
The Chair: We will suspend.
» (1700)
» (1704)
The Chair: We will try once again to give the floor to Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We're looking now at clause 41. Just before we do, I want to put in, for the record, that this morning the honourable member from Winnipeg Centre was reading a document. It was expressed that this document had been circulated to the committee. After researching and going back to the presentation we had from Dr. Fred Lazar on March 20 in Toronto, I found out that this attachment was not part of his submission. It was in fact an addition he put out as an editorial following his submission to the standing committee.
Just for the record, when the member from Saint-Hyacinthe did mention that, it certainly was not part of the submission. If he had been in Toronto, he would have realized that.
» (1705)
The Chair: I have a point of order, Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Hubbard has chosen to use his time to make comments about a document I was quoting from earlier in the day. I believe I have the right to clarify the record from our point of view.
The Chair: That's not a point of order.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, it is a point of order.
The Chair: It's not a point of order.
Mr. Pat Martin: The point of order is that Mr. Hubbard is trying to imply that I was--
The Chair: It's not a point of order.
Mr. Pat Martin: --misrepresenting some of the documents--
The Chair: This stuff has been going on for 15 weeks. It's not a point of order.
Mr. Pat Martin: --I was quoting from and I want the right to respond and explain where this document came from because it forms part of the record.
The Chair: It's not a point of order.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Hubbard, the parliamentary secretary, is trying to say I'm misleading people--
The Chair: Suspend.
» (1705)
» (1717)
The Chair: We will try again.
Mr. Hubbard, you have the floor.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you again, Mr. Chair, but getting back to our apology--
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It has become a bit of a circus here, and I would move we adjourn until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
The Chair: You can't move an adjournment while someone has the floor. As soon as he finishes speaking, you can call your point of order.
Mr. Hubbard, you have the floor.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Looking at clause 41, we're talking about a very fundamental issue here, which, in terms of the indications we have had, a good number of first nations people will be deprived of until such time as Bill C-7 becomes law. We're talking about basic human rights. We have an expert witness at the table, and I would ask him to explain to our committee the difference this new legislation will have for first nations people in terms of the relationships between them and their own governments. So if we could, let's have an explanation of what exists at present and how this new clause 41 in Bill C-7 will change that relationship and enable the Human Rights Act to be applied.
The Chair: Who will take this question?
Mr. Johnson.
Mr. Warren Johnson: I'll start off with the response, Mr. Chairman.
The Canadian Human Rights Act currently contains an exemption. It does not apply to the Indian Act. As a stand-alone piece of legislation, it would automatically apply to the First Nations Governance Act, but the exception would remain with respect to the rest of the Indian Act not affected by Bill C-7.
This issue of removing the exemption from the Canadian Human Rights Act was a proposal that came forward in the consultations. In fact, I think the first recommendation that this be considered came from the national chief of the AFN.
It was also raised in a number of the consultation meetings. If I could offer a personal commentary, the most striking one from my perspective was at the Northwest Tribal and Treaty Council group in British Columbia, which I had the privilege to be a member of, when an elder, upon learning of the details of the exemption in the Canadian Human Rights Act now and the fact that this exemption exempted first nations people from the use of the Canadian Human Rights Act with respect to activities undertaken under the authority of the Indian Act, asked if “she wasn't a Canadian too”. In the simplest sense, I guess this struck me as a very significant comment coming out of these consultations.
So in the context of the consultations then, this addition, which is an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act to remove the exemption of the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act from the Indian Act, was put forward. The language contained in the clause under question here, as referenced earlier, was put forward by the LaForest commission on human rights issues after significant consultations with first nations people. I think this language is exactly what was proposed by that commission
If there is further comment on the question, my colleagues may wish to elaborate further.
» (1720)
Mr. Bill Pentney: Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I'd simply add that the intention of clause 41 in adding proposed section 16.1 to the Canadian Human Rights Act is to allow the commission, in examining a complaint, or a tribunal in dealing with a case if it goes to a hearing before a tribunal, or a court if, on a review of a tribunal decision, it is examining a case, to consider the fact that aboriginal communities are different from other communities. It's not a fair comparison to say that a complaint filed by an aboriginal or non-aboriginal person against Bell Canada--or against the federal government, for that matter--ought to be treated in the same way and understood in the same context as if that same issue had arisen in respect of the first nation.
Proposed section 16.1 is intended to allow all of the bodies interpreting that complaint to examine the context, whether it's in relation to the complaint of discrimination itself or any defences the first nation is bringing forward, and to understand whether they're doing what they've done because they are different, in relation to trying to pursue certain needs and certain aspirations, from Bell Canada or Air Canada or the Royal Bank or the federal government itself, and recognizing that their circumstances are different.
Section 67 doesn't allow any such nuanced interpretation. Section 67 of the current act is a blanket exemption. If the first nation or the federal government has done what it has done that is alleged to be discriminatory by virtue of the Indian Act, that's the end of the story. There's no inquiry into whether it did that in pursuit of its own cultural traditions or in furtherance of its legitimate needs. If it was legislatively authorized by the Indian Act, that's the end of the inquiry and the case must be dismissed.
Under the new provision, what's intended is a much more nuanced and refined analysis, taking into account the individual rights and liberties and interests of the person bringing forward the complaint, and the unique needs, circumstances, and aspirations of the community itself. Rather than a specific exemption allowing for a blanket yes or no answer, this is meant to apply both to the allegations and claims of discrimination and to any defences the first nation brings forward.
This is common in complaints against other types of organizations that are recognized to be unique. It builds on the existing Constitution and it builds on existing human rights laws, which recognize, for example, that religious and charitable organizations that fall under provincial jurisdiction are different. When they're carrying out a charitable activity, they ought to be able to do so in a way that recognizes their difference.
Most of those types of organizations don't fall under federal jurisdiction, but first nations do. In order to be able to allow the commission or a tribunal or a court to recognize that difference, a provision like proposed section 16.1 ought to be added to the Human Rights Act to allow that sort of balancing to occur.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair. That's been a good explanation.
The Chair: Is there anyone else on amendment CA-52?
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: I'd much rather use my time getting an apology from Mr. Hubbard for accusing me of lying--
The Chair: He did not name you.
Mr. Pat Martin: I beg your pardon, Mr. Chairman?
The Chair: He did not name you, and it wasn't while we were sitting.
Mr. Pat Martin: Well certainly for all the world to hear he implied that I was a liar, and I resent--
» (1725)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: He named both of us.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, maybe he meant all members opposite, which is even more offensive.
The Chair: Mr. Martin, I am not a school teacher doing yard duty. This happened when we were suspended.
Mr. Pat Martin: No, but you do have a--
The Chair: I don't control your lives.
Mr. Pat Martin: That's another issue, Mr. Chairman. You seem to arbitrarily suspend this meeting at the drop of a hat, whenever you see fit, for whatever reason. What if the Speaker in the House of Commons did that every time there was a disagreement or every time there was debate taking place whose tone the Speaker didn't like? Would he simply suspend Parliament--
The Chair: Are you asking me a question? He has a better tool. He can have you removed from the House. I can't.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, you are doing a disservice to Parliament and certainly a disservice to the very pressing issues we're dealing with here when we just keep giving up for a half hour at a time. What are the guests and witnesses who are watching every step of this bill as it plods along toward being implemented supposed to think when this committee wastes the time and the resources of the staff people and the translator and just stops its analysis of the bill arbitrarily at the whim of the chair, Mr. Chair?
I think what we should be doing is not simply to suspend but to adjourn this committee until we can have the Speaker take a look at the conduct of this committee and the conduct of the chair. I'd be interested in hearing what the Speaker would have to say regarding the way this committee is being chaired.
Speaking on the amendment, though, Mr. Chairman, because it's an important amendment--and again, the whole context of this committee does a disservice to the important issues we're dealing with here today--I would point out that we have to be careful, because to repeal section 67 will expose the Indian Act to challenges based on the Human Rights Act.
The ability of first nations governments to cope with being named as parties to human rights complaints must be addressed. This is particularly evident given that the likely cause of such complaints would be related to the legislation, or to INAC, or to other federal government-designed policies and programs that first nations governments are forced to administer.
We're going to have the first nations governments named in these human rights complaints, when in actual fact what they're doing is delivering the policies and programs stemming from the Indian Act, which we know would never pass any gender equity screen--which is incredibly unfair to aboriginal women. We know the Indian Act is flawed in that way. There's not a person here who doesn't agree that people should have access to the Human Rights Act, but now we're going to saddle already burdened first nations with being named as parties to violations to the Human Rights Act, and we have to be cautious.
I don't see any corresponding increase in funding or resources where first nations might be able to represent themselves if they're faced with a flurry--as we anticipate--of human rights complaints and where they have to be represented. We should listen to Chief Hammond Dick of the Kaska Tribal Council when he said:
| ...we suggest that clause 41, which enables the advocation of the Canadian Human Rights Act for aboriginal governmental organizations, must be redrafted to ensure that the cultural integrity of first nations is maintained and our distinctive culture and way of life is not unduly threatened by the assertion of the rights of the individuals. It is very important to ensure that human rights legislation does not abrogate or derogate aboriginal treaty or other rights of the Kaska people--in particular, our rights relating to the exercise of the protection of our language, culture, and tradition. |
That's very well spoken.
The joint ministerial advisory committee had a great deal to say when they were reviewing section 67 of the Human Rights Act and the repeal of that same act, or, as in proposed section 41, contemplating the administration of the Human Rights Act with the Indian Act.
In our meeting number 18, Jim Aldridge of the joint ministerial advisory committee said:
| Clause 41, which was referred to this morning, is the new language that's to be included in the Canadian Human Rights Act. In our view, the proposed language is not clear. Its interpretation is difficult to predict. Specifically, what is the relationship between the needs and aspirations of a first nations community, which are to be taken into account, and the rights of that community, which are not referred to? How does it fit into the overall regime? JMAC recommended that this change should take place in the context of the overall review of the Canadian human rights approach, rather than just being picked off. |
This is what is worrisome to us, Mr. Chairman, about proposed section 41, and even the amendments as put forward dealing with it--especially, frankly, the Alliance amendment, which takes out reference to gender equality and speaks only about fundamental equality.
» (1730)
We believe the whole purpose of including the Human Rights Act in this context is to deal with the glaring inequities associated with gender issues.
Mr. Aldridge, of the joint ministerial advisory committee, went on to say the following:
| I'll tell you how it happened. The federal panel reviewing the Canadian Human Rights Code recommended--and we set out the recommendations--that section 67 be repealed, but that there be an interpretative clause that would have a certain effect, and they describe, as opposed to drafting, the clause. It appears that the drafters of this legislation took that description, which I believe wasn't intended necessarily to be the drafted clause, and put it in. So it's a description that seems to point in some direction, but with the greatest of respect, it's not drafted in a legally rigorous way, so it's difficult to predict exactly how it will be interpreted. |
Well, that's our concern, too, Mr. Chairman, that we may be burdening and saddling first nations with the onerous...well, just with years of misery, frankly, as things get challenged.
There are cultural and traditional differences. One was pointed out to me, Mr. Chairman, by an aboriginal elder who I met in the aboriginal round of the Charlottetown Accord, which Mr. Clark is of course abundantly familiar with. The aboriginal elder, a woman, said “In my community the women aren't even allowed to run for council or chief”. Everybody said “Well, that's terrible”. Then she said “But the men aren't allowed to vote”. So clearly in that community they had devised a way to ensure fairness that had been developed over hundreds of years.
But you can imagine a first nations woman in that context filing a very legitimate human rights complaint because she's not allowed to run as a councillor or as chief. Well, these things are not being contemplated or considered. You can imagine the hearings that could take place stemming from an incident like that--and the costs associated with a first nation having to represent themselves in the face of such a claim.
Now the joint ministerial committee's advisory report, in dealing with section 67 of the Human Rights Act, went on to say:
| It is JMAC's view that the issue of the application of the [Canadian Human Rights Act] should not be linked to the decision whether to enact the proposed provisions as amendments to the Indian Act or as a separate statute. Even if the proposed provisions are amendments to the Indian Act, section 67 could be amended so as to not refer to those provisions. |
We should point out that section 67 of the Canada Human Rights Act, currently--I wish I had it handy, Mr. Chairman--specifically excludes aboriginal issues in terms of the things that can be brought under the act.
Again, Mr. Aldridge points out that:
| It is JMAC's opinion that the question of the continued exemption of the Indian Act from the [Canadian Human Rights Act] is more complex than merely deciding whether or not section 67 should be repealed in respect of some or all of the provisions of the Indian Act. |
They also make the point that we need to address the cultural sensitivity associated with this. So simply repealing section 67, without any language that may give guidance to arbitrators in the future, will do more harm than good.
Everyone around this table is interested in gender equity, except, it seems, for the member from the Canadian Alliance, whose motion specifically excludes any reference to gender. Most of us also, on this side at least, are not convinced that this particular bill, Bill C-7, addresses it in any way that would give satisfaction to those many people who have legitimate complaints.
Now, it would be far better to review the Indian Act using a gender-based analysis--
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to move that this committee now adjourn until 9 a.m. tomorrow.
» (1735)
[English]
The Chair: I have a motion to adjourn.
(Motion negatived)
The Chair: We will continue.
Monsieur Loubier, you have the floor.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: It was a nice try. You win some, you lose some. It depends on the day of the month.
Mr. Chairman, I find Mr. Vellacott's amendment strikes a really sensitive chord in those populations concerned, in other words, for first nations. I'm not sure we'd be doing the right thing by removing the reference to the equality of sexes, as the Alliance is suggesting with this amendment. When you have fundamental equality rather than explicit equality as is proposed in the initial wording on equality between the sexes, the legislator's will isn't reflected in the provision.
When you talk about fundamental equality, it can mean equality between natives and non-natives living on reserves. It could mean equality of rights. It can be all kinds of equalities. When you want to settle explicitly part of the problems reported by the aboriginal women's associations both in Quebec as well as Canada, then you have to be very specific indeed. Even the first nations' representatives told us that we had to adapt, naturally, to the morals, uses and customs of first nations, but that to avoid unacceptable situations like those that may have occasionally occurred in some communities, we also had to have this reference to the equality of the sexes.
Moreover, in the testimony presented, including that of members of first nations, we sensed a desire to move increasingly toward recognizing the rights of persons of different sexes. When we heard from witnesses in Montreal during the course of the committee's travels, we observed the great vigour of the aboriginal women's associations and their determination to act with a view to seeing the treatment of aboriginal women improve.
However, most of the time, when the question of equality arose, the issue being addressed wasn't Bill C-7. It's one thing to have an explicit reference concerning the equality of the sexes like we have in clause 41 of Bill C-7 and it's another thing to change the fundamental legislation that still applies to the aboriginal communities, in other words the Indian Act that's been around for 130 years. That's the important piece of legislation.
We've heard so much nonsense since we began debating Bill C-7 that a cat wouldn't be able to sort out her own kittens. The Prime Minister rose in the House at one point and said this bill would replace the Indian Act, that infamous Indian Act. He himself used those words, if memory serves me well. He said that we had to pass Bill C-7 quickly to replace the Indian Act.
But that's totally false. The Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs said the same thing when he appeared before us. We had to replace the Indian Act, he said. In fact, we're not replacing the Indian Act. We're complicating the administrative process and we're pursuing the colonialist approach that we've been using for 130 years through the Indian Act. We're adding to the interpretation problems by superimposing different acts. I believe that's referred to as top loading in English. The Indian Act is going to remain, C-7 will be loaded on top of it and soon, we're going to have C-6 and C-19 as well.
The Quebec Bar and even the Canadian Bar Association have cautioned us. They have told us we run the risk of legal problems the likes of which we've never seen before, even though Minister Robert Nault has told us that the government merely wants to take responsibility for the situation and see to it that the relations between the sexes, for example, are clearly set out in Bill C-7 while doing away with the Indian Act. The Canadian Bar Association and the Quebec Bar, in particular, have told us to proceed with caution because we're setting the stage for a variety of lawsuits, given that many clauses in this bill fly in the face of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and of certain provisions in the Canadian Constitution , more specifically those respecting the inherent right to self-government.
» (1740)
We have to be very careful and tackle the real issues. Bill C-7 does not seek to redefine relations between the federal government and first nations. On the contrary, it perpetuates the present relationship of dominant party over dominated party. The dominator is the federal government that persists in trying to impose its will on first nations, while the dominated party is the same that it has been for the 130 years of the Indian Act's existence, namely the members of the first nations.
Getting back to Mr. Vellacott's amendment, I think it's extremely dangerous to address the matter of equality between the sexes. On the contrary, if we're to do anything, we should strengthen clause 41 so as to clarify things a bit more. In particular, we should be focussing on the Indian Act because it will continue to be in force for a number of years. In view of the very slow progress of present negotiations with first nations, especially as regard land claim negotiations, it's fairly safe to say that the Indian Act will continue to apply for the next 50 or 60 years.
If anything, we should be focussing our attention on the Indian Act, picking up the pace of the negotiations on aboriginal self-government and moving quickly to settle land claims. We've done it successfully with many first nations. I don't know why or how this issue was shelved or how talks that were scheduled to take place immediately were postponed, when instead the government should have been picking up the pace. As we speak, 500 land claims have been temporarily set aside. First nations are facing enormous problems and challenges and we're here discussing a bill that will do nothing new to improve the situation for first nations and especially for aboriginal women.
Michèle Audet, from the Femmes autochtones du Québec Association set out very clearly the seven demands women have concerning the equality of sexes and the implementation of different acts, the main one being the Indian Act, particularly as it concerns women. The seven recommendations all have to do with the Indian Act. The focus is on amending the Indian Act to eliminate all forms of discrimination against women and also, on addressing the reinstatement as Indians not only of those women who lost that status because of the discrimination that they've historically endured, but also about the re-instatement of their children who lost their status. At present, first nations are concerned by the types of situations that aboriginal women and their descendants may have to deal with. These are the real issues that, in my view, need to be addressed.
It was also recommended to us that the Indian Act be amended so as to ensure that people married to Indians but who are not Indians themselves as well as the children of those marriages have the right to live on reserves. That's a fundamental right and first nations are receptive to the idea of moving toward this recognition based on the Charter of Rights and the precept of the equality between the sexes.
When we talk about changing and improving relations between the federal government and first nations, we have a right to expect that the federal government will address the real issues. It should not present cosmetic proposals for which there is no consensus among first nations or amendments to an act that no first nation community really wants. The government must tackle problems head-on.
The problem at this point in time is that the negotiations on self-government are at a virtual standstill. The real problem today is that when you look at the record on issues such as health, education, drinking water on reserves and housing, the situation is far from being just a little dramatic, on the contrary. It's so bad that a mere three weeks ago, a UN observer travelled through part of Canada to see firsthand the situation on the reserves. He was scandalized and upset to see that in a country as rich as Canada, a G8 country, deplorable conditions still exist on Indian reserves. Speeches about improving social and economic conditions and the health of first nation communities are all well and good, but when it comes time to do something concrete, the government prefers wasting time with the likes of Bill C-7 without addressing the real problems which, in passing, are quite costly. Everything that normally should be settled doesn't get settled.
» (1745)
I think that if we were to change...
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I have an amendment to move.
The Chair: It's too late. It had to be done before the end of the 10-minute period.
[English]
Anyone else?
Please make your closing remarks, Mr. Vellacott.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I just need to respond, I guess, Mr. Chair, to a few of the comments that have been made thus far. I guess particularly, when you're looking at something so crucial as this matter before us now, I in fact had another rather similar amendment, which actually stated that idea of the fundamental equality, particularly gender equality, or just carrying on as with the present government bill here in clause 41, subsection 16.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
I draw it to the attention of my colleagues from the Bloc and the NDP--I don't know if the PC member made a comment on this as well, but when you're talking about the protection to the extent consistent with the principles of fundamental equality, then of course that does include gender equality. But when you're asking particularly for that over and above all others--race, sexual orientation, and so on, whatever--then it's over and above and beyond, so that's really not about equity any more at all.
In fact, we assume that for aboriginal people as for non-aboriginal people there would be a consistent application of fundamental principles of justice on an equal basis. So when you get into listing these different forms, gender equality and so on....
In fact, first nations women have made the point, particularly to myself and to my Canadian Alliance colleague, Brian Pallister, that this provides no protection at all to them, when we say, as the bill presently has it, “to the extent consistent with principles of gender equality”. They say this because as long as a first nation can somehow demonstrate or seem to show that shutting women out has nothing to do with gender equality but with something else that is based on a custom or a cultural tradition, they get around this one anyhow.
There's a great big hole you could drive a truck through on this particular subsection 16.1. I would hope the BQ member and the NDP member understand it or see it, because this is just as poor as it possibly could be.
When you say “to the extent consistent with principles of gender equality”, first nations women have not at all been reassured and have said it provides no comfort at all to them because in fact there are all kinds of ways to do an end run around it. This is totally vacuous and meaningless in terms of protection as far as they're concerned.
If you simply make the statement, “consistent with the principles of fundamental equality”, we know what those are in the Canadian Human Rights Act and there is no need to be stating one thing or the other. That's why we're appealing for the full and consistent protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Mr. Pentney made his point here earlier that it not be a defence--I think that's what you said. But I would ask you, what if the needs and aspirations of the aboriginal community affected by the complaint cannot be a defence for getting around the Canadian Human Rights Act provisions? What if a band or a band and chief and council say they are exempt because of the particular needs they have, customs and cultures and so on? Then in fact it would be a defence.
Is that not correct, Mr. Pentney? If they can make the point that their “needs and aspirations” require such and such, then in fact it is a defence. Some aspect of the Canadian Human Rights Act would not be applied because they had just made the point that their needs and aspirations are different and therefore we have to let them go with whatever they've done. It might be a very clear and blatant override of the Canadian Human Rights Act provisions, but because it's an issue of “the needs and aspirations” of the aboriginal community, it trumps, if you will, the Canadian Human Rights Act in that instance.
» (1750)
Mr. Bill Pentney: Thank you for the question.
The Canadian Human Rights Act is quite specific in setting out a number of prohibitions. It starts by prohibiting discrimination on a variety of grounds, as you know. Then it prohibits discrimination in employment, in trade union activity, and in the provision of goods or services.
Then it sets out a series of specific defences to that claim. So, for example, a claim of employment discrimination can be met by an employer saying, “Well, no, you're right, I didn't hire the person because of disability”, but in fact there's a justification for it, a bona fide occupational requirement, which means that person can't do the job. The act contains a series of specific defences.
You're alleging discrimination in employment--was there discrimination or differential treatment? The provision in section 16.1 would say that, in interpreting this claim, you have to consider the particular needs or circumstances of the aboriginal community.
In interpreting that defence--bona fide occupational requirement or bona fide justification, an inability to accommodate the person or to meet the duty to accommodate short of undue hardship--you have to take into account those needs and aspirations. But it does not add a whole new defence. It says that for the existing defences and prohibitions of discrimination, this context needs to be considered.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It does not add a new defence.
Mr. Bill Pentney: It does not add a specific new defence. It simply says that in considering a complaint against an aboriginal organization, you must consider “the needs and aspirations” of the community--if they're relevant, only if they're relevant and only if they're appropriate to the case. But it's not a specific new defence.
It's not adding a whole new defence for the aboriginal community to claim. It's simply saying that in interpreting the act, in looking at its existing defences, whoever is doing it--whether it's the commission, a tribunal, or a court--the needs and aspirations of that community must be considered.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Well, let me put it this way--and maybe we're getting into a lot of legal nuancing here--but in fact if it's not a new defence, why would you even need to state it? You have all those necessary and valid defences presently. Why aren't those adequate? If they are, what's the point of adding this?
I think it is a defence. I'm not a lawyer. It appears to me that if it's really not a new defence, why would we need to add it then? What's the point of it?
Mr. Bill Pentney: It was suggested that it be added because the Canadian Human Rights Act applies to matters that fall within federal jurisdiction. As you know, certainly better than I, having had the experience of this committee, aboriginal people are unique.
The Canadian Human Rights Act's normal run of business is complaints against the Government of Canada, allegations of employment discrimination, discrimination in the provision of service, complaints against airlines, banks, federally regulated trucking corporations and such, and also now to some extent, under this, complaints against first nations, which are so different in their context. Their circumstances, their needs, their rationales are so different from others. This is intended to serve as a legislative reminder that aboriginal people are unique and that in seeking to advance equality interests we must take account of that context.
So it's added as a reminder, to ensure that aboriginal people, first nations, first nations government organizations, aboriginal government organizations--I'm sorry, I should be precise--have an opportunity to bring forward evidence to ensure that whoever is interpreting this clause, whether it be the commission or a tribunal, takes into account their unique needs and aspirations as it considers the case.
As I say, in a commission meeting, the commission would normally be dealing with a run of cases against banks, airline companies, and government organizations. When the commission comes across a complaint filed against an aboriginal governmental organizational, this clause is meant to ensure that it and the respondent organization have the opportunity to bring forward the relevant evidence.
Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I think I take my cue from a number of first nations women who are not at all reassured by this. That sounds some real alarm bells for me about the fact that there are real problems here and it's fraught with difficulty.
Yes, I think we're all special; we're all unique in different ways. I even object to the terminology, to saying that first nations people are so unique you can exempt them from the full application of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and you need this special clause in there. When I think every person sitting around this table--every first nations person, every person of Asian background, or whatever it happens to be--is unique...each and every one of us is. But that's not to say, in my view, that we should thereby exempt them, with all kinds of little special qualifiers, as we do here, from the full application of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
I think we're on different wavelengths here, it appears. Again, I put this in in the interest of first nations women across the country, who are not at all reassured by section 16.1 as it now reads, the attempt at amendment. I think it's a half measure and not a good one at that. That's my point.
» (1755)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Vellacott.
A recorded vote on CA-52.
(Amendment negatived: nays 12; yeas 1)
The Chair: The debate is now on clause 41.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, we don't believe we should pass clause 41 as it stands. We feel strongly about many aspects of this bill. Even though we opposed Mr. Vellacott's amendment to clause 41, we also feel clause 41 as proposed by the federal government, as we find it in the current act, doesn't warrant our support either. It doesn't address the issues we brought forward and I tried to represent in the comments I was making--although within the 10 minutes we're allowed, it's almost impossible to do justice to an issue like this, Mr. Chairman.
I object, first of all, to the time limitations put on an issue such as this, and I object, second, to the fact that it is now six o'clock and we started the meeting at 9 a.m. today, Mr. Chairman. This committee has been meeting now, with the exception of a one-hour break for question period, for nine hours. We're not doing quality work after nine hours of rancorous debate, and sometimes offensive and insulting from the parliamentary secretary directed toward me, personally. So I feel, Mr. Chairman, we're not doing justice to the issue before us.
I challenge anyone here to tell me what the national emergency is that justifies us meeting for these ridiculously long hours day in and day out on this bill. Why we can't we do business like other ordinary human beings within timeframes that allow people to be creative and thoughtful and develop reasoned arguments, instead of working to the point of exhaustion all the time on a bill that deserves better.... This bill--
The Chair: A point of order, Mr. Keddy.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Chairman, thank you for recognizing me on a point of order.
The member just brought up an issue that I think is important--a national emergency. There is a national emergency, and there is debate in the House beginning at 6:15 on mad cow disease--
The Chair: That is not a point of order.
Suspend.
» (1759)
¼ (1847)
The Chair: Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, clause 41 shouldn't pass.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise a point of order.
Considering that there is an emergency debate at the House of Commons on the mad cow disease epidemic, I would like to adjourn until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
[English]
The Chair: You cannot interrupt a speaker to present a point of order. Mr. Martin has the floor.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: This is a point of order. You agreed to the same thing for Mr. Hubbard on May 15. Mr. Hubbard had raised a point of order and he tabled a motion to adjourn. You agreed to this on May 15. I can even table the document; this is an excerpt from the blues.
I am therefore proposing that we adjourn until nine o'clock tomorrow morning.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, I have to continue with my speech.
I'm reluctant to interrupt my colleague, because I think he makes a very valid point, which is that you'd be hard pressed to tell anyone why this is a national emergency, why we should be ramming this bill down the throats of aboriginal people, who have made it abundantly clear they do not want it nor need it. Yet we're spending all of our energy and resources trying to shove this down people's throats, Mr. Chairman, when there is in fact an urgent national emergency that is time sensitive going on in the chamber next door.
If we had any respect for people on the prairies whatsoever, we would adjourn out of deference to the emergency that is facing my province and all western prairie provinces right now in the form of mad cow disease. It affects the entire country. Mad cow disease, frankly...as concerned as we are about these issues, these issues should be dealt with in the fullness of reasonable debate in normal working hours.
In fact, the normal working hours of this committee used to be from 9 to 11 on Tuesdays and from 3:30 to 5:30 on Thursdays. We're now meeting on Monday and we're calling meetings with no end time. I would question if this agenda even meets any kind of rule of order in terms of setting an agenda with no end time. The House of Commons can't do that. In fact, the House of Commons has to have unanimous consent to extend the sitting hours beyond the normal hours of sitting.
We set a precedent for years in this committee that the committee met from 9 to 11 in the morning and from 3:30 to 5:30 in the afternoon, twice a week. To extend beyond that, I would argue, would require unanimous consent because this is arbitrary and completely unfair abuse of power by the parliamentary secretary, Mr. Chairman. It's obnoxious to me.
The reason clause 41 should not pass in its current form is that we haven't taken into consideration the legitimate points brought forward even by the joint ministerial advisory committee. They advised, I'll quote--and I don't want the parliamentary secretary to question my sources again, Mr. Chairman, because he can look up, if he hasn't already, JMAC's opinion regarding section 67 of the Human Rights Act.
It is JMAC's opinion, in the third point in their brief, that:
| ...the question of the continued exemption of the Indian Act from the CHRA is more complex than merely deciding whether or not section 67 should be repealed in respect of some or all of the provisions of the Indian Act. This complexity cannot be avoided through the expedience of removing the provisions of the Indian Act dealing with governance from that Act and replacing them with new provisions in a separate Act. |
The caution...the legitimate points they raise are that we haven't addressed the issue I cited at the beginning, Mr. Chairman, which is that in all likelihood the repeal of section 67 will expose the Indian Act to challenges based on the Human Rights Act. We know it will. It will unleash a flurry of challenges, because the Indian Act is incredibly biased against women. In no way, shape, or form does it meet the tests of human rights.
But who is going to bear the burden now? First nations are the ones. They're going to have to cope with being named as parties to human rights complaints. And they're not prepared, frankly, because all they're doing is implementing the Indian Act. All bands and councils can do is do the government's duty in delivering the programs and priorities associated with the Indian Act.
The Indian Act is in violation of the Canadian Human Rights Act. We know that. But guess who is going to be named as the party? The one closest to the delivery of the program that violates. So now we have a problem. Now we have first nations burdened with being named and having to represent themselves in defence of the government's and INAC's own irregularities in accordance with the Canadian Human Rights Act.
There's no effort to put in an interpretive clause associated with clause 41 that might protect and shield first nations or at least qualify the application of the Human Rights Act, so it's not first nations, ultimately, that have to address the inequities of the Indian Act.
Our energies and our resources could have been better spent doing a comprehensive gender-based analysis of the Indian Act and doing away with the blatant inequities, as they pertain to gender issues, in the Indian Act, instead of this simple reference. Frankly, we've given aboriginal women a tool now, but we've given them a very dull, ineffective tool. So rather than go to the root cause, we've now said, “Well, you too can now get in line and wait for five years until your human rights complaint is heard some day down the road”.
That's really what we're offering them here. As much as I approve of the Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Act, we know there's a terrible backlog and it's a tedious, ponderous, slow avenue of recourse for people to bring their complaints to them. And we can anticipate a flood of complaints from first nations communities.
We've done very little to address the legitimate grievances of aboriginal women as they pertain to their treatment under the Indian Act. We've done very little. Clause 41, in fact even clause 42, which repeals the section of the Human Rights Act that excludes and gives an exemption to the Indian Act.... Clauses 41 and 42 don't do enough to address the issues brought to our attention by the Native Women's Association of Canada and by the Quebec Native Women's Association. These were legitimate points. I wish I had their brief with me so I could quote directly from them. What I do have is the interpretation of some of their points, not in their own language.
We should point out that the joint ministerial advisory committee...even the Canadian Human Rights Commission told the committee, when they presented to the committee in relation to the interpretive provision in clause 41 of the bill:
| In the commission's analysis of the interpretive clause, we bore in mind the specific historic and constitutional status of first nations, including the inherent right to self-government and the interest of first nations in the preservation of their communities, culture, languages, and traditions. |
| This interpretative clause means that when the commission of the tribunal considers claims of discrimination against a first nation, they must balance the needs of the community with those of the individual. If there is a conflict, individual claims do not trump collective claims, nor do collective claims trump individual claims. The objective is to find a middle path that will serve both interests. It should also be noted that the clause specifically provides for gender equality. |
That's true, but the people representing aboriginal women who have read this are not comforted by this ambiguity. The Canadian Human Rights Commission has served notice to the committee that they really can't rule in favour of individual rights over collective rights, nor collective rights over individual rights, which means they pretty much have to walk down the middle, which is the status quo and is exactly where first nations women find themselves now--with no clear direction either way.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Martin is right to talk about the Quebec Native Women's Association, who presented us with a very well flushed out brief on what aboriginal women really want in terms of recognition of equality and in terms of the amendments to be made to the Indian Act, which will continue to be enforced, even if Bill C-7 is adopted, contrary to what this web of lies we have been hearing from the beginning of this debate from the various interveners directly involved in the drafting or the political presentation of this bill, has led us to believe.
Moreover, Michèle Audet, from the Quebec Native Women's Association, said in the fourth recommendation of the brief she presented in Montreal, and I quote:
| 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. |
When we travelled the country and recently went to Kenora to support our brothers and sisters from the first nations, suggestions of this type were voiced by the aboriginal women and men who were demonstrating against Bill C-7. They said that all first nations communities wanted to eliminate this historic discrimination.
The most fundamental discrimination we have witnessed in 130 years of enforcement of the Indian Act—and we must be clear on this—is the result of the wording and the very application of the Indian Act by the Department of Indian Affairs and not because of the first nations' leaders.
The fifth suggestion made by Quebec native women pertains to, yet again, the Indian Act. This association said that the act should be amended so as to ensure that non-Indian persons who are married to Indians have a right to reside on reserves. This too had nothing to do with Bill C-7. Indeed, very few matters deal with Bill C-7. I will go back to clause 41 a little later. The fact remains that the aboriginal women have called for concrete action to advance their cause; there is no mention here about wording which is, at the very least, both imprecise and does not respect their wishes.
The Quebec Native Women's Association also made a recommendation pertaining to property rights. However, if this is about changing things fundamentally, why not tackle the real issues rather than make cosmetic changes? Things really need to be shaken up.
Moreover, the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples invited us to do this, to set the Indian Act aside and hold real negotiations, as equals, with the first nations rather than pursue this relationship of dominator and dominated, as is the case with Bill C-7.
The Quebec Native Women's Association repeatedly expressed the desire that the Indian Act be amended to ensure the equality of spouses in terms of property rights and the division of assets following a divorce. Once again, these are concrete things. But as soon as the President of this association, Ms. Michèle Audet, expressed her opposition to Bill C-7, do you know what Heritage Canada did? The department cut back a subsidy that the Quebec Native Women's Association was suppose to receive. This association was told that, in the light of their opposition, the subsidy of $113,000 that they were suppose to receive would be reviewed.
In addition, the association was suppose to participate in a project funded by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to the tune of $50,000. It just so happened, and this is quite extraordinary, that as soon as this organization expressed its opposition to Bill C-7, it lost just about all of its subsidy. The subsidy was reduced from $50,000 to $4,000, an amount which, according to the department, will be reviewed next year.
This probably resembles what we heard here, this afternoon. We were told that Bill C-7 did not include any penalties; however, the citizens from the first nations will understand that if, at one point, they don't fall in line or the band council does not meet the conditions of this bill, they will pay for their position.
Subsidies that are already inadequate for health care, education, drinking water, general economic development and job development will be reduced further. Cutbacks will be made once again. Isn't it disgusting that this is how such things are presented? It is happening already. The example of the Quebec Native Women's Association proves it. As soon as someone is against the Department of Indian Affairs, there are cutbacks in subsidies coming from Heritage Canada or even the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. What a wonderful way to proceed! We are really setting a great example of governance: we govern by kicking people in the behind. Is that the basic values that we want to instill in our children? I think that we have to stop at one point.
As regards clause 41, its wording is an improvement over what was suggested earlier by the Alliance, but it is still fundamentally weak. It is not sufficiently precise. In fact, the wording in clause 41 is incredibly imprecise. Moreover, in not fewer than 13 of the briefs presented during this review of Bill C-7, opposition was expressed to clause 41 of Bill C-7 for all kinds of reasons.
For instance, a person appearing as an individual in Red Deer, Mr. Doug Dokis, said this:
| The amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act is vague and needs to be stated more clearly. To say that the needs and aspirations of the Aboriginal community affected by the complaint “shall be consistent with the principles of gender equality” is not clear and strong. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that all human beings have equal rights. |
Moreover, the representatives of the first nations consider that this objective of equality for all people, regardless of gender, orientation, etc., is a fundamental objective sought by all peoples of the world, including the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. Just try to find me somebody who is against equal rights and the expression of fundamental rights such as gender equality. I wish you luck, because everybody wants to have this equality.
Moreover, we need to look in our own backyard. The principle of gender equality takes a backseat when we have to deal with matters, for example, that pertain to pay equity. The federal government went to court for I don't know how many years, at a cost of millions, to fight against women who wanted pay equity in government positions, and then it's claiming to be able to teach others about respecting rights and gender equality.
The National Aboriginal Women's Association, in its brief presented in Ottawa during meeting 18, said, with respect to clause 41:
| However, we feel that the proposed wording of the interpretive clause has some serious deficiencies. The focus of the clause should be on the relationship between these different types of rights, not a vague and overly broad notion of community needs and aspirations. NAWA recommends that this clause expressly direct human rights panels and courts supplying the act, to take into account the collective rights of first nations as they operate within the framework of the Canadian Constitution. |
Professor Larry Chartrand, from the University of Ottawa Faculty of Law, made an important contribution to this clause-by-clause analysis. Moreover, he analyzed each of the clauses and gave his opinion on each one of them, including clause 41. He said:
| The proposed related amendment under the Canadian Human Rights Act has several problems. |
He is not the only one to have said that. Twelve others have made this point, including the Canadian Bar Association, which stated that the proposed clause 41 created an interpretation problem. Professor Chartrand said:
| The provision should be amended to make it clear that band councils and delegated government authorities of the band councils are included within the wording of Aboriginal governmental organizations. |
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary has read all of these briefs and that he will not insult us as he did earlier by calling Pat Martin and I liars. I hope that he will not tell us that we haven't told the truth. We are quoting from analyses made by the Library of Parliament and each of the briefs that were presented here. You should read them, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, instead of insulting everybody, calling everybody liars and saying that no one understands except you.
It seems to me that this would be a good idea.
I would also suggest that you do your job for the Minister properly. Indeed, the Minister does not appear to know what is going on in the committee. He is making all kinds of public statements and, when we come back here, we realize that although he has invited the member for LaSalle--Émard and would-be Prime Minister to testify here, the latter cannot testify since the deadline for giving testimony was May 9, if my memory serves me correctly, and no other amendments can be made. If you had done your job properly, the Minister of Indian Affairs would have been aware of that and not made such ridiculous statements, unless he knew that Paul Martin could not testify before the committee and present amendments and he was instead engaged in petty politics, as he has been doing since the outset by stating that the government had consulted all of the aboriginal peoples and other such things.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Maurice Vellacott): Mr. Loubier, I guess we're--
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: He has now tabled the bill for first reading in the House of Commons and he is spouting all kinds of nonsense about opportunities to amend it.
[English]
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Maurice Vellacott): Does anybody else want to speak?
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Vellacott, I'm sure we will be at peace with you.
The Vice-Chair (Mr. Maurice Vellacott): Right. If there's nobody else to speak or debate on the particular clause, we'll call the question.
(Clause 41 agreed to: yeas 6; nays 1)
The Chair: We're now on clause 42, amendment G-17.
Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: I'd like to stand that amendment until later.
The Chair: Amendment G-17 stands, as well as the clause.
(On clause 43)
The Chair: We're on clause 43, and on amendment BQ-46 on page 234. Monsieur Loubier.
Excusez, Monsieur Loubier.
I should mention that this amendment is consequential, and I'll go slowly, on amendment BQ-47. That means that after dealing with this one, we will not be dealing with the others: BQ-47, BQ-48, BQ-49, BQ-50, BQ-51, and BQ-52.
Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, if I understood correctly, if we vote on amendment BQ-46 and it is carried, the others...
The Chair: Regardless of whether or not it carries, the vote applies to all of the amendments that I have just called.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Regardless of whether or not it carries?
The Chair: Whether it carries or not.
[English]
Passed or not, it applies to all the others. Voting on BQ-46 is the same as voting on all of them.
[Translation]
We start the next round.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I am proposing this amendment because of several criticisms made with respect to the words used in Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act. Indeed, this is not a bill that deals with governance; rather, it deals with the administration of band councils. The powers specified in Bill C-7 should have reflected the inherent right of self-government and the exercise of this right, which has been acknowledged by numerous decisions made by the courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada and the United Nations. The powers dealt with in this bill, which should have been the powers devolved to a third level of government, are for the most part bogus. In the first part of the bill, reference is made, among other things, to powers that are normally attributed to municipal governments.
We have pointed out this aspect of the bill and we have referred to the White Paper tabled by Prime Minister Chrétien when he was Minister of Indian Affairs in 1969. Mr. Chrétien had tried then, just as he is trying now, to reduce the inherent right to self-government to the simplest equation by granting first nations the authority usually reserved for municipalities. I have nothing against municipalities, councillors or mayors. Moreover, they are all my friends in my riding. However, when you talk about creating a third level of government, of national government, because we are talking about aboriginal nations, we shouldn't be seeing these types of powers included in self-government agreements.
Many agreements that have already been signed with the first nations are much more explicit in the area of powers. We have assigned to first nations the powers afforded a true government.
Consider the example of the Cree nation. The First Nation of the James Bay Cree signed, just a few months ago, the agreement that we refer to as the Peace of the Braves, to commemorate an ancestral treaty that had been signed, if my memory is correct, in Montreal. When that treaty was signed, wampum was exchanged. Wampum are historic artifacts once used in brokering agreements between the first European newcomers and the first nations who welcomed them with open arms and agreed to share their land with them and to live together in partnership, like good neighbours, as we say.
The Peace of the Braves, which were signed a few months ago, provides the James Bay Cree First Nation with self-government through the attribution of real powers, such as authority over family policy. That is the real power of a third level of national government. When we refer to family policy, we include demography, daycare, primary schools and incentives to enhance childhood education and family income security. This family policy is included in the James Bay Cree First Nation agreement.
There is also the whole issue of transportation policies on land belonging to the James Bay Cree. This too involves powers normally reserved for a third level of government and it should be included in any agreement entered into with first nations.
Another consideration is taxation policy.
That first nation was granted taxation powers as well as powers over cultural representation. In the agreement, which was negotiated between equals, that is between two nations, namely the Quebec government and the James Bay Cree First Nation, the latter is granted powers similar to powers of international representation. Since it is a recognized nation, the Cree nation, like the other nations in Canada, is entitled to make representations on the international stage, to promote its identity and to present the various aspects of its history and culture outside of the territory it governs.
Just a few decades ago, that was called the international extension of domestic jurisdiction, in the relations between the federal government and the provinces. That was Mr. Gérin-Lajoie's theory, which was accepted as standard practice in relations between the provinces and the federal government. If the provinces have full jurisdiction over education, for example, they can make international representations on education.
The same now applies in the case of the Cree First Nation, and that is what should apply to all first nations. They should be entitled to international extension of the domestic jurisdiction. They must also be able to tell the rest of the world that first nations exist and that they have their own language, culture, history and features that enrich humanity.
In the agreement with the Cree, there is that type of consideration. I think it should be considered in any self-government agreement with first nations. An effort should be made to list the powers first nations want to have and can exercise by virtue of their inherent right to self-government. That is the first thing that should be done.
In fact the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples invited us to speed up the process of negotiating self-government with first nations. We must see what first nations wish to do with the power conferred upon them by the Creator, the power known as the inherent right to self-government. How do they want to exercise that power? What help do first nations need to rebuild their nation and assert their right to self-government?
Professor Cornell from Arizona, who testified before the committee via satellite television, told us that the self-government experiments that had proven successful with aboriginals in the United States had involved ongoing efforts to support and assist first nations. The focus had not been on taking their place or on imposing self-governance parameters.
First nations are quite capable of setting these parameters themselves. They did that before the Europeans arrived, before their ways of doing things were cast aside and their institutions destroyed, ostensibly because our government institutions were better than theirs and that our method of choosing our leaders, our ways of practising religion and our God were better than theirs. Before all of that, first nations had their own system in place. There is good reason for the current discussion on the rebuilding of first nations. Several of them had to rebuild their pride. The wounds must be healed. You have to put an "X" on the 130 years of enforcement of the Indian Act and start afresh. But it is difficult and they must be supported. That support must come through current government policies, and not through Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act, an act respecting the administration of powers that are not the powers normally granted to a third level of government. That is not the way to proceed. It seems to me there are enough tools at our disposal to decide what we should or should not do.
The main clients, namely the members of first nations, want nothing whatsoever to do with this damnable bill. Is the government going to shove the legislation down their throats? Will they all be put in jail? I never got a clear answer to that question. Will they be threatened with cancellations of subsidies for health, education, the water supply system and other things?
Will there be threats of the federal government overriding its fiduciary obligations? At some point we will have to be told. If an open confrontation is what you want, we are certainly headed in that direction. In fact, thinly veiled threats were made here today, implying that if members of first nations are not prepared to toe the line, they will suddenly find that they are denied certain benefits stemming from the fact that...
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.
Mr. Harvey.
Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This is my first visit to the committee and I would like to speak with all due respect for my colleagues who are working extremely hard to try to improve the First Nations Governance Act.
I know that Bill C-7 sets out some important principles, such as transparency, accountability requirements and the recourse by which all modern democratic institutions must abide. But beyond that, in my riding, in the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean, there is an agreement in principle called the joint approach, which was suggested further to negotiations between the Innu, the Quebec government and the Canadian government, and strongly supported by the Quebec government since the major issues pertained to jurisdictions involving Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, I have always said it was important for my constituents to be well-informed about this whole affair. When an agreement is valid, it is important to explain it properly so that its provisions are well integrated and people comply with them.
Mr. Johnson or Mr. Salembier, I would like you to tell me about how useful Bill C-7 would be with regard to the joint approach that affects the entire region of the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean. There have been and will still be many discussions on this matter. It has generated widespread malaise. Of course we want to have a sound agreement between the Innu community and the White community in my region. Since at least 15 to 20 sectoral agreements remain to be negotiated in the next two or three years under the draft joint approach, I would like to know whether Bill C-7 could be used in any way to enforce the agreement reached in our region and perhaps also the 50 or 75 other agreements that are currently being negotiated in Canada.
I apologize if this has already been discussed, but I would like to get your reaction, Mr. Johnson.
[English]
Mr. Warren Johnson: Thank you.
That's clearly an important question for this committee, and I think there are several aspects to the answer to the question concerning how this bill might be useful in the context of the approche commune, the other negotiations going on in Quebec, or the negotiations going on across the country that may be important.
First of all, we have to go back to the principles of Bill C-7. It is not about the implementation of the inherent right itself or a substitute for negotiation of inherent rights. That language is in the preamble to Bill C-7 as presented to the committee, and the committee has further strengthened it by adding a non-derogation clause to make clear that point. As well, my colleagues from the Department of Justice have noted that we would not view the exercise of authorities under Bill C-7 as an exercise of the inherent right itself; that's a different issue.
We noted in an earlier discussion with the committee that there are now 80, depending on how you count them--quite a few more potentially, but at least 80--self-government negotiations going on across the country. In the report that was provided to the committee a few days ago, significant progress has either been made in at least one quarter of those tables in the two years Bill C-7 has been under formal review or is anticipated within the next months, and those results would impact on somewhere between 100 and 150 first nations.
So we have two processes going on in parallel, and we would hope the evidence of progress at the tables and the continued work there reinforce the preamble and purpose of Bill C-7. These are not seen as substitutes; they are complements.
That gets to the part of the question you were raising about how they complement each other. The issue, to remind ourselves of different aspects of Bill C-7, is that....
First of all, self-governing first nations are exempted from Bill C-7; their own agreements would create that exemption as well as the legislation putting them in place. But for further clarity, there is a clause just preceding the section we're on that clearly exempts the first nations from it. In addition, there is a clause that the committee has dealt with earlier that provides for the first nations at any of the tables we're talking about, during the transition period we've been reviewing for Bill C-7, if they're close to an agreement, to be provided an exemption so they don't have to go through the difficulty of moving from the Indian Act to Bill C-7 and then into their own self-government agreement all in a very short period of time, because that would not serve anyone's purpose.
Those are two specific initiatives. But more generally, as enabling legislation Bill C-7 has a number of important features that don't exist in the Indian Act: the ability to develop codes in the areas of elections, financial accountability, and government operations; the more expansive and modern and more seriously enforceable band law-making authorities, which aren't under the Indian Act; the ability to delegate authorities to other bodies, for example in nation-building in anticipation of where first nations may be going in their self-government negotiations.
The implementation of those features by first nations who will be operating under Bill C-7 before they get to a self-government agreement--those who won't have already concluded one or will be close by the time it comes in--are all steps first nations will be contemplating anyway in the context of their self-government negotiations, because they will have to develop constitutions dealing with elections, dealing with financial accountability, accountability to their citizens, government operations: all the basic law-making of government authorities, which are much broader and modernized in Bill C-7.
This is so to the extent that Chief Joe Gosnell, for example, of the Nisga'a noted that if they had been operating under Bill C-7 before they concluded their self-government agreement, it would have saved them several years of work afterwards, because the gap between the Indian Act and where a first nation will be under self-government is so large, with such a major jump and so much work to do in putting in place basic codes and basic law-making, that there's a huge amount of technical work for any first nation subsequent to a self-government agreement. The agreement just says you shall have your constitution. The constitution isn't developed before the agreement's ratified or put in place. That's up to the first nations afterwards. The same is true with respect to law-making.
The enabling features and the more modern features of Bill C-7, plus the fact that it's removing government oversight and replacing it with accountability to first nations citizens rather than the federal government, which is another characteristic of where first nations will be operating under self-government--that whole experience and all of the technical work involved in doing it wherever first nations wish to develop their own codes or utilize those law-making authorities under Bill C-7--potentially help. Again, it's specific in the preamble that the purpose of the bill is not only to provide these tools but to serve as a transition to self-government, and I think it's with respect to those features and the kind of work first nations will have to do after the self-government agreement, as Joe Gosnell noted, that the complementarity of these two separate initiatives would be seen.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Harvey.
Is there anyone else?
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, I think the Bloc's purpose in proposing this amendment, amendment BQ-46, and in changing the title of the First Nations Governance Act to “First Nations Administration Act” is to comment on the fact that all this bill does is tinker with the administrative details associated with running a band and a band council. I think he's raised that in a number of locations, that it's a misnomer. He's making the point, I think, by this amendment that he sees it as a misnomer to even call this the First Nations Governance Act, because it has very little to do with governance and very little to do with accountability, and very little to do with transparency, even.
This is the Trojan horse aspect of this bill, that it purports to be about accountability and transparency--and no one is denying that accountability and transparency are desirable things--but the bill goes far beyond dealing with accountability and transparency and starts to delve into the micromanagement of first nations at the most detailed and intricate levels of managing first nations community affairs.
Mr. Chair, I think we have a quorum issue.
The Chair: We'll call for quorum until we have a quorum for Mr. Lincoln.
¼ (1845)
¼ (1847)
The Chair: Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, it looks like Mr. Loubier is making the point that instead of calling this act the First Nations Governance Act, it should be the First Nations Administration Act, because really what we're dealing with here is tinkering with the administrative details associated with running a first nation, or actually running a municipality would be a more apt way to put it, Mr. Chair, which is exactly one of the reasons we found fault with this bill right from the very beginning and why many of the presenters before this committee have found fault with the bill.
They're critical of the fact that instead of moving in the direction of self-governance in a substantive way, we're tinkering with these details even in spite of what we're told today, that there's progress being made at some tables in working towards true self-governance. Many believe that this will be as far as they will get. Many believe that frankly the First Nations Governance Act, if anything, marks the beginning of the end for meaningful negotiations later on.
They're critical of the fact that in introducing Bill C-7, the minister, in the same instant, terminated many meaningful negotiating tables, walked away from meaningful negotiations that were under way around the country, and in fact publicly announced that he wasn't interested in dealing with rights and redress issues any longer. Now he was going to take a different direction and deal with other issues. We now see what he had in mind in terms of other issues. It means the micromanaging of first nations in the vision of the minister, in the vision of the bureaucracy, of how they think first nations should be run.
We listened with interest to the many submissions that were made from around the country, when, after they had had a view of the bill, they voiced their concerns. The one organization from Cross Lake, the council of the Pimicikamak Okimawinin from Cross Lake, said the governance act, no matter how well motivated it may have been, is a potentially tragic mistake in a long line of tragic mistakes that have brought Canada's once proud and self-sufficient indigenous people to their present condition.
This is a theme that was common throughout the briefs and presentations we heard. All members around this table should remember well the briefs we heard, Mr. Chair, because to ignore them is to turn your back on first nations people, on aboriginal people, who came to this committee with some hope and some optimism that this committee would hear what they had to say and implement those submissions into the substance of the bill.
I quoted earlier from a presentation made by Dr. Fred Lazar from the school of business at York University, an economist. I don't know what got into the parliamentary secretary, but he found fault with what I was saying when quoting from Professor Lazar. I'd like to dwell on Dr. Lazar's presentation somewhat again because he raises some of the things that I think my colleague with the Bloc Québécois has been raising regarding why this bill has very little to do with self-governance and everything to do with administration.
It shouldn't be called the governance act. In fact, one of the things Dr. Lazar pointed out is on the subject of the administration of money and assets. He said:
| I have done some calculations on what the First Nations have lost from being deprived of their fair share of resource revenues. Depending on the assumptions and time frame, the aggregate loss easily exceeds $250 billion. |
He was careful to point out that this does not include lost opportunity that may have stemmed from the use of that money, or the development of those resources above and beyond the actual value of the raw resources.
He says:
| To this we can add at least $20 billion for damages arising from the residential schools, another $10-$15 billion for underpayment of annuities under the treaties (by the way, the annual shortfall in the payment of these annuities exceeds the total amount generated from property taxes imposed by the First Nations during the past 13 years).... |
¼ (1850)
So the annual shortfall, one year's shortfall, is greater than all of the revenue generated from first nations from property taxes for the last 13 years combined. Then he says “quickly we begin to understand the real concerns of the 'Indian' bureaucracy”. He calls INAC “the Indian bureaucracy”, and even the lawyers under Justice. So it became urgent to “Assimilate or extinguish by stealth--one way or the other, the potential liability must be destroyed”.
In other words, the federal government has realized the enormity of their liability, of their obligations to first nations people, and are taking steps to get out from under this liability, to put legislation in place that will help deal with this incredible backlog of court cases that are currently before the courts, and the anticipated claims that are yet to come.
He points out that when we're dealing with accountability, we're acting as though this is Canada's money the first nations are administering on their behalf. Again, this is an economist at York University, and he said of course not. In fact, first nations are receiving collectively a fraction of what is truly owing to them year to year--$25 billion a year annually would be closer to the mark. So why should they be held accountable to Ottawa when Ottawa has not been forthright and accountable to them?
That raises an interesting question. If accountability is the issue, Ottawa has not been accountable to them about the real value of the resources. I could get into more.
Voices: Hear, hear!
Mr. Pat Martin: I struck a cord even in my exhausted state. I'm pleased.
I would like to move a subamendment at this point in time, Mr. Chairman, a friendly subamendment to Mr. Loubier's amendment.
¼ (1855)
Mr. Yvan Loubier: It's my pleasure.
Mr. Pat Martin: The subamendment I would make is that BQ-46 should be amended by replacing the word “administration” with the word “micromanagement”.
Voices: Hear, hear!
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Congratulations.
Mr. Pat Martin: The First Nations Micromanagement Act.
The Chair: The subamendment is not acceptable.
Mr. Pat Martin: On what grounds, Mr. Chairman?
The Chair: An amendment is also out of order if it is moved at the wrong place in the bill, if it is tendered in a spirit of mockery, or if it is vague or trifling. I judge that it is tendered in the spirit of mockery, and I'm not accepting the subamendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, but I merely want to clarify a point.
The Chair: Is this a point of order?
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, please. "Micromanagement" is a term used in economic analysis. I am a professional economist and I know that micromanagement is usually much more specific than administration. The term micromanagement is used when you provide details on how to manage certain things that would normally be decided by first nations. I find the term "micromanagement"—and this is a subamendment to my amendment—improves my amendment by adding some clarification. If you would like to debate microeconomic definitions with me, I wish you luck. I have a bachelor's degree and a master's degree and I have started working on a doctorate in microeconomics and micromanagement.
The Chair: Fine. Thank you.
[English]
It's going to be shorter for us to accept the subamendment than to argue about the validity of it for two hours. I am judging that I am going to accept the subamendment.
Do you have a point of order, Mr. Hubbard?
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, it's my assumption that he's challenging your decision as chair.
The Chair: No, I received an explanation that could cast doubt on my interpretation of “mockery”, and I'll give the benefit of the doubt to Mr. Martin. In my heart, I don't feel that way, but I have to give the benefit of the doubt.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The supposed objectives of this legislation that we're reviewing were to facilitate the move toward self-government, or at least that was the promise made for first nations, and to provide the foundation for economic prosperity for first nations. In my view, Mr. Chairman, the legislation will achieve neither of those objectives. In fact, I suggest the legislation is simply the latest manifestation in the government's real goal toward paternalistic assimilation. That's what my view is, Mr. Chairman.
Part of my motivation for changing the word “governance” to “micromanagement” is that I'm critical, and I'm suspicious, and I challenge in fact the minister's own presentation when he introduced this bill, and I don't believe anyone in the country believes this bill has anything to do with self-governance.
Fred Lazar, in a recent article, noted that when Richard Bartlett was writing in the Buffalo Law Review 25 years ago, he stated, “The ultimate goal of assimilation received explicit declaration in the Civilization of Indian Tribes Act of 1857.”And Professor Lazar noted that the 1969 white paper, produced under the auspices of Jean Chrétien, was very clear on the government’s objectives, and the present suite of legislation, although it does not use the same language as the white paper, has the same goals.
There is very good reason for this, as I'd like to point out in this 10 minutes I have, but I think I'll call quorum instead.
Thank you.
The Chair: We have a quorum call.
Can you put some seat belts on those chairs?
½ (1900)
Mr. Pat Martin: In the subamendment, Mr. Chairman, I was seeking to change the name of the First Nations Administration Act to the First Nations Micromanagement Act. And I do so not in a frivolous way. I move the motion in good faith, as I really believe that is what this bill is really about. This bill outlines the micromanagement of every detail to do with the leadership selection process, the financial administration process, the development of governance codes. It micromanages things to the point as to dictate where and how often town hall meetings will be held.
My colleague with the Bloc Québécois, in a sarcastic, humorous way, said, you might as well dictate as well what type of cookies they'll serve at the committee meetings, because that's how micromanaged the affairs of a first nation are by this bill. So it's not an exaggeration, and it's not being humorous, or frivolous, or sarcastic to say that this bill should be called the First Nations Micromanagement Act. It would be more accurate, it would be more honest, and there's been a dearth, a paucity, of honesty associated with this bill from the very beginning. In fact, there's been deliberate obfuscation associated with this bill. There have been conscious and deliberate attempts to misrepresent issues associated with this bill.
I don't go as far as the parliamentary secretary when he called me a liar earlier today. I wouldn't go that far, Mr. Chairman, but--
½ (1905)
The Chair: Mr. Martin, what happens when we are not sitting, when we are not being recorded, is none of anybody's business here. That happened outside of our meeting. That's between you and the gentleman.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, actually the microphone was on. His red light was on, so I assumed that was part of the record. But the dishonesty associated with this bill goes beyond anything the parliamentary secretary may or may not have said. It finds its way right into the website of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.
Believe it or not, Mr. Chairman--and this is something I would like to raise formally with the committee, and I'll use it in the context of this speech, because it's timely, relevant, and associated with the debate we're having now--there are quotes on the website of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs attributed to me that actually make the case or claim that I'm in favour of Bill C-7. It lists people who are in favour of this bill, and it has me listed as one of them.
I don't know how anybody in their right mind could assume that I'm in favour of this bill. I've made it abundantly clear from the beginning that I oppose Bill C-7. I intend to vote against Bill C-7. I don't know if that's news to anyone here. But when they deliberately misrepresent me and put a quote from me in their website under the category of people who support this bill, they're lying--and I don't mind using that term. They are in fact lying.
They didn't just do it to me; they did it to others as well.
They listed a Dr. Anna Hunter, a professor at the University of Saskatchewan, as being in support of this bill when in actual fact she was anything but. Many of us remember her and her presentation, a very powerful, forceful presentation that was opposed to the bill. She may have had some soft language or some things to say about certain clauses that, if taken out of context, could misrepresent that she might have been in favour of the bill, but she was opposed to the bill. It's deliberately misleading to imply otherwise. In fact, it does a disservice to Dr. Hunter, who made a very good presentation and a good brief to this committee.
They quoted Douglas Cuthand, a journalist with the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix, as being in support of the bill. His own quote in his own column in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix said:
| The federal government is bound and determined to force its Indian governance legislation on us, no matter how much we don't want it. |
| Democracy and self-government are important but they must be developed from the bottom up. Ideas and solutions introduced from above don't give the people the ownership that's required for the long term. Nor does the backward-looking legislation proposed by the federal government. |
That's the actual quote. They selected some other fluff sentence to use to try to claim that Douglas Cuthand was in favour of this bill.
So this is completely dishonest. Again, these are the desperate acts of desperate men, when they start to deliberately misrepresent the situation in order to promote their ideas.
I started out telling you that in this bill Ottawa is attempting to lay the blame for poor economic conditions in first nations on the lack of good governance practices, on the absence of real democracy and accountability. We contest that on this side of the table. We don't believe that. We don't believe an absence of good governance practices is widespread in first nations communities, and we don't believe isolated incidents make the case for that. But I also question and challenge the federal government's insistence that first nations be held to a higher standard of accountability in dealing with their money than the federal government itself is held to.
I started to make the point that it seems the Government of Canada acts as if first nations money is Canada's money. That's a fundamental mistake. It's a fundamental problem that we should be examining. The major reason the Indian bureaucracy--and I include the Department of Justice as well--wants the assimilation of Indians is this very issue of whose money it is.
Ottawa wants first nations to be accountable for spending Canada's money, but why should first nations be subject to higher standards of accountability than the government itself? That's the way to put that.
If one reads the English texts of the many historic treaties within the context of the importance of land to the cultures, economies, and societies of first nations, and if one also takes the time to learn a little bit about the history of these people, the only logical conclusion one could reach is that the English texts of these treaties do not at all represent the oral agreements and the verbal promises and commitments made by the Crown.
½ (1910)
I would like to point out what Professor Slattery stated in his Canadian Bar Reviewarticle. He said:
| At times, the English parties recorded some of the treaty terms in a concise written document that the Indian parties would be asked to “sign”. Such a document has sometimes come to be regarded as the “treaty”. However, this conclusion is usually unwarranted. In most cases, the treaty was the oral agreement, and the written document just a memorial of that agreement, similar in status to the belts used by some Indian parties. Many such documents have proven to be unreliable guides to the oral compacts. They often record only matters of particular interest to the English parties and omit certain terms of significance to the Indian parties. Even the recorded terms may not represent an accurate or balanced account of the true oral bargain. The written documents were often translated to the Indian parties in a manner allowing ample opportunity for misunderstanding and [obfuscation]. |
That's the point I'm trying to make. That same pattern of obfuscation exists today in, first of all, misrepresenting what this bill does, and secondly, deliberately misrepresenting who supports this bill and who does not support the bill--and that's me, who doesn't support the bill.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank you once again for accepting Mr. Martin's subamendment. I did not realize it immediately, but there is a fundamental difference between administration, governance and micromanagement. Micromanagement has to do with the microeconomic practices of companies or groups of individuals, in that they are really meticulous, specific practices that show attention to detail and give a sense of the big picture. We want to see how a band council can go about making decisions, how much time is required to make these decisions, and so forth.
The proposals on the table look much more like micromanagement than administration or governance. For example, when we provide details on the way in which garbage is to be collected on reserves or on a health inspection mandate in a restaurant, or when we set the frequency of public meetings of the band council--all that is micromanagement. Micromanagement is not similar to governance, because governance must be based on self-government. That is not what we find in this bill.
Our officials are right to tell us that this does not help advance self-government, but that is what we should be doing. We are adding a few little items for show left and right, but these are superficial and are similar to the type of micromanagement that may be found in small and medium-size companies.
Moreover, when a federal bill on governance provides for the time periods, frequency and number of days of public hearings, and when we hear that the legislative and administrative documents of the band councils must absolutely be tabled in a national register, the intent is to do something with these documents in this register. The government wants to use them one by one to see whether all first nations are doing the work correctly, as though they were not able to do so. That is micromanagement. There is a concern to know whether all the band councils are doing things properly. Lest we forget, Ottawa knows best. That's what has been served up to us in Quebec for years, if not decades. I commend Mr. Martin on his subamendment.
At the same time, I would like to respond to the discussions held earlier regarding an agreement on principle with the four Innu communities of Quebec. Mr. Harvey asked earlier if Bill C-7 might be helpful or harmful. I was totally dissatisfied with the replies given. If there is one agreement I know well, and this is true of my colleague from Jonquière, Ms. Girard-Bujold as well, it is the draft agreement with the Innu.
We studied it in caucus, not once but three times, and we invited the negotiators to come in to explain it to us on two occasions. We called on outside experts. We travelled around and met with no fewer than 43 organizations and representatives of citizens from the two communities—the Innu and the non-aboriginal—to try to better understand the proposed agreement with the Innu. It was completely different from what we heard from our supposed experts.
The draft agreement with the Innu and Bill C-7 have nothing to do with each other. If, for example, over the next two years, enough progress is made on the 12 sectoral agreements that are still outstanding with four of the Innu communities of Quebec, we will be able to complete these negotiations before the end of the fateful two-year period.
However, if, as all the real experts on the issue expect, it were to take three to five years to negotiate the sectorial agreements that have not yet been signed, unless the minister intervenes, we could find ourselves in a situation in which the four Innu communities and the others would be back to square one. They would have to apply the precepts and parameters of Bill C-7 with all the micromanagement and waste of time that it may involve. That means there would be fewer human resources, expertise and financial resources available to deal with real issues.
½ (1915)
Rather than devoting these human and financial resources to advancing the sectoral agreements annexed to the draft agreement in principle with the Innu, we're going to have to waste them on futile undertakings that are presented as an obligatory step toward self-government. That is wrong. There was no Bill C-7 in past self-government initiatives, and they worked well. There was no Bill C-7 before an agreement was reached with the James Bay Cree. This silly piece of paper, which does not even deserve to be called a bill, is not an obligatory step in the process. Why do we want to force first nations to comply with the conditions of a bill that has more to do with micromanagement than governance as a premise for achieving self-government? This is complete nonsense.
In fact, Bill C-7 is not in place at the moment, and we have reached a draft agreement with the Innu community. It is a genuine draft agreement on governance. If Mr. Harvey had been here, I could have responded to him, because it concerns him directly. The agreement in principle with the Innu provides for the Innu Assi territory, that is the land of the Innu first nations involved in the agreement. In most cases, the agreement doubled the area occupied by the Innu on various reserves.
Second, we focused on the initial condition, which should be respected by everyone in Canada—namely, the fact that we share the land with first nations people. In the agreement in principle, this led to a second condition of self-government, namely the sharing of a vast hunting, fishing and trapping area, a traditional territory knows as Nitassinan. On Nitassinan, the Innu have the right to hunt, fish and trap as do non-Innu. However, this land is shared and managed jointly. On the one hand, if you are an Innu citizen, you are subject to Innu law and an Innu government, a third order of government that is involved in genuine governance, not micromanagement of the likes outlined in Bill C-7. On the other hand, if you are a citizen of Quebec and you are on Nitassinan territory, you are subject to the laws of Quebec and the federal government in so far as land use is concerned.
This is genuine governance which respects the principle of equality between nations and the dignity of the first nations people during negotiations. It is not some sort of project to micromanage vermin in restaurants or garbage on reserves. That is completely ridiculous. What we have here is true micromanagement. It is not governance, much less self-government. I am pleased that the officials were honest enough to tell us that it is not self-government. If it is not self-government, what is it? It nothing more than a hodge-podge.
Furthermore, most of the witnesses who appeared before us do not know why we are talking about this Bill C-7. They do not know why, after their experience with serious negotiations—we spoke earlier about the eight negotiations under way on self-government—the draft agreement with the Innu, the Peace of the Braves with the James Bay Cree, the negotiations with the Nisga'a and the other negotiations that are ongoing, they do not know why we have to go through this completely ridiculous step in order to achieve self-government. In the testimony we heard, no one said that this was an obligatory step on the path to self-government. No one proved that to us.
The obligatory step to achieving self-government is to sit down and look each other in the eye, nation to nation, on an egalitarian non-colonialist basis, which is different from what appears in Bill C-7 or the Indian Act passed 130 years ago. We must start by recognizing the inherent right of self-government and the need for genuine governance on the part of aboriginal nations, which have been recognized as such by the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court, and by the United Nations.
Second, we must stop making idiotic interpretations of aboriginal treaties whereby the exact wording of these treaties is examined without taking into account the context of the time—300 or 400 years ago—, when circumstances were very different. It is said that these treaties are worthless, because they refer to an annual royalty of $5 for natural resources, for example. There is quite a difference between $5 three hundred years ago and $5 today.
½ (1920)
These treaties need to be modernized and interpreted broadly, by saying that our ancestors recognized... It's sad.
[English]
The Chair: Merci, monsieur Loubier.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, I was pointing out why I think it's justifiable to change the name of this bill from the First Nations Governance Act to the First Nations Micromanagement Act, to be more accurate, to more accurately reflect what this act really does.
We seem to have lifted the facade that the bill is about governance at all. We have officials now admitting this. So that misrepresentation is being dealt with. We should then change the title of the bill to reflect what it's really doing. It would be more honest.
There has been a paucity of honesty associated with this bill from the very beginning, right from the original consultation process where the government claims that 10,000 people were consulted. “Consulted” is a word that has a specific meaning. There's no way that 10,000 people were legitimately consulted in the development of this bill. So the minister started this process with a lie. As the first presenter to this committee, the minister said this bill has been developed as a result of the 10,000 first nations people who were consulted. Well, we know now that's simply not true. First nations people didn't have any participation in the development of this bill, and certainly not the 10,000 people the minister claims he consulted. So that's the first dishonesty, the first deliberate falsehood.
Secondly, the minister told this committee that we would get the bill at first reading because there would be greater flexibility and more amendments, that the bill is not even agreed to in principle before second reading; therefore, there would be greater adaptability, greater flexibility shown, greater accommodation of the many points that were brought forward. That too has proven to be an absolute falsehood, because there has been no real interest on the government's part in allowing flexibility and certainly no interest in introducing and incorporating the many points that were brought forward by the presenters from around the country, from first nations who made contributions to the tour of this committee.
Many people suspect the minister had in his mind or was given direction by the Prime Minister to go ahead with Bill C-7. Bill C-7 was crafted before any consultation took place anyway, so the government knew exactly what it wanted to do, and the minister was put in place with a specific task.
Evidence of that came to light recently when we learned that the Minister of Indian Affairs, being newly appointed, didn't consult his own deputy minister for three months, the deputy minister who has now moved on. You would think, when you're first made minister of a department, the first thing you would do would be to call in and consult with your deputy and get advice and guidance from the deputy, or input, at least to get an assessment. This was not the case. So clearly the man had arrived with a mission, a specific mission, and the facts didn't matter. They didn't want the facts to get in the way of what was going to be done here.
I tried to outline some of the misunderstanding or deliberate obfuscation associated with this bill and in comparison to the deliberate obfuscation associated with the documenting of the treaties. That was the connection I was making.
½ (1925)
Speaking of the treaties, again, in effect, Mr. Chairman, first nations did not sell their land. They did not extinguish their title. They did not give up their sovereignty and they did not subjugate themselves to the power and the control of the Crown. In fact, the Crown, or Canada, cheated first nations of their title, cheated them of their rights, their resources, their wealth, their powers, and their sovereignty. That's been the history, Mr. Chairman. And the proposed suite of legislation we're dealing with today does not even begin to scratch the surface in addressing this continuing, yet historic, injustice. This is what is frustrating first nations.
Even though most Canadians are willing to accept the fact that Canada did deliberately and consciously cheat first nations of their title, their rights, their resources, and their wealth, this bill doesn't address any of that. We should be acknowledging, in dealing with this particular bill, that first nations were extremely generous in being willing to share their lands and resources with white settlers and to live in peace and friendship under their own separate governments. Instead, Canada has committed one of the largest land frauds in history and has stolen the wealth of first nations. Canada has unilaterally subjugated free and sovereign first nations to its control.
We should be aware, and I think most people around the table are, that section 91(24) of the Constitution Act have no legal standing in international law, so you have to ask the question, what right did Canada have to assert and legislate control over independent and sovereign nations? Where is the logic in this? Where is the legitimacy?
To quote Professor Slattery, again from his 1992 Canadian Bar Review article, he said:
| ...if First nations were once independent, how did they come to lose this status? To invoke European “discoveries” is to employ ethnocentric criteria that cannot meet neutral standards of justification. Further, to rely simply on conquest or cession ignores the arguments of some Aboriginal groups that they never were conquered by the Crown or voluntarily accepted its authority. |
Professor Borrows, of the Osgoode Hall Law Journalwas even blunter when he said:
| How can land possessed by Aboriginal peoples for centuries be undermined by another nation’s assertion of sovereignty? It does not make sense that one could secure a legal entitlement to land over another merely through raw assertion. |
It does beg the question, Mr. Chairman. Those are the thorny issues that I think first nations wish we were dealing with around this table tonight as we go into the evening.
It's a ridiculous time of day to be dealing with this when you consider we started at 9 a.m. this morning, and we're still meeting at this hour. I think we should adjourn until at least a reasonable hour, so we can give consideration to these amendments with the advantage of being well rested and well fed.
I move, Mr. Chairman, that we adjourn the meeting.
½ (1930)
The Chair: I have a motion to adjourn.
(Motion negatived)
The Chair: We will continue.
Mr. Pat Martin: As a point of order then, Mr. Chairman, I challenge the legitimacy of the agenda as it was circulated, because it provides no end time. I don't think we are properly constituted when the agenda has not been approved.
The Chair: That's fine. You have made your challenge. You have made your point of order. I'll give my ruling.
This is not a new practice. I've been doing this since the beginning--
Mr. Pat Martin: No, you haven't been doing it from the beginning.
The Chair: I am going to stick to my way of doing the agenda. Again, if there are any complaints on that, you can challenge the chair and of course, again, go back to the Speaker.
Mr. Pat Martin: I challenge the chair.
The Chair: Shall the chair's decision be sustained?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chair: The decision is sustained.
Mr. Pat Martin: I'd like a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman. Exactly what is the wording the clerk has written down regarding the challenge of the chair? Exactly on what--
The Chair: On the scheduling of the meeting with no ending time.
Mr. Pat Martin: That's the salient point here, Mr. Chairman, and that is a point--
The Chair: It's done. It's been dealt with here.
Mr. Pat Martin: --we will be bringing up with the Speaker of the House of Commons on the challenge to the chair.
The Chair: We have a recorded vote on subamendment 1 to amendment BQ-46, on page 234.
(Amendment negatived: nays 7; yeas 3)
The Chair: On the amendment, Madam Girard-Bujold.
[Translation]
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière): Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to take the floor this evening. I do not have the expertise of my colleague, Yvan Loubier, from Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot. I do want, however, as I have done here in the past, to say how much Bill C-7 goes against everything democratic. Mr. Chairman, this is not a governance act, it is an administration act.
I find that unacceptable. Throughout the course of these committee hearings, aboriginal peoples have come and said to the government, to the Parliamentary Secretary and to all of the government members, that they wanted to take responsibility for themselves, to be considered as a nation and to be dealt with as equals. I find that this bill, rather than providing them with that independence, prevents them from taking responsibility for themselves.
We ask our children, when they are young, to take responsibility for themselves, and in exchange we promise to help them make their way through life. This bill sends a different message. It is as if we were holding their hand and when displeased, we admonish them and start all over again.
This bill purports to work out in minute detail what aboriginal peoples and nations should have in the way of autonomy. For starters, first nations were in Canada before we were. They have adapted to the presence of White people. They have also adapted to changes over the centuries and to globalization. They have taught us a lot and would like to continue doing so, despite being under the yoke of the Indian Act. They would like to sit down at a table with all peoples, francophones, anglophones and the nation of Canada. They want to speak with all of these peoples, but they want us to listen to them. They want to sit down and are willing to negotiate things that are of concern to others. But that is not what is happening. It is all purely administrative, but never...
Mr. Proulx, we can hear you eating.
½ (1935)
The Chair: Ms. Girard-Bujold, please do not name committee members.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I think that I...
The Chair: At this committee, the practice is not to name members.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Please excuse me. I thought that we were among family.
½ (1940)
The Chair: No, no, far from it.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: I had heard that. Personally, I feel like I am among family with the aboriginal peoples.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Even the best families have their squabbles.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, I have a large family.
The Chair: But we are not part of it.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Even the best families have their disagreements.
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Mr. Chairman, I am speaking to you all in a family spirit. I wish that everyone would come to the table and discuss so that we could reach a consensus. I note that your attitude, and that of government members and the bill, is not at all the same and I am extremely disappointed by that. When you want a society to move forward, you bring topics and proposals to the table to make progress with problems or society. What I see is that the bill is a step backward for aboriginal nations. That is bad news, Mr. Chairman.
I am proud to be a Quebecker and I recognize their right to be proud to be members of an aboriginal nation. I am proud to say so, but this bill would dictate to them what to do administratively and what they are supposed to think and feel. A human being is a full-fledged being. I find that this bill, instead of acknowledging the quality of a human being, attempts to keep people subservient, shuffling them from side to side, rather than seeking to support them in their development and to learn from their expertise, which is greater than our own, particularly in terms of the environment.
If, in recent years, we had listened to aboriginal peoples about the environment, we would have done less harm to our planet and there would be less pollution. I find it unacceptable not to acknowledge their value, and it is unfortunate for the development of the people of Canada. I do not share the vision of this bill. No, Mr. Chairman, I can't believe that all of the individuals around this table think that someone beside them is not a human being and that you have to tell him what to do and set administrative and management limits on him. Mr. Chairman, that is not what a human being is.
I would like to ask Mr. Johnson a question. I am not an expert like my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, but I was wondering, Mr. Johnson, if you think that the bill deals with management or administration. Could you tell me how this bill differs from something administrative? I don't see any way this bill is going to further the development of aboriginal nations.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Johnson, it's not a question that pertains to your work, and you're not called upon to defend public policy. It's not your responsibility to do that. But if you wish to speak....
Mr. Warren Johnson: I guess I would respond in two ways.
First of all, a number of members have commented that some of what is in Bill C-7 looks as if it's tinkering or it's administrative in nature. I don't think it's my place to be defining, especially for members of Parliament, when one is tinkering in legislation and when not. But I would note that there is nothing in this legislation that is unusual to the operations of a government. If one thinks the operations of a government and the laws they use, the procedures they use, the empowerment of their citizens to be involved, conflict of interest, and issues like that are tinkering, then I leave it to the committee's judgment.
But these are all common features of government. This bill is about governance, and the standard to which this bill was held, when it was put forward to committee, is that not only first nations individuals be empowered, in terms of participation and access to information and the ability to seek redress equivalent to other citizens and in their relationships with government in Canada, but that the governments themselves as a result--in this case band governments--should be equally enabled in their ability to develop their own codes, have more modern law-making abilities, etc. That's the standard we suggest the committee may wish to use in its consideration of this bill.
Whether that's tinkering or not I leave to the judgment of the members.
Concerning the relationship, because I think part of the question had to deal with its relationship to self-government, we have noted in a number of areas those relationships: whether those to improve the base from which first nations could build their self-government arrangements over what is available under the Indian Act--and I've referenced in response to an earlier question Mr. Gosnell's comments there; whether in relation to authorities that are not in the Indian Act, such as the ability to use delegation authorities to nation-build, so that not all of the aspects of this bill, unlike provisions of the Indian Act, would need to be put in place at the community level, but could be put in place at a treaty or tribal level, or wherever the first nation is going with self-government; the ability to be exempted from the provisions of the bill in whole or in part should a first nation be close to a self-government agreement before this comes into force; the purposes of the bill as stated in the preamble, to provide more modern tools of government in transition to self-government. These are all features, I think, that deal with that part of the question.
The Chair: Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
When we discussed Mr. Martin's subamendment a little earlier, I mentioned the conditions which were necessary to conclude agreements like the ones which were signed with the James Bay Cree and the Innu. In those cases, the approach was completely different from the one outlined in Bill C-7.
I was shocked when Mr. Johnson said a few moments ago that Bill C-7 represented a kind of obligatory step on the way to concluding self-government agreements with first nations. But this was not necessary in other cases. Agreements have been signed on self-government without reducing the powers of first nations to the level of a municipality. We have reached agreements on self-government with first nations by using a completely different approach than the one provided for under Bill C-7.
The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples proposed ways to improve the process leading to the signing of agreements on self-government. The commission did not say that there had to be several stages and that another bill was necessary. The commission said we had to be daring. I clearly remember that the Erasmus-Dussault report said that we obviously faced a huge task over the next 20 years, but that there was no doubt that in 20 years, we could sign agreements on self-government with all first nations. But in order to achieve this, we have to start anew and be daring.
What does it mean to be daring? It means that, aside from the Indian Act, we must redefine our relationship and determine what powers first nations must exercise under their inherent right to self-government. What are these powers? What powers do they wish to delegate? First nations have the power to delegate. They can take advantage of this power to delegate without being subjected to Bill C-7.
Most native governments are accountable. People have to stop saying that there is a lack of transparency and that first nations do not manage their business well. There are some problem cases, but 95 per cent of first nations produce a yearly audit report. Rather, it's the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development who have management problems and whose officials have their own agendas. We will soon lift the veil on several fairly shocking practices engaged in by co-managers. It has to do with the granting of co-management contracts to certain firms, such as the one which has just received the co-management contract in Kanesatake.
I think we can be daring. Let's say we compile a list of powers a first nation would like to exercise under its inherent right to self-government. If we also determine how the first nation wishes to exercise these powers and over what territory it wishes to exercise its self-government, we would have to see what current legislation would have to be amended. That's what we would have to do. We cannot subject the powers which first nations wish to exercise to current legislation, otherwise we will never make any progress. We have to start afresh and give native people the opportunity to redefine their governments and the powers they want to exercise based on their inherent rights, which have been recognized by the highest court in this country, as well as by the United Nations.
Once that is accomplished, we will have to amend our existing legislation. If this means repealing some laws, so be it! If it means repealing the Indian Act as it applies to a first nation, let's do it and substitute for it the real power of self-government, and not an imposed form of municipal power, which is not real and which is not worthy of a third order of government, which has been recognized for first nations. This is not what first nations want, not at all. Let's stop claiming that we absolutely need to go through Bill C-7 to address the lack of transparency and accountability on the part of first nations, and that there is some situation that absolutely has to be cleaned up.
½ (1945)
Perhaps we can then speed up the negotiations on self-government; that remains to be seen. In 50 or 60 years, we may still be in the same darn situation because we will have spent years and years trying to implement Bill C-7, which does not improve anything, which will not accelerate self-govenrment, and which will not improve the socio-economic situation of Canada's first nations.
We have to stop pushing our current responsibilities onto the shoulders of future generations. Of course, we must acknowledge the eight sets of negotiations on self-government which are unfolding as we speak, but there are 155 first nations. The least one can say is that many first nations are still not involved in the process leading to self-government.
A lot of resources and money have been invested in the drafting of this bill which no one wants, which does not improve anything, whose wording first nations absolutely hate, and which ignores current realities. Further, the bill implies that there is a lack of transparency in the way first nations manage their affairs. It seems to be based on the premise that first nations don't care about accountability or producing audit reports. However, the Auditor General recently said that there were huge and systemic management problems and a lack of transparency, not within first nations communities, but within the Department of Indian Affairs, which is the real guilty party.
You have worked on creating this bill which, with its convoluted , more modern and less "racist" wording, continues to apply the infamous act, which has been denounced, and which has kept Canada's first nations in a state of subjugation. You cannot ask officials, who are interested in maintaining their own power within the Canadian Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to be both judge and jury. These people claim that the bill does not really provide for any sanctions. At a certain point, first nations members will realize that if they do not implement Bill C-7, they will suffer; for instance, if they object to the implementation of Bill C-7, they will lose their subsidies, which is exactly what happened to the Femmes autochtones du Québec. There won't be any direct consequences, of course not.
In fact, it would be bad enough to say that this is a bill on governance, but if first nations don't get in line and submit to the pain they will suffer in addition to 130 years of living under the Indian Act, they will be fined, and the number of fines will increase depending on the number of offences committed under Bill C-7, and they will eventually end up in jail.
But if you add up the 700,000 native people living on reserves and the 300,000 native people living off reserves, that adds up to a lot of people to throw in jail. In my opinion, many new jails would have to be built. But it would have been reprehensible to include this type of measure in the bill. Instead, native people will be hung out to dry, and their state of servitude maintained, because they will be told that if they do not apply Bill C-7, they will unfortunately not meet the necessary conditions to receive supplementary grants for education, health, waterworks and other such things. This is what is coming down the pipes and it reflects the attitude of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
In fact, when we travelled and met with first nations members, many of them told us about the way officials from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development treated them. Some situations were bad; and in some cases, barely veiled threats were made. Furthermore, it's easy to intimidate first nations; all you have to do is send an inspector into a native school who will then report that he saw three fewer children in class that day, which would have the effect of eliminating the grant given to that school run by first nations. You just can't do that type of thing. It's totally unacceptable and uncivilized. However, this attitude of subjugating first nations is alive and well; it's as if we had not progressed since 1969.
Speaking of which, 1969 was a good year, but at the time the Minister of Indian Affairs was Mr. Chrétien. He got stuck on some unrealistic perspective which, in 2003, might turn into a nightmare if Bill C-7 is passed. We have to shed this ideological straitjacket.
½ (1950)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.
[English]
We'll take a recorded vote on amendment BQ-46. I should repeat that this vote applies to BQ-46, BQ-47, BQ-48, BQ-49, BQ-50, BQ-51, BQ-52, and BQ-3.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 3)
The Chair: For the benefit of your records--do you follow the page numbers in these books?--BQ-46 is on page 234; BQ-47 is on page 235; BQ-48 is on page 238; BQ-49 is on page 239; BQ-50 is on page 240; BQ-51 is on page 241; BQ-52 is on page 242; and BQ-3 is on page 6.
Now we're on the clause. Mr. Martin, on clause 43.
½ (1955)
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, on debate on whether the clause shall carry or whether the clause should not carry, I think it should not carry. I think we should vote against passing clause 43 in its entirety, partly for the reasons itemized by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois, who did a good job itemizing and summarizing some of the shortfalls regarding Bill C-7--in its entirety, but also speaking specifically to clause 43--that we find ourselves dealing with now.
The clause repeals aspects of the Indian Act. We have maintained from the outset, in deference to the many submissions made before the committee, that all of our energies and attention should have been directed towards repealing some or all of the Indian Act. Ultimately, the goal is for all first nations to get out from under a repressive piece of legislation that none of us approves of, none of us has any use for, and everyone agrees has no place in a modern democracy--an act such as the Indian Act.
Clause 43 specifically tinkers again with aspects and details and makes amendments and modifications to definitions within the Indian Act. My colleague from the Bloc, because of the tinkering aspect of clause 43, felt it was an appropriate place to move an amendment to the name of the act altogether, from First Nations Governance Act to the First Nations Administration Act, and I concur.
I wanted to draw attention to this Dr. Anna Hunter, whom I mentioned earlier, in citing some of the dishonesty associated with the promotion of this bill. It can only be described as a campaign of misinformation on the part of the government surrounding this bill. One of the things they sought to do was post on their website misleading quotes by some of the presenters. I myself was a victim of this misrepresentation, but so was Dr. Anna Hunter, an assistant professor in the department of political studies at the University of Saskatchewan.
What she really said about the bill was anything but supportive. I quote Dr. Anna Hunter when she said:
| ...a key ingredient for any successful self-government project is a cultural fit or match. It is not good enough to parachute the principles and practices of municipal governance and administration into first nations communities and expect them to work.... |
That's a very critical comment, Mr. Chairman, and I think she was drawing from the representation made by another expert in the field, Dr. Stephen Cornell with the Harvard Project. It's one of the phrases that is associated with Dr. Cornell: seeking the cultural fit and the cultural match in any legislation dealing with first nations people. Dr. Cornell also talked about the idea of “practical sovereignty”, that any successful model of economic development must be based on a foundation of practical sovereignty and real decision-making authority. Again, we find Bill C-7 does not set that groundwork, the basis for true economic development or successful models.
Other presenters went further in their criticism of the bill and of clauses like clause 43 as well. The Indigenous Bar Association said:
| ...there is a huge risk that the bill may, in fact, negatively affect rights. If it does negatively affect rights, both procedural rights and substantive rights, it could be fatal. |
In other words, the bill will fail; the bill will not pass constitutional challenges. That's interesting to note.
The Indigenous Bar Association also dealt with the issue that one of the stated objectives of this bill is accountability. They made the point, Mr. Chairman, that there are at least three different levels of accountability that come into play when addressing Indian Act matters and the relationship between the Department of Indian Affairs and first nations.
In a general way, these different levels of accountability can be referred to as the Crown/Indian accountability framework and can be summarized as follows--and I think this is worth noting.
¾ (2000)
The first level of accountability that we should be dealing with is the administrative accountability of the department for decisions it makes affecting bands and band councils. That's the kind of accountability that first nations wanted dealt with and that, in their presentations to this committee, they felt was key and paramount, because for first nations there's no avenue of recourse other than going to court. The first aspect of this accountability framework places an onus on the federal government to ensure that it conducts itself in a manner that is open and transparent and in a fashion where the unfair exercise of administrative discretion can be challenged.
We're calling upon the department and the government to be open and transparent. They seem to overlook what the true wishes of first nations communities are. That would be their first wish in a wish list about accountability, because currently there's no process in place where first nations can challenge the discretion exercised by the minister and his officials other than going to court. There is no mechanism of appeal to the absolute power of the minister.
The second level of accountability that first nations wish Bill C-7 addressed is the accountability of the Crown with respect to the fiduciary relationship with indigenous people and the corresponding fiduciary obligations and duties. That's an accountability that has yet to be explored or developed in any meaningful way, the accountability of the Crown's obligations to first nations, because in a sense it has never been given full definition.
We know the fiduciary obligation is there. It was transferred to Canada with the patriation of the Constitution in 1982. When the Constitution was patriated to Canada, it was people around, in fact NDP members of Parliament, who fought tooth and nail to make sure that the fiduciary obligation to first nations was transferred and patriated along with the Constitution and included in the Constitution in section 35.
But there has been no meaningful definition of what that fiduciary obligation to do with a reference in section 35 of the Constitution really means. That was the project that should have been undertaken after Charlottetown. That was the debate that we should have been having immediately after. If the Charlottetown Accord passed, one of the commitments and promises made by the government of the day was that we would sit down in the ensuing years, the early 1990s, and give meaning and definition to section 35 of the Constitution; therefore we would finally establish, determine, and make formal the obligations stemming from the fiduciary obligations and responsibilities.
That's work that has yet to be done. That's work that should have taken place in the early 1990s, but there was a regime change. The Liberal government won power in 1993, so the very next year, after the failure of the Charlottetown Accord, when these commitments were made that this work would begin, the government changed, and guess who became the Prime Minister? The former Minister of Indian Affairs, who had no interest whatsoever in going down that road and exploring the fiduciary responsibility of the Crown. If anything, it has been the project of the current Prime Minister to get out from under that obligation and responsibility. He wasn't interested one iota in exploring, analysing, and giving meaning and definition to that obligation. It was his goal to get out from under that duty and move toward a model of assimilation--which is what we spoke of.
It's the third level of accountability, the accountability of band councils to the membership, including political accountability, financial accountability, the accountability for administrative decisions that affect the rights of individual band members. That's number three in order of priority, because, frankly, when people don't have fresh water to drink or a roof over their heads, or clothing or adequate food for their children, or when there's an epidemic of diabetes and HIV/AIDS in their community, they don't usually dwell on administrative tinkering. Those are not the top-of-mind issues to people whose basic needs are not being met. When people's basic needs aren't being met, they have other priorities--housing, education, health care, food, clothing, and fresh water. Those are the issues that the first nations wanted dealt with in this particular go-round at the Indian Act.
¾ (2005)
I've made the point before, Mr. Chairman, that it's only once in a generation that the government seems to find the political will to address the issues, the urgent issues, that first nations face. The big concern is--
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I will also not support section 43, since it is a travesty, as are the other sections of this bill, which is usually, but falsely, referred to as the governance bill, which in fact should truly reflect first nations' right to self-government.
A little earlier, I was referring to the agreement signed with the Innu. My colleague from Jonquière did so as well and she is very familiar with the agreement. In fact, the draft agreement will apply to part of her riding. This draft agreement represents a true proposal on self-government, that is, it was negotiated with Innu representatives in a spirit of honour and enthusiasm, just as we could have done for the Meech Lake Accord many years ago, but that agreement failed. Therefore, in a spirit of honour and enthusiasm, Innu leaders from four communities, from four nations, mainly negotiated with the Quebec government, but also with the federal government which was also involved in the draft agreement, to create a true third order of government. Petty powers were not discussed, nor the need to repeal a couple of small, unimportant sections contained in the Indian Act.
The foundations for a third order of government were indeed laid, giving Innu first nations sovereignty over their own territory. This was called the Innu Assi, and it involved sharing the land and resources of a vast territory lying beside the reserves, called Nitassinan, which is an ancestral territory where traditional activities were and are still practiced by Innu first nations. This process applies to each first nation involved in this project with the Quebec and federal governments.
Resources will be shared, and that is exactly how things were done many hundred years ago when the first Europeans arrived on our shores, with regard to oral agreements and treaties involving the sharing of land and resources. This was often done in the native tradition using the two-row wampum belt.
These four communities, as well as neighbouring native populations, realized that native people and non-natives could mutually respect each other and find a way to enable first nations to exercise self-government and their real governing powers. Resources were shared over a territory, but so were royalties related to the development of natural resources. It is interesting to note that, at the time, we recognized that it was necessary to share the natural resources of a territory with first nations through negotiation; this process also involved potential royalties for the Government of Quebec, and this was carried out in the same spirit as the one which fostered ancestral treaties, and which led the native leaders of the day to believe that the agreements they had reached with the first Europeans would provide for a greater sharing of the wealth of the land, a land which belonged to them before the arrival of the Europeans.
The land was also shared in the spirit of good neighbourliness. This is reflected in the draft agreement with the Innu. But this agreement is not yet finalized; we still need to reach sectoral agreements on the harvesting of forest resources and on mining issues, and so on. Certain parts of the Nitassinan territory have not yet been defined, nor have certain parts of the Innu Assi, like those relating to the Betsiamite community, for instance, which still need to be completed. But territorial negotiations are moving forward because we are creating a real aboriginal government, with real powers and not just municipal-type powers.
¾ (2010)
I am not saying that the municipalities don't have genuine power. However, when we talk about aboriginal self-determination, what we mean is a level of government that exercises the powers devolving to a third level of government over its people.
Powers of taxation are provided for as well. Once the communities achieve a certain level of economic development, which had already begun before signature of the draft agreement, there will be opportunities to gradually withdraw government contributions. Thus, the first nations' power of taxation must be defined in their territory, with respect to their communities and with respect to non-aboriginals who want to live on Innu territory. I am talking about genuine evolution towards self-determination by the Innu first nations, who are parties to this draft agreement.
There is something else we have to consider, something that stunned me when I understood it... Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, my colleague the Member for Jonquière, who is here today, Michel Gauthier, the Member for Roberval, Gérard Asselin, the Member for Charlevoix, Ghislain Fournier, the Member for Manicouagan, and myself visited the regions concerned by the draft agreement, and were both stunned and extremely impressed to see the perspective for a "good neighbour" approach and partnership development opening up among Innu and non-aboriginal communities even before implementation of the agreement. Partnership projects were already under way. I heard Clifford Moar, Chief of the Masteuiash people, whose territory is just beside Roberval, in discussion with the local forestry operator, to whom he was saying that many people were ready to work in forestry, yet there was a shortage of labour. He was wondering if there was any way to have common training policies to ensure that young aboriginals could acquire a trade and work in the forest industry. This would benefit everyone.
So, on a handshake, the owner of the forestry company made a joint commitment with the chief of the Innu community of Masteuiash regarding the future development of their common territory in forestry. Everybody will gain.
The same thing is happening with Alcan. For decades, the Masteuiash community has been at loggerheads with Alcan. But recently, without requesting any compensation whatsoever, Chief Clifford Moar met with the Alcan CEO at Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean. They decided to stop the fighting and to work hand in hand for the future. The only condition on which Clifford Moar insisted was that Alcan make a contribution towards environmental protection and that common areas be used in a manner that will ensure that all parties are respected.
This is exactly what can happen when nation interacts with nation. When you base your interactions on the assumption that representatives of other nations must be respected, when you decide from the outset that all nations must receive equitable treatment, when we consider the first nations as being equal to our own people, deadlocks tend to disappear immediately and the communities come back to the principles and perceptions that existed when the Europeans first arrived. Then, it would take only a hand shake or a two-row wampum belt to reach an agreement in mutual respect, in peace and serenity, and based on principles of sharing and partnership. Even though the Indian Act has been there for 130 years, those reflexes come back very quickly. Why? Because we are all human beings, more similar than different.
¾ (2015)
And, by definition, human beings—except for a few, some of whom we have seen before us—do not like conflict and would much rather live in peace.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.
[English]
Does anyone else wish to comment?
We'll go to the vote on clause 43.
(Clause 43 agreed to on division)
The Chair: We're now on clause 44, for which we have amendment G-18.
(On clause 44)
The Chair: Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I would have that stood until later.
The Chair: Okay, there is a motion to stand amendment G-18, as well as clause 44.
(Clause 44 allowed to stand)
The Chair: We are now on clause 45. Are you ready for the question?
Mr. Martin.
(On clause 45)
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, I don't believe we should vote in favour of clause 45. We don't want to encourage bad behaviour on the part of the government, for one thing. We're opposed to this bill in general, Mr. Chairman.
We speak not for our own sake. We speak on behalf of the many first nations who made appeals to this committee to listen to them, to listen to their objections and their legitimate concerns about this bill. Mr. Chairman, it's on behalf of the many first nations across this country who overwhelmingly oppose this bill, it's on their behalf that I object to and oppose even this one clause--clause 45--which repeals subsection 10(3) of the Indian Act.
It matters little to me, frankly, Mr. Chairman, the details surrounding this particular clause. It's not a clause of great substance. In fact it's a clause that deletes an aspect of the Indian Act. You can't take these things out of context. You have to take it with the totality of the bill.
As to the bill itself, I should let one of the presenters speak for me, Mr. Chairman. The Lnapskuk Neighbours Project, who made a presentation to the committee, said:
| But Bill C-7, its assumptions, its content, and its process of development, goes against the spirit of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the commitment of “Gathering Strength” to work in partnership with first nations. It looks to be a last-ditch effort to hold on to the paternalism of the Indian Act era and to impose even more complicated external systems and limitations on those who have the inherent right to create their own systems and limitations, exclusive of the Canadian government. |
Mr. Chairman, it would be presumptuous of me to try to say it any better than this presentation told the committee. I'm not sure committee members were listening carefully when they heard, or I don't think they heard this brief at all, frankly. I don't think they were listening attentively to many of the presentations here because they had their minds made up.
The Liberal members of the committee didn't really care what Indians had to say about the bill because they were listening to their minister. Their minister had very defined ideas of what he wanted to achieve, and it didn't matter what Indians said about the bill. It didn't matter that first nations people, aboriginal people, right across the country, from one end to the other, were vehemently opposed to the bill. That had no impact, and to this day has no impact, it would seem, on the representatives here.
They didn't even listen to the many non-aboriginal presenters who opposed the bill. The human rights committee of the Malaspina University-College Faculty Association said:
| This descent into neocolonialism in the 21st century is unconscionable. Bill C-7 must be dropped completely and the recommendations of the 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples must be implemented. |
That, Mr. Chairman, should be the start and the end point of the work of this committee--the implementation of the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, the most comprehensive analysis of issues facing aboriginal people ever undertaken in this country, yet gathering dust on the shelves of government. There was great optimism that the government would in fact take those books off the shelf when they were finally crafting amendments to the Indian Act. But no, they chose not to.
The Lennox Island FirstNation and the Abegweit First Nation said:
| The royal commission's reference to fair and lasting terms of co-existence with aboriginal peoples is not respected in either the substance or process dictated through the proposed First Nations Governance Act. |
What is it that people don't understand in this room? Why are they so unwilling to listen to the very people whose lives are affected by this bill?
Grand Chief Francis Flett of the MKO in northern Manitoba said:
| Bill C-7 violates the treaty relationship, our joint commitment to nation building, and the honour of the Crown. The committee should report and recommend that the principles of Bill C-7, the proposed First Nations Governance Act, be rejected in their entirety; |
¾ (2020)
Well, the MKO in northern Manitoba is particularly sensitive to this, because this bill flies in the face of the eight years of work that went into the framework agreement in Manitoba. Progress was made at the many tables of the framework agreement that would have provided real satisfaction to first nations in northern Manitoba. Instead, that process was dropped in favour of the imposition of the rules surrounding Bill C-7.
The Matawa First Nations, their quote:
| ...after struggling so long to make progress in Canada, we feel like the entire nightmare is being repeated in Bill C-7, the so-called First Nations Governance Act. As first nations people, we cannot sit back and let Canada make such a huge mistake with Bill C-7. There's far too much at stake. |
Mr. Chairman, I agree fully and I appreciate.... When you were there in person you couldn't help but feel the passion and the truth of people speaking from the heart. Many of these presentations weren't written presentations; they were people speaking emotionally and passionately at that end of the table, appealing to the members of this committee to listen, to hear their voice.
The Mawiw Council of First Nations said:
| If there is one impression we would ask the standing committee to take away from this presentation, it's the extreme distaste and dissatisfaction the Mi'kmaq and Maliseet people of New Brunswick have for and with this piece of legislation. This is not what our people want, this is not what our people need, and this is not what they were promised. |
How can you fail to understand what we're being told here?
The Mohawk Council of Akwesasne:
| The proposed First Nations Governance Act and its single-minded, one-size-fits-all approach has the potential, in our view, to undo a lot of this work that we have done. When we reviewed the text of the bill, we didn't find the flexibility that we desire and need. |
The Mohawk Council of Kahnawake:
| First nations governance will not apply in Kahnawake, period. We don't see it as having any relevance to us. |
| We call upon Canada to re-examine the serious potential this legislation has to infringe on our inherent right of self-determination. We ask Canada to begin a legislative process that allows for a renewed partnership built upon the sure foundation of mutual respect, consent, and cooperation. |
“Consent” is the operative word there, Mr. Chairman, because we know we're bound in matters that infringe upon constitutionally recognized aboriginal and treaty rights. The obligation goes beyond the duty to consult. In cases that infringe upon aboriginal and treaty rights, consent is required as well, is what the courts have ruled.
The Moose Crew First Nation:
| Bill C-7 predetermines and prescribes all our governance rights. |
That's one of the biggest fears, that Bill C-7 will in fact be the be-all and end-all. It will provide the extent of self-governance. It will define self-governance models in the future. Even if there is a continuing negotiation going on, the narrow prescriptive language of Bill C-7 will pretty much determine the outcome of those negotiations by being imposed at this fragile stage of bargaining. It's not bargaining in good faith; it's a take it or leave it bargaining.
It's just like the bargaining that has taken place around this table for the last many weeks, Mr. Chairman. There's nothing good faith about our treatment of the issues being presented before this committee. You can't sit there and say no, no, no, and no, and then say you're bargaining in good faith. That's the antithesis of good faith bargaining. There's no relationship whatsoever to good faith.
The Moose Creek First Nation also said:
| We cannot accept this legislation that arbitrarily describes how our government should function. This is an illegitimate, narrow, and limited vision of our inherent right to self-government and we simply cannot accept it. |
We've been told right across the country that people will not accept it, that there will be a level, a degree of civil disobedience associated with the imposition of this legislation, Mr. Chairman. In fact, we're inviting civil unrest and civil disobedience, social unrest, because whether people cannot or will not incorporate these mandated codes of governance, the result will be the same: it will be people being in violation of the act. The minister has the right then to sweep in and impose third-party management, trusteeship, because the first nation is not in compliance with this new bill.
¾ (2025)
That's what will happen. That's the most predictable consequence. That's the result here, that the Minister of Indian Affairs will become the biggest Indian agent Canada has ever known, because he will have absolute control over the life and affairs of first nations.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I will not be voting for this clause either, for the same reasons that led us to reject most of the clauses put forward as part of this bill.
When these clauses were written, they were not based on respect for the aboriginal nations and the progress made since the early 1980s, beginning with the excellent report by the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government. This report, which was published in 1983, was jointly prepared by aboriginals and non-aboriginals. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples went through the same process, and its members managed to agree.
As you know, we cannot reach agreement when we force things upon people and make specious comments like "we have consulted the first nations", "we have obtained their comments", or "the first nations have been consulted and are now being consulted again after first reading of the bill". The first nations have every right to be extremely angry.
Bill C-7 went to first reading before anyone had seen the final text, after only sparse consultation by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We know full well that it is very difficult to make substantial changes once a bill has been introduced in the House of Commons, particularly since the bill was referred to us after its introduction at first reading, even before a more in-depth debate had taken place. This is rather unusual.
The minister knew what he was doing. He knew that if he took this approach the bill could not be substantially altered. He did pull the strings when it came to committee hearings held across Canada; the committee received briefs, and there was an impression that the minister and government were open to changes. Now, we can see that this was nothing more than a huge farce.
From the very start, we have tried to improve the bill by putting forward amendments. In any case, Robert Nault has invited improvements to the bill. He has said so in the House, and said it again before the media. He even invited Paul Martin to put forward amendments. Yet he knew that no amendments could be tabled after mid-April, if I remember correctly. This did not prevent the minister from inviting Paul Martin to appear before the committee and put forward amendments on May 9.
So one of two things is going on here: either Minister Robert Nault—who does not like his name to be given the French pronunciation, even the Naults are a francophone family—is playing petty politics with something as important and fundamental as the self-determination of first nations, or his parliamentary secretary is not doing his work properly if he is not explaining what is happening in committee. It's either one or the other. One hypothesis is that the minister acted knowingly when he invited the member for LaSalle--Émard to make representations and put forward amendments. This would be an extremely serious matter, because it would be information manipulation.
Now we are considering clause 45, which is just as unacceptable as the other clauses, because it is based on false premises and erroneous analysis. Relations between the federal government and the first nations should not be handled using the same futile approach that we see in Bill C-7. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples invited us to move forward and build over the next 20 years. Yet, we find ourselves exactly where we were before 1997, when a number of reports and the conclusions of the Erasmus-Dussault Commission were published. It seems to me not only that we have made no progress but that we have, on the contrary lost ground.
¾ (2030)
My colleague Francine Lalonde, who really has agreed to participate in the work of the committee, could in fact deal with this question later on. She was a history professor and, when in her capacity as advisor to the Parti Québécois, she had very good relations with the first nations. She can testify to the fact that the various measures taken by the government in recent years should have led to something other than Bill C-7, which modernizes a completely colonialist and backward act, namely, the Indian Act.
The first convention, that Mr. Lévesque signed with the James Bay Cree, led to the development a new partnership with the first nations. Then, in 1984, once again to Mr. Lévesque, the National Assembly recognized the 10 aboriginal nations living on Quebec territory; a few years later, an eleventh aboriginal nation was added. In 1983, we had this wonderful report that was prepared by the Special Committee on Native Self-Government. But it looks like all of the fundamental measures taken in the late 70s and early 80s no longer resonate in 2003.
As I have already told you, we called Minister Robert Nault's office in order to obtain copies of the Royal Commission report and his staff asked us what this Erasmus-Dussault report was about. We told them that this was the Commission of Inquiry report on aboriginal peoples. They said that they would call us back. Another member of the minister's political staff called us back in order to find out exactly what we wanted.
The Royal Commission of Inquiry lasted six years at a cost of several million dollars. In 1997, it was released with great fanfare and we stated that, for the first time, we had been presented with a document that followed up on the special committee report, that we know where we were going and that we were going to build a new relationship over the next 20 years.
However, when we called the minister's officer, we were told that they didn't know what this Royal Commission report was. Fortunately, I've repeated it so often that the people in the office called us back today to say that they had found copies of the Royal Commission report, but only in English. We asked them if it was possible to obtain the French version, and we were told in a rather offhand manner that this was impossible because there was no longer any money in the French printing budget for the Royal Commission report on aboriginal peoples.
So, just because the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as well as the Office of the Minister of Indian Affairs does not want to reprint the Commission report in French, and there are only copies available in English, approximately one-third of Canadian citizens will not be able to obtain a copy of the Erasmus-Dussault Commission report in French. Fortunately, a few copies are still available.
However, I do get worried when I hear people tell me that they prefer to keep the money for the minister's priorities rather than translate or publish the Royal Commission report in French. In addition to their mother aboriginal tongue, some of the first nations use French. In Quebec, this is the case for many first nations.
By virtue of the Canadian duality and the Official Languages Act, when, as members Parliament, we ask for documents in French and English, the government is obliged, by virtue of the act, to provide them to us. However, in this case, we were told that there was no money to print the French version of the Royal Commission report. As a francophone member of Parliament, I find this quite exasperating.
I am flabbergasted when I hear such an answer coming from the staff of the minister's office. We can understand that these people may be quite unskilled when it comes to presenting bills; besides, the outcry that has resulted from Bill C-7 enables us to make such a comment. But it is a totally different manner when we are told outright that the money allocated to the department and to the Office of the Minister of Indian Affairs must be used for priorities other that the reprinting, in one of the two official languages, of the Royal Commission report on aboriginal peoples. I find that annoying. I am moreover going to repeat my request, on behalf of my francophone colleagues from all the parties, in order to obtain copies of the Erasmus-Dussault report. It is important that we have such a report in order to do our job properly.
¾ (2035)
I have quoted extensively from the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, but that is...
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.
[English]
I'd like to note that it's available in both languages in the Library of Parliament and on CD ROM. As a member of this committee, I got three copies of each when it came out. I even gave some to the university and French and English colleges in my riding.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, for the people who want to see the Erasmus-Dussault report, I would just like to point out that the minister's only has English copies, we are told. Not everyone has a CD-ROM reader.
The Chair: I can well believe that.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: There are many volumes. I don't know if you have seen them, but it is extremely thick. Printing it out would not be a good idea.
The Chair: I see. It is quite possible that only English copies are available. That is a problem.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I will send a written request to the minister.
The Chair: Any further debate?
[English]
Is there more debate? Are we ready for the question.
(Clause 45 agreed to on division)
(On clause 46)
The Chair: Is there any debate on clause 46?
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, we don't believe clause 46 is worthy of our support. I intend to vote against clause 46. I serve notice right now that there's nothing about clause 46 that encourages me or excites me in any way enough to change my mind about the entire bill.
I draw inspiration from many of the presenters who came before the committee and their objections to the bill in its totality. Clause 46 says that the heading before section 32 and sections 32 to 34 of the act are repealed. Repealing sections of the act, I presume, could be argued as a good thing, but you can't take that one step out of context. We have to look at the whole package.
When the Moose Cree First Nation looked at the whole package, their observation was:
| Bill C-7 predetermines and prescribes all our governance rights. It is contrary to the Constitution of Canada and to our treaty. ... We cannot accept this legislation that arbitrarily describes how our government should function. ... This is an illegitimate, narrow, and limited vision of our inherent right to self-government and we simply cannot accept it. |
That speaks not only to clause 46, but to every clause in the First Nations Governance Act.
Professor Brad Morse of the faculty of law at the University of Manitoba said:
| [Bill C-7] falls far short of the ideas generated by the predecessor to this committee in 1983, with the Penner report, and more recently with the federal inherent right policy in the final report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. The bill does not attempt to do all of that. Furthermore, Bill C-7 obviously does not reflect a consensus among first nations as to how they wish to see federal law evolve, if at all. |
That perhaps sums it up. Bill C-7 does not reflect a consensus. No one here, even those who are promoting the bill, could say in all honesty that Bill C-7 reflects a consensus in any way.
You'd be misrepresenting things to imply that Bill C-7 reflects a consensus; it does not. In fact, the opposition to the bill is such that it outweighs any promotion of the bill by any party, and there's certainly been no consensus on agreeing with the government that any aspect of this bill should move forward.
In fact, we haven't even had sufficient debate on the basic principles of the bill to get down to arguing the nuances of it.
That's something we should take note of here, Mr. Chair. We're at the first reading stage, and the commitment was made to the members of this committee that if the committee receives the bill at first reading, before the principles of the bill are agreed to.... The second reading stage is where the principles of the bill are agreed to. Well, that hasn't occurred yet. In others words, there should be broad flexibility demonstrated on the government side to include and add to, to form and craft, the basic principles of what this bill is seeking to achieve. That was supposed to be the advantage of getting the bill at first reading.
Bill C-7, according to Professor Morse, “does not reflect a consensus among first nations as to how they wish to see federal law evolve, if at all”. He goes on to say:
| It would be argued no doubt by some before this committee that Bill C-7 does intrude upon section 35 rights such that the duty to consult that's been evolving through the courts has been violated. |
If the government does plan on infringing upon constitutionally recognized rights under section 35, there's a duty and an obligation to consult. We've gone through what the definition of “consultation” is. It has to be meaningful consultation, which includes accommodation of some of the points brought forward--not just listening to people's objections but incorporating their points of view into the document. That's what meaningful consultation means.
¾ (2040)
The courts have also indicated that in a case where there is infringement upon rights, the duty goes beyond the duty to consult. The duty also includes consent; they must find consensus among first nations that this infringement is justified, and to agree upon compensation, whether it be in monetary form or other trade-offs. None of this was done, Mr. Chairman, so the cart is miles before the horse in this respect.
The Musqueam Indian Band pointed out that if real self-government was what the government had in mind, then we had to urge it to go back to the beginning and start over. Well, this is exactly the constructive recommendation our party has been making from the beginning. We should be scrapping this particular exercise, which has caused such animosity and rancour across the country, and we should be taking one step back and revisiting the issues, revisiting what it is we seek to achieve.
If the government seeks to achieve some form of national standard of accountability and transparency in first nations communities, fine, our committee would be willing to work on that. The NDP would willingly cooperate with a study that would lead us to the implementation of national standards regarding accountability and transparency. It would be easy because that work was almost concluded.
That work was being done across the country. It was interrupted by Bill C-7. Ironically, we were well on our way to achieving national standards of accountability and transparency in cooperation with the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, who were meeting in a national round table with the Assembly of First Nations. That work was being done, but it was interrupted and suspended by the imposition of Bill C-7.
The advice from the Musqueam Indian Band is if legitimate, real self-government is what it has in mind, it is urged by them to go back to the beginning of this process and start over with a legitimate consultation process and a nation-to-nation relationship. Such a process would base everything we do on the premise that we are dealing with sovereign, independent nations that have the right to self-determination and self-governance. If we would preface our work with this simple statement, we would have the full participation of first nations in this process, instead of their vigorous opposition to everything we're doing.
We're off to a terrible, terrible start with this initiative. But I think, really, what that tells us is that it was never the government's intention to talk about self-governance and to deal with accountability and transparency. If they were serious about those undertakings, they would have taken a route that would have led to success.
Instead what they're trying to achieve is getting out from under their fiduciary responsibilities and obligations and limiting their liability in the 200-some-odd active court cases--and the huge flurry of court cases that we can anticipate in the near future. So really they're trying to lessen their liability and be relieved from their fiduciary obligations and responsibility. We strongly suspect this; it's just reasonable to suspect it.
The representative from the Native Alliance of Quebec said that he would recommend that scrapping Bill C-7 as it is and that we “go for a broader approach, and take an overall look at the situation and this dinosaur legislation that's out there”. That was his casual observation.
The Native Nations Institute on Leadership, Management, and Policy has determined that the only approach that has worked in the United States with any sustained record of success has placed broad governmental jurisdiction in the hands of indigenous nations, backed up by capable, culturally appropriate governing institutions that those nations support and believe in. This is the model of success in the United States, the experience and the empirical evidence out there that we can draw from.
If we're looking for best practices, that study has been done, Mr. Chairman, and it was found that only one approach has worked in terms of a sustainable record of success, transferring broad governmental jurisdiction into the hands of indigenous nations.
It's not really a transfer of power because we argue, and first nations argue, that power already resides with first nations. It is not for the federal government to give this authority to first nations; they already enjoy that authority. We need to recognize and acknowledge their jurisdiction over their own governmental affairs.
¾ (2045)
Mr. Chairman, there are many reasons not to support clause 46. One of the reasons was pointed out to us by the North Shore Tribal Council when they said that any legislative measure on the part of the federal government--
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Madame Lalonde, dix minutes.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have 10 minutes, but does that include the time I take putting my questions to the officials?
¾ (2050)
The Chair: Yes, your 10 minutes include the time taken for your questions, and their answers.
Ms. Francine Lalonde: So they could use up all my time.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: All you have to do is interrupt them, Ms. Lalonde.
Ms. Francine Lalonde: I have a question on clause 46, which repeals sections 32 to 34 of the Indian Act. I will put my question slowly so that the officials do not use up all my time, even if they don't mean to.
Subsection 34(1) of the Indian Act reads as follows:
| 34. (1) A band shall ensure that the roads, bridges, ditches and fences within the reserve occupied by that band are maintained in accordance with instructions issued from time to time by the superintendent. |
The tone is both paternalistic and imperialistic, but it still states that the band is responsible for roads, bridges, ditches and fences within the reserve.
I am wondering what provisions there are in Bill C-7 to replace that responsibility with a power. We should ensure that reserves have the power associated with the responsibility of maintaining roads, bridges, ditches and fences, as well as the means to maintain them.
All I can find in the bill is clause 16(1)(e), which provides for local works, public utilities and waste management. I don't know if this is the provision that will do the job, but to me "local works" does not necessarily include roads, bridges, ditches and fences.
Let me broaden my question.
I'm happy to have the opportunity to sit briefly on this committee. I was the minister in René Lévesque's government, when Mr. Lévesque had aboriginal nations recognized by the Quebec National Assembly in March 1985. I am proud to have been there. I also monitored the process that led the Quebec government and aboriginal nations to formulate an agreement which now enables aboriginal nations to genuinely and fully assume responsibility for their own development. This is not an easy process. It cannot be done overnight, and both parties have to deal with each other as equals. When I read this bill—I had not read it before—I saw very clearly that it contained nothing of this approach.
No Canadian and no Quebecer can plead ignorance of history. When we know history, we understand that it is absolutely necessary to be open to a negotiation among equals, and not to take a paternalistic approach and to tell people what is good for them, and what they should do to be good managers.
I would therefore like to ask these gentlemen whether this bill grants a power to replace the responsibility it takes away by repealing section 34 of the Indian Act, even if that responsibility was not assumed in an acceptable fashion.
[English]
Mr. Warren Johnson: Since, Mr. Chairman, the member referenced the issue of not telling first nations what to do, that is in fact exactly the rationale for the removal of sections 32 to 34 of the Indian Act. They are not so much responsibilities as oversight mechanisms whereby the minister may intervene.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde: I am asking you where you enable the aboriginal poeple to do what must be done and which was previously considered an obligation. I saw nothing about this in the bill I read. If you take away an obligation from them and you do not at the same time grant them some power in compensation for that, you are merely reasserting that all this depends on the federal government.
[English]
Mr. Warren Johnson: My colleagues may be able to provide more of a legal perspective on it.
These are not obligations. These are oversight mechanisms whereby the minister must sign.... In the case of section 32, a superintendent must approve all transactions from reserves in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta dealing with various types of produce. The minister may order the first nation to do things under subsection 32(2) if, in the opinion of the minister, it has not carried out the instructions of the superintendent in subsection 34(1) relating to roads and bridges. The minister may cause the instructions to be followed out and then charge the first nations for the costs incurred.
So these are not obligations. In that sense, I would interpret them more to be oversight or intrusions of the minister, and since its stated purpose--
¾ (2055)
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde: Of course, it was unacceptable to say that the band must do such and such a thing. However, if you take that away, you must recognize that the band has the power to do that and to ask the department to pay. Otherwise, who will take care of the roads, the bridges, etc.?
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier (Senior Counsel, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Perhaps I could add to Mr. Johnson's comments.
If you look in paragraphs 16(1)(e) and (h), you will find that it is a power of the band to make laws relating to local works and to the construction, maintenance, repair, etc., of infrastructure, which would certainly include roads.
So, as Mr. Johnson has stated, this bill changes an obligation of a band to maintain roads to a certain standard, to a power of a band to make laws, to set their own standards, for infrastructure on the reserve.
Mr. Warren Johnson: If I could then complete the thought, what replaces--
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde: What is written is “buildings”, sir. In the act, buildings are not defined as roads, I did not see that.
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: Excuse me. If you look in paragraph (h), you will see that it refers to infrastructure, not buildings. Infrastructure is normally thought of as roads, sewers, electrical utilities, things of that nature.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde:
Let us admit that it is not obvious. I am not sure that the first nations will find it easy to be empowered to do these things with this bill, especially since they need budgets and that at the bottom of the page, there is still a paragraph which reads as follows:
| (2) In the event of a conflict between a law made under this section and an Act of Parliament or any regulations made under an Act of Parliament, the Act or the regulations prevail to the extent of the conflict. |
Of course this legislation also deals with the federal budget. At least, the former text mentioned the band responsibility under the steward's direction. That provided a possibility to do something. In this bill, this obligation is taken away from them, and the means are taken away from them as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Lalonde.
[English]
Mr. Warren Johnson: I think the answer is that we don't understand the impact to be as the member has referenced it.
In the case that these were seen to be unnecessary intrusions by the minister, they're hardly, if ever, used, and they are totally redundant in the context of the law-making authority in Bill C-7, as my colleague referenced, where the oversight is by the first nations citizens themselves, not by the minister.
The Chair: Thank you.
Is there any more debate?
Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I think that instead of being arrogant and talking about (e) as in “energy” and (h) as in “hotel”, the officials should simply give straight answers to questions. I think that this would benefit us all. This is no place for such mockery. Officials should not ridicule colleagues like this in front of the committee.
The Chair: With your permission, Mr. Loubier, let me tell you that in English this is accepted usage because many letters are similar.
¿ (2100)
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Are you saying that in English it is acceptable to treat members of Parliament in a rude and cynical way?
The Chair: No. I am saying that it is acceptable to specify whether it is a D or a B.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Let us not go overboard.
Ms. Francine Lalonde: There must be people who do not clearly understand.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, that is true. It shows a lack of respect for people. In French, English or Spanish, it comes down to about the same thing.
I would like to ask the same question. Clause 46 repeals sections 32 to 34 of the Indian Act. Section 34 states:
| 34. (1) A band shall ensure that the roads, bridges, ditches and fences within the reserve occupied by that band are maintained in accordance with instructions issued from time to time by the superintendent. |
The minister would take action if he deemed that the work had not been done satisfactory. The new wording does not use the same terminology regarding bridges, roads, etc., and we are also told that the minister was interfering when he took action to have the work done and that this interference has been eliminated. We are not idiots. The minister's interference has disappeared and been replaced with provisions that go in other direction and that could exist in federal legislation or band bylaws on any subject, including local works in paragraph (e) as in “excited” and paragraph (h) as in “Hubbard”. We are told that if the band council bylaws go against the ideas of the federal government or the provisions of a federal act, including budget legislation, the government will intervene and the federal acts or regulations will take precedence.
So the interference is not disappearing. It is being replaced by another kind of interference. We are giving the first nations powers with one hand and taking them away with the other through subsection (2) of clause 16.
I am not satisfied with the answer I have received or the answer that we did not receive about funding for these local works. If there is one thing that has been criticized by witnesses in oral testimony and in a number of the briefs that have been presented to us, it is the fact that this legislation imposes new obligations and responsibilities on first nations and requires them to implement these provisions within two or three years, according to Bill C-7, but they are not being given any additional money for these purposes.
As our consultations made clear, first nations members have pressing basic needs, and they are not being given additional financial resources to implement Bill C-7, especially for the maintenance and construction of infrastructure, buildings, bridges, etc.
Where is it indicated that these responsibilities being referred to are replaced by powers? Clause 16 grants very limited powers, since every one is aware that Ottawa knows best. We know all about that in Quebec. Where is there any mention of additional resources for first nations to implement bill C-7, which they do not want?
I would also like to know why we should require first nations that have not yet been granted self-government to implement the various provisions of Bill C-7. A number of people have mentioned this here—officials and others—with less arrogance then a few minutes ago. It is probably the fatigue that makes them a bit edgy, or perhaps we are the cause of their edginess. It would not be surprising, since we want answers to our questions.
¿ (2105)
Since we started looking at this legislation, I have been trying to find some kind of link that could fast-track the making of self-government agreements. Negotiations are underway on eight out of more than one hundred claims right now: the government's record is not very impressive in this area. Why should the bands have to be subject to the provisions in this bill, such as paragraph e) as in “energy” and paragraph (h) as in “Hubbard”? Why do they have to go down the alphabet in this way in other to make self-government a reality? Up to this point, I am not convinced.
Has the minister made a commitment to obtain extra funding for additional powers or to truly play his fiduciary role, but through aboriginal self- government? I am asking this of the officials, with the hope that I will not get a cynical answer.
The Chair: Have you finished, Mr. Loubier?
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I asked the question. Can I get an answer?
The Chair: Everyone seems confused by your question. Would you like to repeat it?
Mr. Yvan Loubier: But it was clear. Tell me where it is mentioned that additional monies will be allocated to first nations communities to use their new powers and whether there is a commitment—
If you want to speak, ask for the floor and use the microphone; otherwise, keep quiet for now.
Is there somewhere in the bill a provision for additional funding to carry out the mandates in paragraphs (e) and (h) as in “hotel,” or are the powers just given by themselves? There is no budget increase, even though first nations communities have pressing needs. It seems clear to me. It cannot be any clearer than that.
[English]
Mr. Warren Johnson: I think there are two questions there, Mr. Chairman, if I'm interpreting the member correctly, and one clarification.
Yes, there has been a commitment to fund first nations in terms of the implementation of Bill C-7. It's not reflected in the bill. There was a substantive discussion on that earlier, I think.
It's not normal that it would be done in a bill itself. The minister has committed to consultations in the regulatory stage, at which point we will have further definition of the requirements of first nations and would consult with them on that basis. The preliminary estimates for those incremental costs have already been made public by the minister, and I think have been subject to some discussion at the committee.
In the specific case here, this is not a new requirement of first nations, and I apologize if I wasn't clear in the previous response on that one. These are not new obligations. For example, if the band has the responsibility for these issues, either under the Indian Act or under Bill C-7, they're funded out of the capital program put in place for these things.
In section 34, it says that a band--and you can substitute, as my colleague referenced, “roads, bridges, ditches and fences” for “infrastructure”--has that responsibility; and not only does it have the responsibility for them, it must maintain them according to instructions issued by the superintendent. It is the existing Indian Act we're talking about now, not Bill C-7. When they don't do so, the minister may cause the instruction to be carried out and then bill the band.
Given that the stated purpose of Bill C-7, especially as amended by the committee, is to remove the minister wherever possible from unnecessary intrusion into band affairs, this seems like an area that would qualify as intrusive, and that's why it's suggested it be deleted.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
(Clauses 46 and 47 agreed to on division)
(On clause 48)
The Chair: Monsieur Loubier.
¿ (2110)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier:
I would like an explanation of clause 48. I am not sure that I really understand it. We must be less intelligent than the officials here at the table, but let us look at this clause:
| 48. Subsection 64.1(2) of the Act is replaced by the following : |
| (2) Where the council of the band makes a band law under paragraph 17(1) iof the FIrst Nations Governance Act bringing the subsection into effect, a person who has received an amount that exceeds $1,000 under paragraph 15(1)(a), as it read immediately prior to April 17, 1985, or under any former provision of this Act relating to the same subject-matter as that paragraph,— |
This is obviously the popularized version that everyone can understand, right?
| --by reason of ceasing to be a member of the band in the circumstances set out in paragraph 6(1)(c), (d) or (e) is not entitled to receive any benefit offered to members of the band as individuals as a result of the expenditure of Indian monies under paragraphs 64(1)(b) to (k), subsection 66(1) or subsection 69(1) until the amount by which the amount so received exceed $1,000, together with any interest thereon, has been repaid to the band. |
There it is! I would like someone to explain all that. I understand paragraph 17(1)(i) of the Act, but when it gets to the wording prior to April 17, 1985, I am lost. I would like someone to tell me what this is about and what is contained in paragraphs 6(1)(c), (d) and (e), as well as paragraphs 64(1)(b) to (k), subsection 66(1) and subsection 69(1). I would like an explanation. I have been reading and rereading all this, but I think that democracy is poorly served because no one can understand anything from all this.
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: I'd be happy to explain the effect of the amendment to clause 48. I'm not in a position to give a detailed explanation of the legislative history behind section 64.1 of the Indian Act.
What the amendment to clause 48 does is very simple. At the moment there is a reference in subsection 64.1(2) of the Indian Act to paragraph 81(1)(p.4). That paragraph is being repealed by this bill and the equivalent power to paragraph 81(1)(p.4) is now found in paragraph 17(1)(i) of this bill; that power, of course, being a reference to bringing subsection 64.1(2) of the Indian Act into effect in respect of that band.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: That is a very clear explanation. I am fully satisfied.
I am completely frustrated by your explanation. It does not tell me anything at all. What difference does it make that paragraphs 64(1)(d) or (b) were repealed? What does it mean? What do we make of it? How does the fact of repealing paragraph 64(1)(d) and transferring it to section 11 facilitate first nations governance? How does it improve things for the first nations? I have no idea. What are subsection 66(1) and 69(1) about? I would like this explained in concrete terms without any reference to repealing or transferring provisions. I want to understand the purpose of this.
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: Just to clarify, we're not repealing paragraph 64.(1)(b); we're repealing paragraph 81(1)(p.4). This paragraph right now talks about a first nation or band having bylaw-making power to bring subsection 10(3), which has now been repealed, or subsection 64.1(2) into effect in respect of that band.
¿ (2115)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I would like to know what clause 48 does in concrete terms for first nations people and how it strengthens their governance power. I would like to know how it can help makes self-government a reality, how it feeds aboriginal children on reserves, what it brings to the bill. I want this explained? Repealing paragraphs 64(1)(d) or (e) does not mean anything at all to me and probably does not mean much to the first nations representatives either. This is gobbledygook. It probably does not mean very much to the liberal members either.
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: Okay, perhaps I haven't made myself clear. What we're looking at right now are consequential amendments to other acts. These are amendments that are required by virtue of the fact that we have now replaced certain sections of the Indian Act.
We're no longer dealing with the substantive provisions of Bill C-7; therefore it is not to these consequential amendments that we're going to be looking in order to see what benefits Bill C-7 brings. The benefits of Bill C-7 are in the clauses that this committee has already considered and debated.
Right now we're merely looking at very technical changes. These are consequential changes to the Indian Act as a result of the repeal of certain sections of the Indian Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: That is precisely what I would like to know, Mr. Salembier. You said that the consequential amendments arising from Bill C-7 will enable us to see the benefits that this bill brings. I am therefore asking you how the repeal of other provisions, especially paragraphs 64(1)(b) to (k) and subsections 66(1) and 69(1), will enable us to see the advantages brought by Bill C-7, when in fact, after more than 115 hours of debate, we have not yet seen any benefits that will come from the implementation of Bill C-7.
Tell me, in concrete terms, how the amendments appearing in clause 48 will enable us to see the benefits of the bill more clearly and help us ascertain what these benefits are. It is all well and good for you to say that there will be benefits, but before I tell you whether or not I will be supporting clause 48, I would like to know what they are. Up until now, you have not been able to demonstrate that this is the case. What are these benefits? How will clause 48, by repealing certain provisions of other acts, particularly the Indian Act, bring out these benefits?
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: I think my colleague is quite willing to take a shot at encapsulating the benefits of Bill C-7. As I say, the impact of this change is to deal with the situation. You don't want someone reading through the Indian Act and finding a reference in subsection 64.1(2) to section 81 of the Indian Act, and then going to section 81 and finding it's repealed. That is the sole purpose of such a consequential amendment.
But in terms of the benefits of the bill itself, Mr. Boileau would be happy to comment on that.
Mr. Dave Boileau (Senior Adviser, First Nations Directorate, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): I can understand your difficulty in understanding this particular clause, because it is probably one of the more difficult clauses of the bill to understand. I'll just explain a few things.
When it mentions April 17, 1985, in that clause, that's the date that Bill C-31 came into effect. People who had previously lost status for marrying out, let's say, could apply to be reinstated under the Indian Act. Paragraphs 6(1)(c), 6(1)(d), and 6(1)(e) refer to sections of the Indian Act whereby a person becomes registered as a status Indian.
Prior to Bill C-31, when an Indian lost status, in certain cases that person could receive a certain proportionate share of the band's assets. In other words, that person could go to the band's capital or revenue account. Let's say the band had $1,000 in their capital account and there were 100 registered Indians belonging to that band. A per capita share would be $10. So that person would be allowed an amount of $10 when that person lost status.
But it gets a little complicated, because if a person belonged to a band and that band had lots of money--certain bands, for instance, in Alberta have millions of dollars in their accounts--if the amount a person received upon loss of his or her status was over $1,000, that band member at that time, prior to 1985, would have received a larger amount of money--say $10,000.
This says subsection 64.1(2) allows the band to recoup any moneys paid, under $1,000. The band would be able to collect the first $1,000.
I hope that sheds some light on that.
¿ (2120)
The Chair: Thank you.
Does anyone else wish to comment?
Mr. Pat Martin: I do.
The Chair: Mr. Martin, on clause 48.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, I'm glad Mr. Loubier chose to intervene on clause 48, because I've certainly learned something, and I think other committee members have learned something as well. Had we known this about clause 48, we might have been interested in moving amendments. It's incredibly complex. It really does take a lawyer to understand this.
Frankly, in our reading of this, we didn't understand what clause 48 meant--which only goes to illustrate the complexity of this bill and the rushed, hurried approach the government is taking to plow this bill through. I would guarantee that no one in a first nations community out there in this country understands this clause 48 and that it pertains to Bill C-31.
Everybody knows about Bill C-31. That was in 1985. A lot of first nations are still trying to cope with the impact of Bill C-31. Their band membership lists grew because of Bill C-31, yet there was no commensurate transfer of funds and resources to accommodate this increased membership list.
So everybody knows all about Bill C-31. They've been struggling to provide the basic needs for members of their community because of Bill C-31.
Everybody also realizes that Bill C-31 opens a whole can of worms in terms of some of the human rights complaints that are bound to come from the fact that we've just passed the clause regarding the Canadian Human Rights Act. Frankly, some of the human rights complaints that are probably going to come forward will stem from Bill C-31 new members of band lists who rightfully wish to now claim the benefits that flow from band membership, and the band-in-council finds itself unable to provide those benefits to those individuals who are now legitimately part of the band membership list. There's not enough money to go around. There wasn't enough money to go around to provide the basic needs for the existing band list, never mind the expanded band list as it grew under Bill C-31.
Again, this illustrates that there's very little real comprehension in first nations communities about what this bill actually entails and what it will do to them. It hasn't been around long enough for it to resonate and percolate through the communities to where they can make an informed choice about whether they support or object to this bill.
I went to a first nation called Pauingassi in northern Manitoba recently. I took the leader of our party, Jack Layton, to Pauingassi. I wanted to show him what reserve life is like in northern Manitoba. We asked the band-in-council in Pauingassi what they thought of Bill C-7, and they said they didn't know anything about it. So I dug into my briefcase and said “Here are some copies of the bill for you”. They said “No, we've had copies of the bill for months. We have the bill, but we don't know what it means. We don't understand what effect it will have on our lives, so we don't know anything about it. You ask us what we think about Bill C-7; we don't know. Look at it; it's pages and pages of complex legalese that will change the way we do business in our community, and you ask us what we think about it?” They simply don't know. That's a graphic illustration of this, Mr. Chairman.
Maybe the experts will argue that this is a fairly innocuous clause that has consequential amendments to other bills, and so on. That's not the point. The fact is, even I, who have spent months studying this bill, didn't understand what this clause was about. It just about flew past us undebated, unamended.
Thankfully, Mr. Loubier had the sense to ask questions about it. I appreciate his doing that, because it paints the picture for me. This is not inconsequential; this is an issue of substance, an issue of the recoupment of money up to a certain dollar value. It may be a large amount of money. This should have been dealt with in more detail by this committee, but because of this unreasonable timeframe in which the government is ramming this bill through....
If we were working at a normal pace, the pace most committees work at, we would be meeting for two hours a day, twice a week. There would be time in between those days to analyse, research, and study, and there would be time within those days of meeting for information to percolate out into the communities so that communities would be aware of what clauses were going to be coming up for debate later that day.
We can't even prepare properly to debate the clauses as they come forward, because the government doesn't want to debate its own amendments. So we spend hours preparing our submissions and our presentations on certain amendments, and the government decides it's not going to amend those today; it's going to stand those particular motions.
¿ (2125)
On every one of the government's amendments today--I don't know what they're up to, but it's something sneaky, I presume--they've moved a motion to have that amendment stand, which means it goes back to the bottom of the pile, where all the notes and all the preparation that we spent weeks developing to prepare for debating those particular amendments are now meaningless, and we're further ahead than we meant to be. Had we thought we would be as far as clause 48 tonight, we would have done some research on this clause.
That's part of the unfairness of it all. It's unfair to me, but it's even more unfair to first nations people who rely on us to at least give voice to their concerns at this committee table. I can't even do that in any sufficient way, with the way the government is bouncing around. It's completely unfair.
Fairness seems to have been tossed out the window with reason and logic. They were all thrown out together in one big bucket, and what we're left with is really an incomprehensible process.
You heard the former Prime Minister of Canada here express his frustration earlier today about the operation of this committee. He couldn't believe his eyes. He said it had been a long time since he had done any committee work, but he couldn't believe this, that committee work had degenerated to this, trying to move points of order and being suspended. The committee suspends arbitrarily for 15 minutes or half an hour until you shut up sometimes.
A voice: It's a big joke.
Mr. Pat Martin: It has become just a farce. It has become a comedy, comedia del arte. You expect Punch and Judy to be chasing each other around with little slapsticks.
I'm not proud of the fact that I wasn't aware of the impact of clause 48, but I am pleased that my colleague dug a little bit deeper.
If anything, to me it illustrates what's fundamentally wrong with this entire process. It's now the middle of the night, or approaching the middle of the night. We've been sitting for twelve and a half hours. Most of us are exhausted. You'd be dishonest if you said you weren't exhausted after sitting here for twelve and a half hours. How are we supposed to do justice to any aspect of this bill? How are we supposed to do justice to the many grievances and complaints about the bill that have been brought to our attention?
For the people who are relying on us to give voice to their concerns, we can't do justice to it because we're exhausted, and I think that's by design. That's exactly what the parliamentary secretary has in mind, to grind down dissent, to stifle dissent. That seems to be the operative word of the day on the part of the Liberals with this bill--
A voice: Shame on you. Shame.
Mr. Pat Martin: --to stifle any dissent, even the legitimate interventions by members of Parliament around this committee.
We're denied access to all the documentation we need. We're denied adequate resources to do our job. We can't even have the legal opinions that the government has commissioned regarding the impact of this bill on court cases or on the Constitution.
We have legal opinions that say this bill infringes upon constitutionally recognized rights. The government says it has legal opinions to the contrary, but it won't show them to us, to members of the committee.
The arrogance of the government is astounding in dealing with this bill, and I feel badly. Mostly I feel badly for the people who give up their time to come and watch these proceedings.
¿ (2130)
It's a travesty that the chairman arbitrarily cut off the broadcasting by which people could actually watch these proceedings from their home on CPAC or in first nations like Pauingassi, where they have no idea what we're doing to them in the middle of the night back here in Ottawa. They could at least tune in and get some idea about the clauses we're dealing with here tonight. But they don't have even that opportunity, because even though the cameras are here and we're in a televised room, the chairman, in his wisdom, has decided he doesn't want anybody to see what happens in this room. The chairman has arbitrarily cut off the televised broadcast of these proceedings, and it's wrong. It's fundamentally wrong, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin; your time is up.
More debate?
We'll have a recorded vote on clause 48.
(Clause 48 agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)
(On clause 49)
The Chair:Clause 49. Monsieur Loubier, debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: What right does the parliamentary secretary have to take my place?
You should ask for the floor instead of talking when the microphones have been turned off. I do not understand you. You are full of ideas and you want to initiate a debate. So talk into the microphone, unless you are ashamed of what you are saying. That is another kettle of fish.
I would like the officials to provide me with some clarification with respect to clause 49. I would like to thank Mr. Boileau, who provided me with some explanations a little earlier. I finally understood what this clause was all about and what all of the implications were. When you are given a good explanation, you are quick to understand. We must not underestimate the intelligence of the people sitting around the table. That would not be a good idea.
So I would like to know what clause 49 is all about. What is the scope of this clause?
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: First of all, it refers to subsection 66(2.1). Section 66 deals with the revenue moneys of the band. Actually, I should have pointed out in clause 48, when we talked about that, it talks about section 64 and 69 of the Indian Act. Those sections both deal with the expenditure of capital or revenue, what are called trust moneys, of the band. So section 66 deals with the revenue moneys that are held by the department in a trust account for any given band. Every band in the country has both a capital and a revenue account.
This is simply saying that a band can make a law pursuant to paragraph 17(1)(h) of the First Nations Governance Act so that when one of their members is deleted from the membership list of that band, this law basically allows the minister to make up to a one-per-capita-share payment to that individual Indian.
For instance, let's say somebody marries out, they transfer to another first nation, and they're in a very wealthy first nation that has millions of dollars in the trust account. In order to compensate that person, they're not forced to, but if they want to, they can make a law so that individual receives a per capita share of whatever is in the band's revenue account at the date of deletion.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: If I have understood correctly, Mr. Boileau, that means that the trust monies of a first nation continue to be managed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is that right?
¿ (2135)
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: It doesn't impact at all the way the department manages the trust moneys of the band. Revenue moneys come into the band's trust account, in the revenue account, through such things as land leases. So if there's an agricultural lease, that money would flow into the band's revenue account. They would continue to manage that the same way. They would continue to pay interest on that, any amounts in that account. Those moneys would flow into the revenue account in the same way. So it would not impact the way the department manages the trust accounts of that band other than the fact that the minister would receive a request from a band to make a disbursement. So it's just on a one-transaction basis dealing with this one particular issue.
I hope that clarifies it.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Where does this trust money come from? What does this first nation's trust money primarily include?
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: As I mentioned, in the revenue account there are capital moneys and there are revenue moneys. In the capital account you get the proceeds from non-renewable resources--things like oil, gas, sand, gravel--and those kinds of moneys flow into a band's capital account. With the sale of timber, that money would flow into a band's capital account.
In terms of a revenue account, as I mentioned earlier, it would be things like a land lease, or an agricultural lease. If a band leases a plot of land on the reserve to a band member, or a third party, that money would flow into the band's revenue account. As I mentioned also, interest on either the capital or revenue account also flows into the revenue account. So that's where the money flows from.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Boileau, why didn't we design Bill C-7 to ensure that the revenue of the first nations, and everything that constitutes capital revenue money, is managed by the representatives, the leaders of the first nations? Why is the management of this trust money still in the hands of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development? Wasn't the purpose of Bill C-7 to establish a new type of relationship with the first nations? I do not understand why the minister continues to manage funds that belong to the first nations.
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: Moneys in the band's revenue or capital account are considered to be trust moneys of the band, in colloquial terms, and there are fiduciary obligations with respect to those--
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, but why doesn't the band manage this money?
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: --so the minister has committed not to tamper with those. In fact, the minister has, I believe, announced that he's going to be introducing legislation to deal with the capital revenue moneys of a band as well as oil and gas. I believe he's going to be doing that as well. So those will be dealt with separately.
This deals with the law-making powers. If we didn't do anything here to deal with law-making, this deals with the ability of the band to make a law in a very narrow area, and that power should continue, otherwise you wouldn't want to put individual Indians out of having an inability--
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: This is a bill about Aboriginal governance. I do not understand, Mr. Boileau, why you did not think about handing back to the first nations the power to manage this trust money, which includes capital revenue as well as revenue coming from other sources such as, for example, the sale of non-renewable resources, timber, etc.
I would also like to know if the money used to pay the co-managers is drawn from this trust fund or from another fund.
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: I'm sorry, would you mind repeating that? I'm getting comments from different sources.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Of course. Does the money used to pay the on-reserve co-managers come from the trust money of the first nations or does it come from another source?
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: It doesn't come from the trust moneys of the band; it comes from other moneys available to the department. You're talking about moneys paid to the co-managers on behalf of the band and the department, sure. So the moneys don't come from the trust moneys of the band; they come from other sources. They don't come from the band's own moneys.
¿ (2140)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Okay. Let's talk about the bill now, Mr. Boileau, which may eventually be presented by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. Would this bill give back to the first nations the power to manage this trust money or would it instead reconfirm the minister's authority with respect to the trust money belonging to the first nations?
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: What it comes down to is a wait and see situation. I'm not sure myself exactly what's going to go into any bill related to trust moneys. But for many years, first nations have demanded that they would like to have control of their trust moneys, and I think it's a good idea that bands do this. What the legislation will do, I believe, is provide mechanisms for bands who want control of their moneys in one way or another to be able to attain that.
But I'm just conjecturing here. I don't know exactly what's going to be in that bill, and it would be foolhardy for me to say much more than what I've already said.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I understand. Nevertheless, why does a bill on governance not provide for any conditions detailing how management's authority for these funds, which belong to the first nations, could be transferred? I just don't understand this. That means that the minister could use this money in order to, for example, get refunded for work carried out on first nation land that he deemed necessary even though the band council had decided that such work was not required in the short-term. The minister could decide that such work was necessary and use the money belonging to the first nations in order to get a refund for the work that, in the very opinion of those living on the first nation land, felt was not necessary. That is quite possible, right? This attitude is quite incredible.
[English]
The Chair: Time is up.
Mr. Comartin
Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair
[Translation]
Mr. Loubier, I will continue along the same vein as you.
[English]
Could we have an answer to that last question in terms of drawing the funds for these other purposes, as Mr. Loubier asked?
Mr. Dave Boileau: The minister would never do that.
Mr. Joe Comartin: That's not the question. Is it possible?
Mr. Dave Boileau: Is it possible? The minister doesn't do it--that's all I know. I'd have to look up in terms of what the Indian Act says with respect to sections 64 and 66. I've worked in Indian moneys for years. I know the minister has never arbitrarily taken money out of a band's revenue and trust accounts since I've been there, that's for sure.
Mr. Joe Comartin: So let me get this straight.
Mr. Dave Boileau: Maybe I should step back for a second, now that I think about it.
If you look at what sections 64 and 66 say, in order for the minister to take money out of a band's account, it has to be on the basis of a request made by a band council, so a band council would have to authorize it. A minister can't arbitrarily take money out of the band's revenue or capital account. There may be the odd exception there.
Mr. Paul Salembier: Perhaps I could add that the provision of the Indian Act that's being amended again provides for payments to members who are leaving the band, therefore being dropped off the band list, but these payments are always pursuant to a law made by the band. So it's even more than a mere request of the band council. In each of those cases the band passes a law to authorize the payment of these per capita shares to members who may leave the band.
¿ (2145)
Mr. Dave Boileau: Perhaps I could add one additional thing.
If you look at section 64 and section 66 of the Indian Act, which I just have, it starts out by saying, “With the consent of the council of the band, the Minister may authorize expenditures of capital moneys” from either the capital or revenue account.
Moneys won't flow out of the band's account unless the council gives consent. It usually does that in the form of a band council resolution. The minister can't just arbitrarily authorize the expenditures of funds from those accounts.
Mr. Paul Salembier: And vice versa, the band cannot remove any of these without first passing bylaws pursuant to clause 17 and having the permission of the minister.
Mr. Dave Boileau: That's right.
Mr. Paul Salembier: Technically, under clause 17 they don't require the minister's permission to make a law. Maybe that wasn't what you were getting at.
Mr. Joe Comartin: I realize that under clause 17 they don't, but as I read clauses 47 and 49, the minister does not have to follow that direction. The minister may--not “shall”--make expenditures.
Mr. Dave Boileau: You're right. The band makes the bylaw and then they would submit a band council resolution to the minister consenting to the release of money to a particular individual under the terms of the bylaw. The minister gets that request and he would then determine as to whether there has been a bylaw made, whether it exceeds the one-per-capita share, those kinds of things, and then would release the payment if all the things are in order.
Mr. Joe Comartin: But he doesn't have to.
Mr. Dave Boileau: He doesn't have to, no.
Mr. Joe Comartin: So that paternalism that was in the Indian Act is being perpetuated here.
Mr. Dave Boileau: It's one of those things that probably should be changed, yes.
Mr. Paul Salembier: One thing that might be worth noting is that under section 69 there is the ability for the minister to delegate to the band itself the power to manage its revenue funds, and a large number of first nations have taken advantage of that--Dave would know--perhaps even a majority.
Mr. Dave Boileau: Something like two-thirds, pursuant to section 69.
Mr. Joe Comartin: But once delegated, is it permanent, or is it withdrawable by the minister?
Mr. Dave Boileau: The minister can revoke that authority if it's abused by the council, in his opinion.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Or at the whim of the minister.
Mr. Dave Boileau: The minister wouldn't do it by a whim. He would do it on the basis of some particular problem, I would assume.
Mr. Paul Salembier: As Mr. Boileau says, two-thirds of first nations are in fact managing their own revenue accounts, so these determinations about authorizing these payments would in fact be done by the band council itself. They would have a law passed, but it would be the council itself that would carry through in authorizing the payment to a departing band member. At least in two-thirds of the cases that power rests entirely within the first nation.
Mr. Joe Comartin: But if the minister is so inclined, at any time he or she can move back in and revoke that authority.
Mr. Paul Salembier: That's the nature of a delegated power. I believe within the department there exist guidelines on that issue that would govern decision-making in that respect.
Mr. Dave Boileau: What Mr. Salembier is referring to is subsection 69(1) of the Indian Act. It says:
| The Governor in Council may by order permit a band to control, manage and expend in whole or in part its revenue moneys and may amend or revoke any such order. |
So at any time the minister can do it. It doesn't give conditions under which he can do it, but....
Mr. Joe Comartin: Can you tell us the amount of money we're speaking of that's under the control of the minister at this point?
Mr. Dave Boileau: I don't know exactly the amount at this time, but it's roughly $1 billion in both capital and revenue moneys—at least it was a few years ago, and I don't think it has changed substantively since then.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Is that $1 billion in each account?
Mr. Dave Boileau: No, in total it would be $1 billion. The majority of it would be in the capital account.
Mr. Joe Comartin: You indicated earlier that about two-thirds of that is at least currently under control.
Mr. Dave Boileau: Actually, I think about 70% of all bands have control of their revenue moneys.
Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm sorry, I just want to be clear here. Is the $1 billion what's left in the hands of the minister, or—
Mr. Dave Boileau: The minister has $1 billion in the departmental trust accounts. If you go to the Public Accounts of Canada, you'll see capital and revenue accounts, and it will show you the amounts in each. It's public information. I believe there's probably about $800 million to $850 million in capital, compared with maybe $150 million in revenue. I can give you those exact amounts tomorrow, perhaps, but I can't right at this moment.
Mr. Joe Comartin: There are a number of people in this room we don't expect to be here tomorrow, but I think Mr. Martin would like to have that, so if you could, provide it to his office.
But I want to be clear here. Is it $1 billion in total between the 70% that's in the bands' hands and the money in the minister's hands, or is it $1 billion in the minister's—
Mr. Dave Boileau: The Department of Indian Affairs, for the Government of Canada, holds $1 billion in its accounts.
¿ (2150)
Mr. Joe Comartin: And they've delegated 70% of that to be in control—
Mr. Dave Boileau: The expenditure power over a small...not over 70% of that money, no, but 70% of bands have the power to manage about $150 million. That's the amount that I believe is in the revenue account, at least the last time I looked. This is several years ago, but it's still probably in the ballpark.
Mr. Joe Comartin: So that we're clear, those funds—capital or revenue—are not in a bank account in the names of the individual bands?
Mr. Dave Boileau: The minister holds those moneys in an account. Every band is listed in the account, and every band has a capital and a revenue account.
Mr. Joe Comartin: How do you treat the interest on this money?
Mr. Dave Boileau: All the interest, whether on the capital account or on a revenue account, flowing from those moneys goes into the revenue account. Then bands use that money; those bands that have 70% of their money and have control of their revenue moneys often set out budgets. They still have to make a request to the minister for those funds.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Who determines how the money in the capital account is invested?
Mr. Dave Boileau: It's on the basis of interest moneys. I believe the Governor in Council sets the interest rates.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Is some of this money in the equity markets?
Mr. Dave Boileau: I believe it is not at the present time, but I think that is something the new bill may address. I don't have that particular specific information.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Are there regulations or is there policy under the existing act that prohibits moneys from being invested in the equity markets?
Mr. Dave Boileau: I can't answer that; I don't know.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Salembier, do you know? I'm asking if there are regulations or policies under the existing legislation that direct or prohibit the investment of this money in the equity markets.
Mr. Paul Salembier: There are regulations that set the rate of interest. It's generally part of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada, but these are separate accounts within that fund. The money within the fund is going to be treated the same way the Government of Canada treats any amounts in the consolidated revenue fund.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.
Madame Lalonde.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde: I may not have followed everything, but could you tell me how much money we're talking about in this bill when we talk about an amount not to exceed a one per capita share of this amount? What is the maximum amount that the minister can use from this fund in order to compensate someone whose name has been taken off the band list?
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: Well, again, it's a one-per-capita share of the revenue monies of that particular band. If that band has $10,000 and there are 1,000 members, that person will get $10. In some cases a member could get much more, if there's a lot of money in a band's account. Some of the Alberta bands, for instance, have millions of dollars in their accounts. In those particular cases they'd get lots of money. Other bands with small amounts would get smaller amounts of money. It's on a per-band basis.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde: Thank you very much. We have been told that the objective of this bill was to empower bands to assume their responsibilities. So could you explain why we feel the need to give the minister the authority to resolve something that is much less serious than a lot of the other responsibilities that have been given to the bands? Turning over your share to someone who is leaving is quite a simple matter. Why does the minister have the authority to do that? Why wouldn't this be a regular responsibility of the band, when it notices that one of its members is leaving? Why does the minister need to do that?
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: I agree fully with you. The band probably should have that power, and hopefully that's something that new legislation related to Indian moneys can address. But what this particular amendment does is just empower the band to enact a bylaw that--
¿ (2155)
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde: That is not what is written...
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: I know that's maybe not your question, but—
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde: No. You answered my question. But what you said at the end of your comments does not reflect what is written in this bill. The bill does not state that the minister can respond to a request from the band. It says that the minister may make expenditures out of the revenue monies. The bill does not stipulate that the minister is responding to a request made by the band. That is not what is written.
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: But the minister would understand what the request of the band is and would respond on that basis. The minister normally does. I've never seen a case where he doesn't, with respect to this section of the Indian Act.
[Translation]
Ms. Francine Lalonde: You are talking about what should occur. However, the bill states that the minister “may”. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chair: Are we ready for the question on clause 49?
(Clause 49 agreed to on division)
(On clause 50)
The Chair: On clause 50, is there any debate?
Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier:
I would like an official, probably Mr. Boileau, to explain the scope of clause 50, which reads as follows:
| 50. Section 71 of the act and the heading before it are repealed. |
What does that mean in concrete terms?
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: It refers to section 71 of the act. What this amendment does is basically repeal all of section 71. This is a provision that hasn't been used in years. I can remember looking at this, and if I recall correctly, the department hasn't operated a farm in something like 40 years or more. It's just a provision that doesn't happen. The minister doesn't operate farms any more; bands operate the farms. They're quite capable of doing that. It says the minister “may employ such persons as he considers necessary to instruct Indians”. It's very paternalistic; it represents an old way of doing things that is inappropriate. I guess that's all; I'm not sure if it answers your question.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes. However, Mr. Boileau, you should have advised the minister about all the sections of the Act, because the ones that we have been studying since the beginning also reflect this paternalism that you have just criticized. This ministerial prerogative in section 71 is being abandoned because you say that in any case, the minister does not use it. He does not get involved in farming operations. Why did he not have the same reflex for other activities that come under the Indian Act? Why did you not use the Governance bill as an opportunity to apply the same reasoning to, and remove all the elements that might cause friction or that reflect paternalism, imperialism, feudalism, since feudalism is quite present in this bill?
In 110 or 112 hours we have had the opportunity to look at each and every provision and in section 50, things started to make sense; you start talking about paternalism in the Indian Act and say that section 71 is being repealed because in any event the minister is not concerned with farming operations and that maintaining such dominance towards aboriginal peoples is not appropriate. In that case, why did you not have the same reaction, the same modern vision that should determine the relationship between the federal government and first nations, as you have just mentioned about section 71 of the Indian Act and clause 50 of the bill? It seems to me that it would have been easy to press this analysis upon the minister, Mr. Boileau.
À (2200)
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Boileau, you're welcome to respond if you wish, but this committee doesn't expect that you will be defending public policy.
Mr. Dave Boileau: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Salembier might be able to add a few thoughts anyway.
Mr. Paul Salembier: Yes. I think it's a good question, actually.
I think what's important to recognize is the linkage among these sections that are being repealed. All of these sections would constitute overlaps with band law-making powers. For example, here under clause 17's paragraph (1)(a) you have a band law-making power to dispose of agriculture products of farms. Each of these sections being repealed would otherwise constitute an overlap with those powers. That's why these particular provisions are being repealed and others are not.
As we've mentioned before in relation to some of the other provisions of the act, the minister had given an undertaking at the start of the consultations on this bill that he would not amend sections of the Indian Act that relate to the fiduciary obligations of the Crown. That's why some other sections that you might otherwise think would be ripe for amendment were not touched at this particular time.
Of course, some of them have already been addressed by optional legislation, such as the First Nations Land Management Act. This committee is going to be seeing Bill C-19, which will address some of the other aspects of what are now presently areas of ministerial control. But these particular amendments are tied to the new band law-making powers in clauses 16 to 18.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: But, Mr. Salembier, how can the minister suggest publicly, as the Prime Minister did in the House of commons in response to a question I put to him—you can check, if you wish, in the transcript of question period three weeks ago—, that Bill C-7 is meant to replace the Indian Act? How can he say that when you have just told me that most sections of the Indian Act were not being repealed, except for provisions such as section 71 on farming operations which, in any event, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has not used in the last 40 years or so? How can something be replaced if it is not repealed? You will have to explain that one to me. If you are not repealing and replacing, that means that in fact the Indian Act is being maintained and Bill C-7 is just a new piece of legislation. Can you explain to me the ministerial and prime ministerial statements?
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: Not even being an employee of the Department of Indian Affairs, I think it would be beyond my mandate to clarify that minister's position.
However, concerning the portions of the Indian Act that are being repealed, when we look into this bill, clauses 43 through to clause 53 give you a list of the provisions of the Indian Act that are being repealed. To that extent, I don't think any of the witnesses before this committee have claimed that the Indian Act itself is being replaced, but substantial portions of it—and certainly the portions of the Indian Act relating to governance—are in fact being repealed. And of course Bill C-7 is a substitute therefor.
The Chair: Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Does Mr. Boileau have anything to add? Because I am still wondering. It is a matter of logic. You cannot say that a piece of legislation is disappearing if most of its provisions are being maintained. You cannot say that this bill is replacing an act that is meant to disappear while you are preserving most of it. So, at the end of the day, we have to face the fact and recognize that the Canadian Bar Association, the Barreau du Québec and the Assembly of First Nations were right in their analysis. The Indian Act is not being replaced; another piece of legislation is being added to it, making it more complicated to interpret the rights of first nations and their exercise of their inherent right to self-government. This bill solves nothing. You have merely dusted off the Indian Act by repealing sections that the minister has not used in the last 40 years, such as the provisions about farming operations.
I am really increasingly embarrassed about this bill. Surely you have noticed during the first 110 hours of debate that I am embarrassed by this bill. The further we get in our clause by clause consideration, the more I tell myself that what we heard from the minister and the Prime Minister is garbage. Shameless lies. You cannot say that you are replacing when in fact you are preserving and adding an additional piece of legislation.
Moreover, the Barreau du Québec cautioned us against that when they asked how Bill C-7 would be interpreted in relation to the Indian Act which is being maintained and in relation to federal regulations in various areas, such as labour laws. That is the example that the Barreau du Québec gave us.
Also, how are you going to reconcile all of that with the first nations' prerogatives as set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and in the Constitution?
Finally, when you mix all that together, you realize that an additional level of court challenges has also been added. That is too bad—you are right, dear colleague—because that is not what we had hoped for as a foundation for our relationship with first nations over the next decades. What we really wanted, as in the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, was a renewal, a modernization of our relationship with first nations. But, what we got instead was a bill that removes the cobwebs from some sections of the Indian Act which, in any event, were no longer used, but which maintains the substance of the act, as Mr. Salembier mentioned earlier. That is a problem.
À (2205)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.
Mr. Comartin.
[English]
Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Boileau, I think you answered Mr. Loubier that none of these farms is being operated at this period of time. Is that correct?
Mr. Dave Boileau: That's right—and for some time.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Do you know how long it's been?
Mr. Dave Boileau: I don't know exactly, but I remember reading something written in 1961 suggesting that even back then they didn't have any farms. I can't swear to it, but at least in the last few decades there haven't been any; that's for sure.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Okay. Now I'm going to ask Mr. Salembier, has this section of the current act ever been subject to litigation by the first nations as creating a right? Have the courts ever been asked to address whether, by convention and practice, that section created a right in the first nations?
Mr. Paul Salembier: I don't have any independent knowledge of that. If you like, I can check to see whether there are any cases cited under section 71, but that would be the extent of my knowledge on section 71 per se. As Mr. Boileau has said, it's more or less a spent provision. There are no cases cited on it in the annotated Indian Act. That doesn't prove a negative, of course, but given that it hasn't been used for 40 years, it wouldn't be surprising that there would be very little on it.
Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm sorry, Mr. Boileau couldn't tell me how long it's been. Are you sure it's 40 years?
Mr. Paul Salembier: Mr. Boileau thought it was in the neighbourhood of 40 years or so, and I wouldn't want to argue with that.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Similarly, if it was subject to current litigation, of course, it wouldn't be in the text you just looked at.
Mr. Dave Boileau: I know of no litigation, current or past, related to section 71.
Mr. Joe Comartin: What about by analogy, Mr. Salembier? I'm thinking of some of the cases on hunting and fishing, even those that involved commercial activity. I'm expressing concern here that the repeal of this may.... In fact, I don't think it's much of a stretch, given some of the other decisions we've had from the courts over the last decade or decade and a half, where they have looked very closely at the Indian Act, including practices that weren't necessarily specifically enunciated in the act, and required the government to compensate or to continue to provide the benefit.
I suppose the question really is that it's not beyond the pale that this could be seen as a section that does create benefits to some of the first nation bands by precedent and long-time practice, even though that practice may now be out of use.
À (2210)
Mr. Paul Salembier: I really wouldn't be able to venture an opinion on that. I would certainly enjoy engaging in a discussion of hunting and fishing cases with you, but again, most of those are related to treaty and aboriginal rights as opposed to the Indian Act. I think they would be pretty far from this provision in section 71 of the Indian Act.
I'm not sure that I personally would see a link, but again, I certainly wouldn't want to represent myself as being the Department of Justice's expert on aboriginal rights.
Mr. Joe Comartin: I suppose this is one of the problems the bar associations would have seen. In the course of the evidence we've had from witnesses, can you recall--I can't, in any of the readings I've done--if this section was ever challenged, in the sense of the repeal of this section, by any of the representations we have had, either from bar associations or from first nations themselves?
Mr. Paul Salembier: I can tell you that within the department, the representations by witnesses were tracked section by section, and to my knowledge there was no mention whatsoever of this section by any witnesses. I think we would have probably had a note on that. I think you are aware of the volume of presentations this committee received, but spread among a team of policy analysts, all of those presentations were read line by line, and tracked issue by issue, and to my recollection, nothing came up on section 71.
It's a pretty low-profile provision.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Maybe I have to go back to Mr. Boileau on this one. At the point when the government ceased operating farms on the reserves, was there any compensation paid, a transfer of assets? I'm thinking of equipment and that kind of thing. Did anything like that happen?
Mr. Dave Boileau: I have no idea. I have never seen anything on that. It's so old, we would have to do research on it. I really have no idea.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Similarly, you'd have no idea at the point when they ended it how extensive it was?
Mr. Dave Boileau: I'm not even sure exactly when it was ended. I mean, it has been decades. Again, it's possible it was handed over to the bands, but I just don't know.
Mr. Joe Comartin: This provision is not being replaced in any way in the new legislation?
Mr. Dave Boileau: There is bylaw-making power relating to things the band can do, but there is nothing specifically denoting farms. It's not being replaced by anything, no. It's just an antiquated provision that's being repealed because it has no relevance to anyone.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Just so that I'm clear, if a band wanted to run a farm operation, they'd be capable of doing that under some general sections.
Mr. Dave Boileau: They don't even need it. It doesn't even have to be addressed in the Indian Act. The band can just operate a farm on its own without....
Mr. Joe Comartin: But the new act has no provisions for the government to run any farms on first nations land?
Mr. Dave Boileau: No, that's right.
Mr. Joe Comartin: I have nothing further.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.
Is there anyone else?
(Clause 50 agreed to)
(On clause 51)
The Chair: Is there any debate on clause 51?
Monsieur Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga—Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr. Chairman, I am happy to see you again. You know that this is an issue that interests me.
I wonder if the counsels would be kind enough to explain the role of this section in the general scheme of the bill. I will start by a general question and then I will ask a specific one. Can I put my question to Mr. Boileau? You were not listening to me? Would you like me to repeat it? That's not a problem. I don't take it personally. Don't worry, you're not the first?
I was wondering whether you would be kind enough to explain the role of this section in the general scheme of the bill.
À (2215)
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: The Indian Act contains certain provisions that allow the Governor in Council to make regulations. Subsection 73.(1) lists a number of regulations, powers the minister could make regulations on, for a variety of things--paragraphs 73.(1)(a) to (m).
Paul would like to address that question.
Mr. Paul Salembier: I probably should address these questions, because I think that's why they hired me, for the regulation-making authorities.
We are repealing the regulation-making authorities in subsections 73(1) and 73(2) of the Indian Act. They're being replaced. They're either being simply gotten rid of and not being substituted, or a very few of them are being reproduced in clause 33 of this act. That's a clause this committee has already considered. In fact, the one you will see in clause 33 is the reference to regulations regarding waste disposal. That is the single regulation that is being carried over into the regulation-making powers under this act.
Other regulations, such as regulations for traffic on reserve, have been, you would say, devolved. They have now been transferred into law-making powers of first nations under clauses 16 to 18.
[Translation]
Traffic is mentioned in paragraph 16(1)(j).
Mr. Réal Ménard: So there are two types of regulations. There are those that could be made by the federal government, and I understand that those follow the normal process that is taught to us in law schools: a cooperation between the Department of Justice and the Privy Council, publication in the Canada Gazette, etc. From now on, there will also be those that will be vested in the bands, as a recognition of some of their prerogatives. However, the Indian Act still applies, doesn't it?
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: That's correct.
I'd want to be careful about characterizing. Again, here we perhaps have a French-English difference. In English, I wouldn't characterize what the band does as “regulations”. We refer to them as “band laws”.
[Translation]
I think that in French the term is “textes législatifs”. That may cause some confusion.
Mr. Réal Ménard: You don't want us to use the word “règlement”, because you don't think that that is the right concept. Sometimes, French has a kind of creative genius that we have got used to through the centuries, since Boileau. I am referring to the other Boileau, not yourself, though I am sure that you are a well-read person. If the word “règlement” is incorrect, which word do you suggest we use?
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: Certainly. We refer to them as band laws, if they're made by the band under clauses 16, 17, or 18, and regulations or règlements en français for the delegated legislation made by the Governor in Council. In terms of usage, I'm not suggesting you don't say that; I'm suggesting for the purposes of our discussion it might maintain a higher level of clarity if we use the different terms that describe the different types of law-making.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: I truly appreciate those subtleties. Believe me, there are not lost on us on the side of the table.
Concerning the coexistence of several levels of legislation, do you think that the Bloc Québécois fears are justified? We could end up with a multilevel legislation with no consistency. The fact that the Indian Act will continue to apply after the coming into force of the First Nations Governance Act might have an impact on the band laws. Does it seem to you that this was somewhat botched up and that there is a lack of consistency? Can you give me some reassurance about how all those things will coexist? Do you feel my concern?
À (2220)
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: I can try to reassure you, if that's possible. If you look in each of clauses 16, 17, and 18 of Bill C-7, you will see at the end of each clause that there is--for example, in subclause 16(2)--a paramountcy or a conflict provision. In fact, if you read them closely—they are slightly different in each of clauses 16, 17, and 18—they set out, in case of a conflict, which law will prevail.
For example, if you look in clause 17, if you have a band law on a certain area and you have a regulation made by the Governor in Council under an act that is other than Bill C-7 or the Indian Act, then in fact the band law will prevail over the Governor-in-Council regulation, and Parliament, by virtue of this provision, has expressly provided for that paramountcy.
In other sections, such as clause 16, you'll find that the regulation will prevail in the case of an inconsistency between the two.
So I think the bill itself, although one may have to read the provisions closely, fairly clearly sets out which law will apply in cases of overlap or inconsistency between them.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Fine. Obviously, the relevant question is the following—at any rate, I would never think of asking irrelevant questions—is that clause consistent with the 1982 philosophy? I don't need to tell you how important 1982 is. It is not just because it was 20 years ago. It is because there was a constitutional agreement in Canada. Some historians, when they speak about the year 1982, say that it was the year of the Aboriginals. A lot of hopes were raised in 1982, regarding the possibility of having legislation allowing for open dialogue with the Aboriginals. That is what our colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot has been trying to insist on for several hours now.
The question I have for any of our expert witnesses is the following: how is this clause consistent with what happened in 1982 and the provisions on Aboriginals that are in the Charter? I don't know whether my question is clear. I could perhaps rephrase it. You seem a little confused, Mr. Boileau. Would you like me to rephrase my question? Yes? At $200 an hour, you will have to take notes.
You may recall that in 1982, there was the entire question of repatriating the Constitution, that worried Mr. Lévesque, especially section 27 of the Canadian Charter on the entire issue of multiculturalism, but that is another matter all together. At the same time, in 1982, there was a constituent assembly, and we won't hide the fact. It was felt it was now the Aboriginals' turn and there was a willingness to repair past injustices they had suffered for centuries. We are trying to see how this bill is based on the 1982 philosophy of encouraging dialogue between two nations and to ensure that Aboriginal nations are treated fairly, given their historical contribution.
Mr. Chairman, I know that the clauses have to be interpreted based on other clauses, but when you look at them, it is difficult to relate to the 1982 philosophy. Mr. Boileau, I would like you to share with me your belief, enthusiastically if possible, that the way this clause reads...
The Chair: We won't have the time to do so. Thank you, Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Comartin.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Come on, Mr. Chairman! I will come back to it.
Mr. Joe Comartin: It is always that way, Mr. Ménard. We start presenting a valid argument, and then it is over.
[English]
Mr. Salembier, I understood section 73 is being deleted—repealed—because clause 33 is in effect designed to replace it. Do I understand that correctly?
Mr. Paul Salembier: Well, yes, that's partly true. In fact, a lot of the powers that were under section 73, you might say, are simply being vacated by the federal government. As I said, only one of the powers in relation to disposal of waste is being carried forward, and, as was explained when the witnesses spoke about the technical amendments in clauses 16 and 17, that was to ensure there's no legislative vacuum. During the period when a first nation might decide to make its own laws in relation to waste disposal, they wanted to make sure there's no legislative vacuum. The waste disposal regulations will be carried forward by virtue of the powers under paragraph 33(e), I believe it is, but I'll have to confirm. The rest of the powers are essentially either being taken over by bands--for example, regulation of traffic in paragraph 16(1)(j)--or simply the government's not going to regulate in that area any more.
À (2225)
Mr. Joe Comartin: Just to be more specific, there are no provisions in the existing subsection 73(1) that deal at all with accounting and business practices and the whole issue of accountability. Am I right in that?
Mr. Paul Salembier: Yes. You're skipping ahead, so to speak. If you look at paragraph 83(1)(a.1) of the Indian Act, which is also being repealed by this bill, that deals with licensing and businesses, etc. And that power again has found its way into clause 16, I believe, so it's carried forward.
Mr. Joe Comartin: We're going to get to that a little bit later. But let me just take you--
Mr. Paul Salembier: It's one of the subsequent amendments we're getting to actually quite shortly.
Mr. Joe Comartin: But let me just be clear on section 73. There was nothing in section 73 about how they conducted their business affairs.
Mr. Paul Salembier: Again, I don't believe so. I'll just take a quick look. I want to be careful about confirming a negative.
Mr. Dave Boileau: Paragraph 73(1)(m) deals with powers of bands to borrow money, a borrowing power, but other than that....
Mr. Joe Comartin: A traditional borrowing power that we see in--
Mr. Paul Salembier: Well, for businesses, there's supervision of “pool rooms, dance halls and other places of amusement”. To the extent that it might be considered a regulation of that particular type of business activity, it was in section 73.
Mr. Joe Comartin: We have the borrowing bylaw or provision regulating borrowing, and we have one regulating those specific businesses.
Mr. Dave Boileau: Well, you had a power to borrow, but there were no laws, no regulations made with respect to borrowing that I'm aware of.
Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm sorry, Mr. Boileau, I'm not catching the point.
Mr. Dave Boileau: Well, this allows the Governor in Council to make laws and regulations. It's not saying that there are regulations in these areas. There are some of these areas where there are no regulations.
Mr. Joe Comartin: The point there being that in spite of what I think is pretty unanimous agreement around the table of all parties that the present Indian Act is as criminalistic a piece of legislation as we have in this country.... In spite of that and all the attitudes—the now very offensive attitudes—as you've heard from us repeatedly, that were expressed in this legislation, the government at that time didn't deem it appropriate to pass the kinds of provisions we have for regulations under clause 33, demanding that they pass regulations and laws of their own to control their businesses.
Mr. Paul Salembier: I'm not sure if I understand your question. Could I get you to perhaps rephrase it?
Mr. Joe Comartin: The point was we have a very paternalistic act, yet under clause 33 we end up with even more regulations, specifically around financial matters, that were not contained in the current legislation.
Mr. Dave Boileau: Well, the Indian Act does not deal much with financial issues or financial accountability, period. That's one of the reasons it needs to be addressed in first nations governance. There's a vacuum there, basically, and this is an attempt to deal with issues of a financial nature--the bill in general.
À (2230)
Mr. Joe Comartin: Just to switch to subsection 73(2), the fine, or I guess the punishment.... I can't remember, clause 33 doesn't have a provision for punishment, does it?
Mr. Paul Salembier: Yes, those are tough questions.
Let's see, yes, it does, on waste disposal. It's the same punishment a first nation can impose under its law in relation to offences under subclause 19(2), which is $300,000 or six months' imprisonment. This is under clause 33 as amended by this committee.
Prior to that, I believe the fine that was provided for in the Indian Act was quite a bit lower. I think it was $5,000, something like that.
Mr. Joe Comartin: It's only $100 in subsection 73(2).
Mr. Paul Salembier: It's several orders of magnitude lower.
Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm just doing some quick mental calculation, Mr. Chair, as to whether inflation has increased that dramatically over that period of time. I don't think it has, or even come close to it.
Again, Mr. Chair, what we have here just boggles the mind. We now have this extremely offensive...probably at the time it was offensive, but certainly now it's an offensive piece of legislation. It has been the law of the country directing the operations of the first nations for the last 100-plus years. Even it wasn't as offensive as what we're finding in here, where we're having this federal government telling the first nations this is what they have to live by; these are the regulations we're going to pass requiring them to live by.
They didn't even do that 100-plus years ago, but they're now, in what continues to be a very paternalistic approach, perhaps extending that paternalism to other areas they didn't even deal with back in the time of the passing of this legislation in the last century. It cries out, obviously, for opposition to this type of authority, not just in this section, but throughout the rest of the bill that's being put before us.
Mr. Chairman, we heard repeatedly from the witnesses--I won't say just “primarily”, because it would seem to be almost entirely, from all of the witnesses--how offensive that type of attitude was, how it was important, when we repealed the Indian Act, that we didn't pursue that type of approach. Yet when we look at this particular section, where it's attempting to do away with.... I think you'd probably get some consensus that there are certainly parts of subsection 73(1) that we would see.... There are sections in here that clearly are out of date. I don't think many of the first nations would argue with that. And a great many of them, if not all, are offensive to their right to govern their own affairs. Probably all of them are. By repealing and replacing, at least in part, with clause 33, we don't go anywhere but down the same road the Indian Act first took us.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.
Now we'll go to the vote.
(Clause 51 carried on division)
(On clause 52)
The Chair: Monsieur Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Once again to ensure we do our jobs as legislators properly, I would like to ask a question of the gentleman in the middle. He seems very congenial, just like all the others in fact.
À (2235)
The Chair: If you ask questions, you will get an answer from the person best qualified to do so. They will decide that among themselves.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I would prefer to decide myself, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: No, we leave it up to the experts to decide.
Mr. Réal Ménard: But my question is for that gentleman, if I may.
I would like you to give me an idea of the measures that will be spared with clause 52, which we are currently discussing.
Mr. Karl Jacques (Counsel, Justice Canada): Section 74 of the Indian Act deals with the election of counsels. Since all that will be in the bill, those provisions are no longer required.
So the powers under section 74 of the Indian Act pertaining to the election of counsels would be transferred. That is why Bill C-7 is so efficient.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I knew that you had a great deal of expertise and your answer does not disappoint me.
So the electoral process found in the Indian Act is completely abolished. When we want to understand how the elections are going to be taking place in the various bands, we will now have to consult the First Nations Governance Act.
Did I understand you correctly?
Mr. Karl Jacques: These are the governance codes that will be adopted once the bill comes into effect. At that point, the governance codes will govern the elections.
Mr. Réal Ménard: What you can tell us about this electoral process under the new legislation? In fact, it hasn't been adopted yet, because you heard what Paul Martin said. So it's not clear whether or not this legislation will come into effect, but should it happen... Moreover, it would have been good had Paul Martin testified. I do not want to question you on that issue.
Pardon me?
Some voices: We would have voted in favour of it.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Well, we could table a motion. Go away you rascals! We could table a motion. But what can you tell us about the electoral process?
Finally, we believe in democracy in all its forms and, in many regards, the first nations had a democracy that was a lot more preventive in nature than the one we are experiencing. Will there be any procedures that will be different from the ones with which we are familiar?
You will still be my friend even if you cannot answer the question.
Mr. Karl Jacques: Thank you very much. I have no answer to this question. I think that I will defer to Mr. Boileau.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Could this friendly Mr. Boileau answer?
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: The governance act does deal with electoral issues, the establishment of codes for leadership selection, as set out in clause 5. There will be regulations for those bands that decide not to develop their own codes. It's empowering first nations to design their own codes if they so choose. If they choose not to, the regulations would apply to them.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: All right. The nuance that you have pointed out is significant. I do not know whether you are measuring the scope of your comments, but you are saying that should the bands decide not to do anything in this area... When you say that they will have an opportunity to decide, are you talking about the vote, on election day, are you talking about those who will be entitled to vote, who will be deemed to be a voter, are you referring to the way that the vote will be held, or electoral boundaries? Is this the type of thing to which you are referring?
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: Some of those details depend on what aspect of the leadership selection process you're talking about. Some provisions of the act deal with some of those issues, but for some of the detail that relates to what's going to be developed during the regulation-making stage after royal assent, we will be working to develop those regulations in conjunction with first nations through another round of consultation.
So they're not designed yet, but they'll replace other regulations that are in the Indian Act already, for instance.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: That is a very important point.
I do not know whether you have followed my career. I was elected in 1993. We in the Bloc Québécois have always wanted to look at the regulations. We are working within a legislative system where the regulations are for all intents and purposes more important than the law. It would be a good thing to look at the regulations.
I do not know what my colleague thinks about this. I do not know whether you have had any indications about the timelines. How are the first nations going to be involved, moreover, in preparing these regulations? Do you not think that the committee should meet in order to adopt these regulations.
À (2240)
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: First nations will be consulted on the regulations, so we'll seek their input.
Many of these issues are not unique to first nations. Any type of electoral system requires certain regulations. Their people need to understand what the rules are, so we'll consult people with the rules.
We already have a set of rules in the Indian Act. There are some good things in there, and there are things that probably need to be changed. Probably people, first nations, will have new ideas in terms of how they'd like to address these things.
The Corbiere case a few years ago raised a number of issues. So those would have to be considered, and we'll seek first nations input to do that.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: You have hit on a sensitive issue. This is the first time that I have met you and I have complete confidence in you. It is presumed that we are acting in good faith. We will not start doubting each other. Nevertheless, I would like to have some solid guarantees about the way that this consultation process will be handled. Don't talk to me about prepublication in the Canada Gazette. Nobody will read that, and you think that this will serve as a consultation. Are you going to be travelling to the communities? Are you going to really be participating in joint drafting and are you going to be getting on the same intellectual wavelengths as the first nations? This is important in my opinion because there is nothing more fundamental than the electoral process, Mr. Chairman. The regulations are more important than the law itself. Mr. Salembier.
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: To answer your question, I imagine the government will do all three things. I imagine that the minister has undertaken to conduct extensive consultation, so that will mean going into the communities and hearing what they have to say.
Certainly nearer the end of the process, after lengthy consultations, the regulations will be gazetted as per government policy in the Canada Gazette, part I, before they are made, to provide a chance for people to see pretty close to a final version of those and to have a chance to comment on a well-developed set.
That would be near the end of the process, and I hope, as you said, there will in fact be a lot of intellectual--I think that was the translator's word--discussion on these, because as a matter of fact, I think all three of us at the table will probably be extensively involved in that consultation process.
As Mr. Boileau stated, there are regulations in place, but I'm sure there are many ways in which they could be improved, and we would really benefit from having a very good in-depth discussion as to how those improvements could be made.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to be impertinent, since it is not my style, but you will understand my anguish when I compare the consultation process to the regulations. Perhaps it might be a good idea to unanimously adopt a motion calling for active and even preventive consultations. I would like to see the legal advisers and officials, those people who will give life to the regulations, visit the communities. We cannot have a bureaucratic, technocratic process. This approach may have worked well in other circumstances, but our experience was bad. The consultations did not go well and there was a loss of trust. I do not think you can call it anything else. The regulations will determine the type of voter and the size of the territory we will discuss.
I hope you will provide a stronger, more forceful response as far as prevention is concerned. Mr. Jacques, I look forward to hearing what you have to say.
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: With respect to consultations, we intend to consult fully with first nations. The details as to how we're going to do that haven't been set out yet, but when we talk about leadership selection, for instance, and the regulations there, a lot of first nations have a lot of firsthand experience with these issues. They're very knowledgeable. There are some really fine first nations experts who know a lot about elections because they run them every couple of years under the Indian Act.
They've dealt with Corbiere lately. We respect what they bring to the table, and many of them know more than we do about some of these issues. So we need to hear from them and we want them to be involved, and I hope many people will be involved.
As far as the first round of consultations goes, anybody who wanted to be consulted was consulted, and we'd go back several times.
À (2245)
The Chair: Merci, monsieur Ménard.
Mr. Comartin.
Mr. Joe Comartin: I think the problem we have, Mr. Boileau, is that within the first nations, at least in every feedback I get, there are serious doubts about the intent of the government to consult meaningfully, and by that I mean whether they respond. You may talk to them, but if you don't get a response along the lines of the direction the first nations want to go in, the consultation becomes meaningless.
Before I go ahead, though, can you tell me, of the first nations currently, how many are complying with the current regulations under the Indian Act, whether it be bylaws, rules, regulations, within the first nation, that control their elections? How many are already complying with the legislation?
Mr. Dave Boileau: I'm sorry, I don't have that actual number with me right now. In terms of how many under section 74 of the Indian Act, I don't have that number, but I can get it for you, probably quite shortly.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Is it a cause of concern? Are there only a few who have?
Mr. Dave Boileau: No, there are two to three hundred, I think in that range, maybe even more, but I'm not sure. I can find out.
Mr. Joe Comartin: That comply.
Mr. Dave Boileau: That comply with the regulations. They conduct their elections pursuant to the Indian Act and its regulations, so, yes.... I can't tell you exactly how many comply exactly to the letter of the law, but the regulations and the laws actually do apply to them, and there are two to three hundred, I don't have the exact number right at this point.
Mr. Joe Comartin: And the ones who don't comply, does the department do anything about--
Mr. Dave Boileau: It's up to first nations members. If there's a problem with an election, they have the right to appeal. And then there's an investigation conducted, and if there's proven to be a case, sometimes they'll take the appropriate action. We set aside an election perhaps, or whatever.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Over the last five years, how many elections have been overturned, on average, per year?
Mr. Dave Boileau: I don't have that specific information, but I can find it for you.
Mr. Paul Salembier: Unfortunately, our expert in that area has just left, either temporarily or for the evening.
Mr. Joe Comartin: I can't believe that anyone would leave the dynamic show that's going on here. You're being very offensive to my ego at this point.
Mr. Paul Salembier: I know what you mean.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Let me go at it from this vantage point, because we're obviously not going to get the factual part. In terms of the changes to this part of the act, which have been encompassed in other parts of the new bill, was the motivation for changing the Indian Act, and now repealing these sections and replacing them with the others, because of non-compliance with the existing regulation, or was it because it's offensive to have some other government tell you how to run your elections?
Mr. Paul Salembier: I think I can answer that. It certainly wasn't an issue of non-compliance. One of the prime motivators, of course, was the Corbiere decision, which struck down part of the Indian Act provisions on elections, and particularly those dealing with off-reserve members. So that was a catalyst, shall we say. That was a catalyst in fact that I think started the process toward what you might call the renovation of the governance sections of the Indian Act, which led to Bill C-7. But it's certainly not a question of non-compliance.
Ms. Nepton from the department is in charge of elections and election appeals, but I think I can tell you that it's not a rare case to have an election appeal. There are a wide variety of grounds for election appeals, and it's not always necessarily a simple, technical non-compliance with Indian Act election regulations. There are, as I say, a wide variety of reasons for which someone would appeal an election.
Mr. Joe Comartin: So it was really the Corbiere decision that precipitated the need for the amendment?
À (2250)
Mr. Dave Boileau: That was one of the major drivers, there are no two ways about it.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Not the intrinsic paternalism that's in the existing Indian Act and being repeated in the new bill?
Mr. Paul Salembier: I mentioned it as a catalyst. It's quite likely there were a lot of other policy considerations that led to the concept of creating a new governance bill, but Corbiere was certainly the catalyst that spurred the government to action because of those certain sections of the Indian Act being struck down and because of the impact the Corbiere decision has on other sections of the Indian Act that the court did not actually strike down in the decision, but, by logical extension, were inevitably going to be affected.
Mr. Joe Comartin: In terms of repealing all of these, are there any provisions in there, from 74 to 80, that are not in some form or other being replaced in the new legislation?
Mr. Paul Salembier: I don't think so. Perhaps--
Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Salembier, we've seen some of the other repealed sections. It was obvious we were repealing them, from the government's perspective, because the sections were irrelevant at this point. Do we have any of those irrelevancies in the 74 to 80 sections?
Mr. Paul Salembier: I'll refer your question to Ms. Nepton, and she can perhaps also answer some of your other questions.
Mr. Joe Comartin: The real expert is here!
Mr. Paul Salembier: Yes.
Mr. Dave Boileau: Ms. Nepton is director of band governance, so the management of elections in first nations communities is under her purview. I'll turn it over to her.
She's coming in here cold, so she hasn't heard your lead-in questions. You had asked about the number of first nations who were under section 74 of the Indian Act.
Maybe you could....
Ms. Nathalie Nepton (Acting Director, Band Governance and Estates, Lands and Trust Services, Department of Indian Affairs and Northren Development): If I recall correctly, the breakdown comes to 331 that conduct their elections in accordance with their own leadership selection rules. Then we have 21 first nations that fall under some sort of self-government agreement, so are excluded from the Indian Act as well.
Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm sorry, how many?
Ms. Nathalie Nepton: It's 21. Then we have 260 that conduct their elections in accordance with the election provisions of the Indian Act, so in accordance with sections 74 through 89, as well as falling under the Indian band election regulations and the Indian band council procedure regulations.
Mr. Joe Comartin: The other question I asked was on average over the last five years how many elections have been overturned per year?
Ms. Nathalie Nepton: It would be difficult for me to estimate with any sort of accurate figure. There are certain years I remember there being at least 12 overturned elections, whereas there are others where there have been less than that. It really varies from one year to another.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Does the department keep statistics on this?
Ms. Nathalie Nepton: Yes.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Could you provide them to my colleague, Pat Martin, for the last five years?
The Chair: If you provide any documents, you provide it to the clerk and everybody gets it.
Mr. Joe Comartin: The chairman, of course, is correct. It's rare for him, but he's correct on this.
Ms. Nathalie Nepton: The only comment I would like to add in regard to election appeals for the past five years is there's a certain carry-over factor, where it may go beyond the five years. For example, if your fiscal year starts on April 1 and ends on March 31, appeals that were started in the previous fiscal year get carried over. It's hard to say if the figures are 100% accurate, but they'll give you a good idea of how many election appeals are processed in a year or how many are received, how many are turned over, how many are rejected.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Just so I'm clear, I think you're going along the same lines I want to go. I had asked just for the ones where they have been overturned. I would also like the statistics for the number of applications there were in each of the same years.
À (2255)
Ms. Nathalie Nepton: So how many election appeals were filed.
The Chair: Thank you.
Does anyone else wish to comment?
(Clause 52 agreed to on division)
(On clause 53)
The Chair: Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, thank you for giving me the floor.
We have learned a lot in the last hour. It wasn't the same as the 107 or 108 hours it took to do the clause by clause study of bill C-7. Mr. Binet has given us a rather formidable analysis of the situation. He's got to be a martial artist. To his credit, he remained serene despite the strong arguments we've had. He always manages to calm down a situation.
I think you have exactly the same qualities as my colleague Mr. Ménard, who for years competed as a wrestler at the Olympics and thus became uncommonly self-disciplined.
So, we learned a lot and you are right, Mr. Binet, in saying that we are all more relaxed now. At 11 p.m., everyone started feeling more calm. It seems you start to relax at 11 p.m. As for me, I start to relax at a certain point. I discovered this aspect of my personality when we studied Bill C-17 until 4:45 in the morning, if memory serves me well. At 2 a.m., I realized I was feeling better; it was like running a marathon. I got my second wind, and then my third wind. I felt like I could spent the whole night here, then the entire morning and afternoon. Unfortunately, I do not know if we have enough clauses left to go that long. But there are still government amendments to be dealt with.
We sat there non stop, from 9 a.m. to 4:45 a.m. the next morning. Here is a challenge for you: let's do it non-stop until tomorrow afternoon? To see whether we'll get our third wind in this marathon at 6 a.m. tomorrow morning, and whether we will be even more relaxed at that time than at 4:45 a.m. I would like to try that out.
But in the meantime, I would like some answers to my questions. Let's get serious again. I don't know why, but Mr. Binet got everyone to relax this time. Take away the name “Raymond Bonin” and it will not help your political career.
Clause 53 refers to sections 81 and 82 of the Indian Act and states that those two sections are to be repealed. It is rare that sections of the Indian Act such as these two are ever repealed. I would like to know what you think of clause 53, and what repealing sections 81 and 82 means, as well as how clause 53 is good for first nations.
Mr. Karl Jacques: Sections 81 and 82 of the Indian Act deal with the council's power to make administrative regulations. Since these powers have now been delegated or transferred to the council, they do not need to be included in the act anymore.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, but what do sections 81 and 82 deal with in particular? Do they deal with the administrative regulations in their entirety or with specific issues? A little earlier, someone said section 71 of the Indian Act was repealed because in 40 years it had never been invoked by the minister. We would like to see more sections repealed.
Mr. Karl Jacques: For instance, paragraph 81(1)a) of the Indian Act says “to provide for the health of residents on the reserve and to prevent the spreading of contagious and infectious diseases”. The same kind of authority is contained in clauses 16, 17 and 18 of the bill, and it will be delegated to the council.
Á (2300)
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Under sections 81 and 82 of the current Indian Act, does the minister have that authority? How does it work? How will clause 16 of the bill improve things by repealing sections 81 and 82 of the Indian Act? Is it an improvement in that it gives first nations more powers?
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: Perhaps I can address that. The difference between section 81 and the powers that are given to first nations under clauses 16 to 18 of Bill C-7 is that under section 81 the minister had a power of disapproval of a bylaw or disallowance of a bylaw.
So under section 81 a first nation band would have had to forward a copy to the minister and the minister had a certain period of time within which to disallow the bylaw, so there was no real certainty as to the law until that period had expired. Under clauses 16 to 18, of course, that power is no longer there. First nations are exercising completely autonomous powers to make bylaws, and of course, as we mentioned earlier, under especially clauses 16 and 17, the scope of first nations powers has been expanded beyond the powers that they could exercise under section 81 in the Indian Act, and they've been updated. For example, we no longer speak specifically of beekeeping and poultry-raising, nor of the regulation of hawkers, peddlers, and others selling merchandise.
So we've updated the language into more modern language, language that's more in tune with commercial activities today.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, it is more reflective of today's reality. When you read subsection 16(2), you will see that band councils are given legal powers in various areas. You are right, health is in there. But section 81 of the Indian Act is repealed and legal powers with regard to health are contained in paragraph 16(1)a).
You can see that the powers contained under paragraph (a), as in “Alliance”, up to (p)...
A voice: As in the word “parasite”.
Mr. Yvan Loubier:... as in the word “parasite”, are limited by subsection 16(2), which says:
| (2) In the event of a conflict between a law made under this section and in act of Parliament or any regulations made under an act of Parliament, the act or the regulations prevail to the extent of the conflict. |
This means that the federal government retains all its powers. It would simply have to pass regulations which counter a directive taken by a band council which the government does not agree with, and that would be that. Sections 81 and 82 will be replaced with a provision referring to the minister's discretionary power. The government retains its power to reverse any legal decision taken by a band council.
As you said, the act is being modernized, or the wording changed, but in reality, the powers granted under clause 16 of Bill C-7 are very colonial and rely on the federal government's willingness to support legislation passed by a band council.
In fact, some parts of the Indian Act will be repealed, but what they are being replaced with is not any better. The government retains the extraordinary power to abolish any band council decision.
A voice: That is fairly troubling.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: That certainly is fairly troubling. Is there anything you would like to say? As we would say, it is half a dozen of one or six of the other. Under the Indian Act, the minister has discretionary power through the Governor in Council, who may pass regulations, or through the government, which could simply adopt legislation to override first nations laws.
A voice: At the very least, that is disappointing.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: It is, and how!
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: Was that a question then?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: My question is as follows. We are replacing one aspect of the bill, under the pretext that it is paternalistic and colonialist, with other provisions that are just as paternalistic and colonialist, namely, the provisions of subclause 16(2) and subclause 17(2). The latter reads as follows:
| (2) In the event of a conflict between a law made under this section and an act of Parliament or any regulations made under this act or the Indian Act, the act or the regulations prevail to the extent of the conflict. |
So where do we find the first nations' authority to govern themselves and to make laws and regulations that pertain to them and to be assured that the federal government will not thwart their actions by making other regulations and laws?
Á (2305)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.
Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I feel compelled to pursue the excellent question from my colleague Mr. Loubier.
I will begin by sharing some brief personal information about myself. I took two courses in administrative law, and moreover, I managed to get an A+. I don't want to tell you too much about my life, however, I do have a certain legal expertise. It will come as no surprise to you, Mr. Jacques, that this question is for you.
What deeply disturbs me in your explanation, which incidentally was generally brilliant, is that you talked about a right of disallowance. When I was a young history student, a right of disallowance was viewed as a right of domination. I would not be surprised, if we were to look up the word “désaveu” in a French dictionary in order to find a synonym, to find out that its meaning is quite close to the word “authoritarianism” and things associated with that.
We understood the logic; you were saying that there were some substitutions. Madam, you were very eloquent when you talked about holding an election in more than 300 bands. Now, Mr. Jacques, you're going to really have to draw upon all of the talent that we know you have, along with some good seductive powers, to convince us that the minister will not use this right arbitrarily.
I am presuming that you are a legal expert. Let us recall the decision in Roncarelli v. Duplessis. I will share this information with you, Mr. Chairman, and don't think that I am off topic. The Roncarelli v. Duplessis decision forms a basis of administrative law. What did it say? It said that a government cannot act arbitrarily and must ensure that the rules of the game are clear. What happened in the case of Roncarelli v. Duplessis? I will go over it quickly, and then I will ask my question.
The former Premier Maurice Le Noblet Duplessis, the Member for Trois-Rivières, as everyone knows, took the Jehovah's Witnesses to court over a matter concerning alcohol licences, because, in addition to being the Premier, he was also an Attorney General. Justice was ultimately rendered and it was acknowledged that there had been abuse. Roncarelli died in the United States. I am not telling you that so that you will feel sorry for him, but in the Supreme Court decision, it was clearly established that a government could not be discretionary, that it had to have parameters. We elect people to Parliament and it is important that the legislation that is adopted provide clear directions.
Mr. Karl Jacques, do you feel that there is a potential for the government to act in a discretionary manner and that we could find ourselves in a situation that we have never been in before, one that is loathsome, unacceptable and injurious with respect to the first nations, where the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development could disallow a regulation, made in due form, by the first nations? Should that occur, would you be kind enough to share my indignation?
Mr. Karl Jacques: I cannot answer this question. However, legally speaking, we do have parameters governing the making of regulations. The Statutory Instruments Act compels cabinet to follow a specific process. Unfortunately, this is the only part of your question that I can answer. I know that you are probably dissatisfied with this answer, but legally speaking, the Statutory Instruments Act... At any rate, these laws will be made by Parliament.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Jacques, I will not let this government come between us, you and I, but I want to tell you something. We are familiar with the regulatory process and we even know that, at the Privy Council, there is an official publication. I cannot stress enough how important the regulations are these days. Now, I read your lips and you indicated that there was a power of disallowance. What did you have in mind? Indeed, perhaps it is your colleague, who sometimes surreptitiously eats candies, who talked about the power of disallowance.
You understand that when we talk about a right of disallowance, the democrats who are sitting on this side of the table get anxious, because a right of disallowance results in discretionary action, and discretionary action leads to authoritarianism which in turn leads to non-respect. It is the sequence of events taken in this order that lead me to ask you whether, yes or no, this power of disallowance exists.
Á (2310)
Mr. Karl Jacques: No.
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: Perhaps I can clarify. There is no power of disallowance.
[Translation]
There is no power for quashing a band law.
[English]
The power the government has is to make regulations. Their regulation-making powers under this act are very narrow and to a large extent do not touch on the same areas as band law-making powers. In fact, the only direct overlap is in the area of waste disposal. But we have a provision now, in section 16, I believe it is, that says where a band makes its own law regarding waste disposal, that law will in fact take priority over the regulations made by the Governor in Council relating to waste disposal.
So this bill will specifically provide for paramountcy of the band law over the Governor in Council law. But beyond that, within this bill, there is no direct overlap in powers; therefore, the potential for a conflict is minimal.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: I confess that this is the first time in a very long time that I can see an aspect that seems to be positive. Now, I am going to trust what you said. We must presume that we are acting in good faith, and I am not challenging that.
However, my colleague, the Member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, an enlightened mind in a century that has seen too few, reminded me that, on page 11, in the second paragraph—perhaps you could take a look at it with me, Mr. Jacques— there is some artistic vagueness in the wording.
Hence subclause 16(2) reads as follows:
| (2) In the event of a conflict between a law made under this section and an Act of Parliament or any regulations made under an Act of Parliament, the Act or the regulations prevail to the extent of the conflict. |
You must confess that the legal interpretation of this text diametrically contradicts what your colleague has just said. It is clear that any act of Parliament or regulation made under an act of Parliament is paramount.
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: Certainly. We have a bit of a time lag here with the interpreter still speaking. I think I'm interrupting you, but I'm just interrupting him.
If you look at the amendment, government motion G-9, and you look at subsection.... I see it's a different government amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: What page are we on, Mr. Chairman? Could you stop my time? We were somewhat taken by surprise.
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: I'm sorry, I can't help you with the page. It's government amendment G-7--
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: What page?
Mr. Réal Ménard: What page is it on, Mr. Chairman?
The Chair: On page 133.
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: Perhaps I could read you the provision. The subsection that was added there says,“Not withstanding subsection (2)”, which is the paramountcy provision that you just drew our attention to:
| while a band law is in force in relation to the disposal of waste on reserve lands, regulations made under the Indian Act or this Act respecting the disposal of waste do not apply in respect to those lands. |
Because it was an amendment and it's not in the bill, it's easy to overlook that. But that case has specifically been addressed and does give paramountcy to the band law.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Oh, it's a reserve. Basically, it is a mitigating measure, could I call it that? It's a reserve, if you consider the general principle.
So, yes, there are some positive aspects to that, but my concern remains nonetheless. We still have two possibilities. It is possible that the federal government may act an in authoritarian fashion. We have to live with this possibility. You may reassure us that this will not be the case, but at one point, the government will now allow just anything to be done.
That being said, I would like to go back to the list. You know that I am the health critic, which explains why I'm in such great physical condition, moreover. The Minister of Health has a budget in excess of $1 billion. Fifty per cent of this budget is allocated to aboriginal health, and we understand that.
Á (2315)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Comartin.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Wait a minute! I think that you owe me two minutes.
Mr. Joe Comartin: It's always like that.
[English]
I had my time cut off once before when I was talking about interest.
I want to ask about paragraph 81(1)(p.3) in the current act. I understand section 81 is going to be completely revoked under this provision. Is that right?
Coming back to this issue of how interest money is provided for, we were just at the stage where I was asking who made the decision as to how the money was invested that's sitting in the account. I think the answer I got, if I'm recollecting correctly, a couple of hours ago--it wasn't that long ago; it was about an hour ago--was that the decision is made at the ministerial level.
Mr. Dave Boileau: It's through a Governor in Council order that sets the interest rates.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Okay. And you didn't know whether any money was going into the equity market.
Mr. Dave Boileau: As far as I know, it isn't, because subsection 61(2), I think it is, of the act requires that interest be paid. Again, that might be one of those things that is dealt with in the Indian moneys legislation that may be coming up.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Is there any provision in that regulation as to how much interest would be paid or how the interest will be determined?
Mr. Dave Boileau: Oh, yes. It sets out a method for calculating the rate of interest. Then the government uses the information, plugs in the variables, and just pays that rate of interest.
Mr. Paul Salembier: I believe it's the average of the quarterly rate paid by banks on six-month term deposits.
Mr. Joe Comartin: So it fluctuates from time to time?
Mr. Dave Boileau: Yes.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Do the first nations currently have any input into the determination of how interest is calculated on those moneys?
Mr. Dave Boileau: Right now they don't. There's an order that deals with this from the Governor in Council. It's a set thing.
Mr. Joe Comartin: So the answer is no.
Mr. Dave Boileau: That's correct.
Mr. Joe Comartin: And the new bill does not alter that in any way?
Mr. Dave Boileau: I can't comment on that.
Oh, are you talking about the governance act?
Mr. Joe Comartin: Yes.
Mr. Dave Boileau: No, the new bill doesn't deal with that issue at all.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Will the way the funds are invested and handled and managed continue?
Mr. Dave Boileau: Yes, the Indian Act provisions related to the payment of interest continue to apply, just like other sections of the Indian Act that are not being affected by this FNG legislation.
Mr. Joe Comartin: And has interest always been paid on those moneys?
Mr. Dave Boileau: Yes, it goes way back. It has been paid going back 100 years or so.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Concerning the revocation of sections 81 and 82, similar to the question I asked about sections 74 through 80, are there any provisions in sections 81 and 82 that are not going to be continued?
I think, Mr. Salembier, to be fair, in response to Mr. Ménard or Mr. Loubier you said there were some sections that are not going to be continued. Is that correct?
Mr. Paul Salembier: What I said is they're going to be modernized. Beekeeping: you're going to find that under the regulation--I think it's of domestic animals--in section 16 or 17. I believe they made sure all of the powers were carried forward in one form or another.
Subsection 82(1) will not be carried forward because it's the provision whereby they have to send it to the minister; that is no longer required, so of course it has disappeared.
Subsection 82(2), which talks about when a bylaw comes into force, has been substituted for in this bill by the provision that it comes into force the day after it's deposited in the band registry.
Á (2320)
Mr. Joe Comartin: And the provision for penalty in paragraph 81(1)(r) is being dramatically increased?
Mr. Dave Boileau: Yes, to $10,000, with the exception of environmental penalities, which are $300,000.
Mr. Joe Comartin: I can't remember, reading some of the evidence from the witnesses, if there was ever any position taken by any of the first nations on the issue of the suitability of the increase in the penalty.
Mr. Dave Boileau: I don't recall seeing anything on that particular issue.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Salembier, the provision in subsection 81(2) frankly smacks of the potential for double penalties. Is it being continued in the new legislation?
It would appear that this is a situation where you may have an overlap between the federal and provincial governments.
Mr. Paul Salembier: No, I wouldn't say it's that. If you look into clause 20 of the bill you'll find the equivalent of subsection 81(2). It's just saying if you're convicted of an offence, the court, in addition to assessing a fine, can make an order prohibiting you from continuing to do it, in which case, if you continue to do it, you've not only contravened the band bylaw but you've directly contravened an order of the court.
Mr. Joe Comartin: So this section does not contemplate provincial legislation?
Mr. Paul Salembier: No, I don't see it that way.
Mr. Joe Comartin: I must admit, from my experience--and it may not be broad enough to have caught this--I can't remember ever seeing this type of provision in other legislation at the federal level. I can't remember ever seeing it, whether it's what's in clause 20 or what still is in subsection 81(2). Have you?
I just don't know if it's a common provision, and I'm trying to figure out if I'm right on it. If I am, then why do we need it here?
Mr. Dave Boileau: There's a provision in the Indian Act that's somewhat similar to it. As far as other legislation is concerned, I'm sure I've seen bills that have had these types of provisions in them to prevent the recurrence of an illegal activity. It's not unusual at all. I can't cite a specific piece of federal legislation on the power to restrain, but it's not unusual.
Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm not suggesting the authority to restrain is unheard of--just the opposite; it's quite common in a lot of legislation. But normally it's part of an additional authority. For instance, in this legislation you would normally see the provision either as part of paragraph (r) of subsection 81(1) --I'm talking of the existing law--or of paragraph (s), making provision for that kind of role, as opposed to what we've done now, which is to provide it as an entirely different section. I'm trying to figure out if there's some significance to that; I suppose that's the bottom line.
Mr. Paul Salembier: The only precedent I could find on a quick check in the Statutes of Canada is that the Competition Act has an equivalent provision in it.
Mr. Joe Comartin: That would make sense in the Competition Act, when I think about it, but I can't see its applicability here.
Does this goes back to the time when the law was first in place? Has subsection 81(2) not been amended at any time?
Mr. Paul Salembier: Let me give you a quick read on that. It goes back.... That's a good question. It may only go back as far as 1985. I'm just checking here; it's not possible to tell exactly from the footnotes.
Á (2325)
The Chair: Do you feel that you're being tested?
Mr. Paul Salembier: It's okay.
Mr. Joe Comartin: I'm sorry, I was distracted here for a moment.
Mr. Paul Salembier: It may have been part of the 1951 Indian Act--we'd have to find an older copy--but it's certainly back as far as 1985.
Mr. Joe Comartin: I just want to pursue something Mr. Ménard raised, and that's specifically concerning section 88. I know it's being amended to take into account the new legislation.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.
(Clause 53 agreed to on division)
(On clause 54)
The Chair: Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I would like an explanation of clause 54 of this bill. When all is said and done, we are in the least comprehensible part of the bill, because reference is made to the Indian Act. We would have needed to look at the text of this act in order to understand what is being done.
This is a first time, in our review of the bill, that we are compelled to constantly turn to the witnesses. I would like someone to tell me the significance and scope of clause 54 and I would like to know what is being referred when we replace provisions of the Indian Act.
A voice: Good question.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Excellent.
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: Sure, I'll speak to that before I go.
What we're doing is amending the opening words of the existing section 83 because it contains a reference to section 81, which is being repealed. That is why we're going into the opening words. Then paragraphs 83(1)(a.1) to (d) are being repealed because those are paragraphs that are carried forward into the band law-making powers in Bill C-7.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: But subclause 83(1) states:
| 83.(1) The council of a band may, subject to the approval of the Minister, make by-laws for any or all of the following purposes, namely, |
Explain this passage to me. Why is a reference made to the Indian Act?
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: What exactly would you like me to specify? I'm sorry.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I would like you to make a clarification. Subclause 54(1) of the bill says:
| 54.(1) The portion of subsection 83(1) of the Act before paragraph (a) is replaced by the following: |
| 83.(1) The council of a band may, subject to the approval of the Minister, make by-laws for any or all of the following purposes, namely, |
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: Sure. I'm sorry. If you look at the existing subsection 83(1) of the Indian Act, what this does is it takes out the opening words that say, “Without prejudice to the powers conferred by section 81”. Since section 81 will no longer be there, that reference is a nullity. Therefore, those words have been deleted. That is all this amendment to the opening words of proposed subsection 83(1) is intended to do. The rest of the words are just reproduced in these new opening words here in subclause 54(1).
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, but what is the sense of doing that? Are you telling me that this is about uniformity, given the previous repeal of sections 81 and 82 of the Indian Act?
Mr. Karl Jacques: Yes, it is in fact a question of uniformity.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: So that doesn't add anything to or take away from the current authority of the band councils.
Mr. Karl Jacques: No, the authority that is currently provided for in the Indian Act remains the same, this is simply an amendment to account for the fact that section 81 will disappear. So we are removing the reference.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: So if this provision in section 83 of the Indian Act remains the same, that means that the decisions and the orientation of the band council are subject to the approval of the minister. So Bill C-7 doesn't change anything. Although we are saying that the purpose of this bill is to remove aspects that are more closely tied to paternalism and colonialism, we can see here, black on white, in the new wording for subclause 83(1), which accounts for the repeal of sections 81 and 82, provisions that can currently be found in the Indian Act, where we say:
| 83.(1) The council of a band may, subject to the approval of the Minister... |
So it still depends on the approval of the minister. And when it's not the approval of the minister that's required, it is the governor in council, and when it's not the governor in council, it is the entire government, when you refer to the laws. We have not really changed the spirit of the Indian Act with Bill C-7. This bill reflects exactly the same colonialistic approach that we have been living with for the past 130 years under the Indian Act. That doesn't change anything.
Á (2330)
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: Perhaps I could clarify. Bill C-7 is not touching taxation powers of first nations. These are currently in section 83, but Bill C-19, which is coming around the bend, is in fact addressing taxation powers and it will be repealing section 83 and adding new taxation powers for first nations in Bill C-19. As soon as we finish the clause-by-clause here, I believe this committee will be addressing Bill C-19. As I say, it sets out a whole new regime for taxation powers for first nations and adds other tools for economic development for them. Yes, the intention was simply to leave section 83 as it was, and Bill C-19 will address that issue.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: You are telling me, Mr. Salembier, that when we address Bill C-19, there will be a provision that will repeal the reference to the approval and discretionary power of the minister in the Indian Act. When we start reviewing Bill C-19, in the a few weeks or days, will subclause 83(1) disappear, even if it has been rewritten in Bill C-7?
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: That's exactly right. In fact, the ministerial approval power will disappear in Bill C-19. You'll even find in Bill C-19--just in case Bill C-19 comes into force before Bill C-7 does--that there's a provision called the coordinating provision in Bill C-19 that actually repeals this particular provision. In fact, clause 54 of this bill will cease to exist if Bill C-19 has already come into force. You'll find coordinating provisions to manage the transition between the Indian Act and then the combination of Bills C-7 and C-19.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: All right, but once Bill C-19 has been approved, isn't the replacement of subsection 83(1) of the Indian Act the one found in Bill C-7, where the discretionary power of the minister is replaced by the discretionary power of the governor in council or general executive?
If we once again substitute one thing for another under the guise of modernization and it is no longer the minister but the governor in council who is responsible... We know how that works. When the responsible minister presents a policy, makes the decision or authorizes or does not authorize something, usually the governor in council respects the minister's expertise and his decision. Everybody knows how these things work.
If it is the approval of the governor in council that is replacing the ministerial approval provided for in subsection 83 of the Indian Act, we are no further ahead.
Á (2335)
Mr. Réal Ménard: There is no added value.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: It is true that there is no added value, no improvement to the powers that are really being given to the first nations. I will be looking to see what the wording is in Bill C-19 that replaces subsection 83(1) of the Indian Act.
But I do not have a great deal of hope. When you look at how Bill C-7 is written and the legislator's intentions that are clearly laid out there, that is, transferring discretionary power from the minister to the governor in council or the government majority, it is obvious that no improvements are being made with respect to the powers available to first nations. I am disappointed by that and concerned about what it means for Bill C-19.
You will probably be amending Bill C-19, since there are endless government amendments proposed to Bill C-7, but at the very least I would like to see that if the discretionary power is removed from the minister, it does not pop up elsewhere. This blasted discretionary power of the minister or the governor in council, through the governor in council or the government, means that the minister will still and always have discretionary power over the band council regulatory and legislative decisions and policies. That will not be an improvement at all.
Can we get some assurance that in Bill C-19, for example, subsection 83(1) of the Indian Act will not be replaced by provisions such as the ones proposed in subsections 17(2) and 16(2), which indicate that, in the event of a conflict, regulations made by the governor in council will prevail over those made by band councils? Can we at least get that assurance where Bill C-19 is concerned?
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: I'm certainly not in a position to comment on Bill C-19. It's available on the parliamentary website. I think you'll find that the approval power of the minister in Bill C-19 does disappear. Bill C-19 creates a number of first nations institutions that have a variety of roles regarding first nations taxation powers.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Once again, the Member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot will be my inspiration. There is good news and bad news in what our friends have told us.
The bad news, obviously, is that in addition to being bad legislation, this bill is incomplete. The good news is that we will be seeing each other again, since you will be coming back for Bill C-19. I will try to be back here too, Mr. Chairman.
A voice: It is not a matter of trying to be back here, you must be here.
Mr. Réal Ménard: We will be here. Of course, one cannot make any assumptions about the committee's work because the committee is independent. There is no doubt about that.
I do not want to ask too many questions, but I do want to summarize the situation. The federal government has a fiduciary responsibility for first nations, and there is no question about that. Anyone who has taken history courses... By the way, I think that if we went around the table we would see that one of the first things that people learn in history class, in addition to being told that Canada is a "confederation," is that the federal government has a fiduciary responsibility for aboriginal people.
When you study Canada's constitutional history, you start with the Conquest of 1760. In talking about the Conquest, of course, it is impossible to use strong enough language, powerful enough adjectives or real enough descriptions regarding the lack of respect shown to first nations people by their new masters.
After the Conquest, Mr. Chairman, we had 1763 and 1774, which was a very important date for the first nations. The authorities wanted to expand Canada's territory in order to buy peace, since people thought that there was going to be a war against the Americans. We can make a direct connection between 1774 and this legislation, which will be no surprise to you, Mr. Chairman, given your great intellectual powers.
After that, we had 1791, the year of the Constitutional Act, which was very important for the first nations. People might think that I am going off on a historical tangent, but I am sure that if I asked any one of our witnesses to identify the connection between 1791 and the first nations, he would be able to give me the answer immediately.
A voice: Absolutely. It is so obvious.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Then we come to 1840. This was also quite an important year, but not just for first nations people. It is important for many of us, because in 1840 the first steps were taken toward ministerial responsibility.
What does that mean? Ministerial responsibility means that it was no longer acceptable for British colonial governors to set budgets without going through the assembly, or for people with elected responsibilities to not be accountable to the assembly.
If I raise this, it is because from the Conquest up to 1840...
I would ask that people not interrupt me, Mr. Chairman. I could be offended and think that I am not interesting or that what I am saying makes no sense. Please! I would ask you to pay attention. For once, you will have learned something before the day is done.
So 1840, Mr. Chairman...
A voice: That's not a very nice thing to say!
Mr. Réal Ménard: I was talking to the members on the other side.
So 1840 is an important year for first nations people and for ministerial responsibility. Of course, I am talking about United Canada. The two provinces that were created in 1791 were joined together again.
Then what happened? We come to 1867. Anyone who is the least bit educated knows the connection between the first nations and 1867, but I will take the time to explain it anyway.
The 33 Fathers of Confederation, including Langevin, Cartier, D'Arcy McGee, Baldwin and Tupper, got together at two conferences leading up to the Confederation. They were looking for ways to respond to the continental threats hanging over the provinces that were to become Canada. We must not forget that in 1967 Antoine-Aimé Dorion, the Member for Hochelaga, Quebec and Napierville, who was as red as you like, Mr. Chairman, but a red in the 19th century liberal sense, who called for a referendum.
The reason I refer to these major historical events that shaped Canada, that is, the various constitutions that led up to 1982, is because we have never really taken into account, to the extent that we should have, the rights of first nations people.
Á (2340)
Mr. Chairman, we would have been pleased if the first nations governance bill was about reparations, but that is not the case. Every clause in the body of this legislation keep the first nations under tutelage, in a colonialist and marginalized relationship.
As we know, four colonies joined in 1867 to create the Dominion of Canada. The Member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot could tell me which ones: Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Ontario and Quebec. The process went on after that. What year did the last province join Canadian Confederation? It was in 1949 following a referendum in which the result was 50/50. Remember Joey Smallwood.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: They want out.
Mr. Réal Ménard: They want out. Mr. Chair, I do not want to be out of order, that would be disrespectful, and I would not behave in such a way.
So, in 1949, the last province joined the Dominion of Canada and tutelage and a lack of respect for first nations continued. There is, however, something that is worthy of note: the 33 Fathers of Confederation were not smart enough to come up with an amending formula for the Canadian Constitution. Certain historians attribute this to the fact that no women were involved in the process. I am sure that Mr. Jacques, who is such a fan of constitutional law, is aware of all of this. Benoît Pelletier taught me constitutional law, and as you can imagine, his classes were as objective as they were enthralling.
The 33 Fathers of Confederation did not provide an amending formula for the Constitution. We had to wait until the advent of the Fulton-Favreau formula, in the 1970s, before anyone showed any interest in the subject. It is true that Robert Bourassa supported it both at the Victoria constitutional conference and in the National Assembly in 1971, however, Claude Ryan and others, including Jacques-Yvan Morin, convinced him not to go down that road. Our whole history is characterized by denial and the lack of respect for first nations.
Then we get to 1982, a period characterized by a lack of recognition of rights coupled with marked contempt for aboriginals. Since 1982, Quebec has been within a hair's breath of gaining its independence—a missed opportunity—and we want to reform the Constitution. Now, I would ask the Liberals to remain calm and relax back into their normal state of turpitude and lethargy. There is no doubt that, one day, following a democratic decision made by the National Assembly and Quebeckers, Quebec will be a sovereign nation.
We will never forget that René Lévesque was an inspiration for the first nations. As you know, Mr. Chair, in 1984, Mr. Lévesque, the Member for Taillon, held a vote in the National Assembly—the only francophone Parliament in North America—and led his government to accept an agreement recognizing the first nations. This was done in the spirit of true equality, something which is sadly lacking in this bill.
I am not telling you this to pass the time of day. It is highly relevant to the bill. I cannot bring myself to be out of order.
We were given some hope in 1982, when the Constitution was repatriated, although this was also when René Lévesque was betrayed. We shall not forget. Mr. Chair, the events which took place in 1982 allowed us to hope that we would be able to develop new relationships with the aboriginals.
I cannot hold myself back any longer. I have to ask Mr. Jacques and Mr. Boileau if they would agree with me that there is a total disconnect between the 1982 text and the intentions of the bill that we have before us. In 1982, there was a desire to recognize aboriginal nations and to have a dialogue with them, a desire which is not reflected in the current bill. Mr. Boileau, do you share my enthusiasm for the Constitution, with reference to aboriginals of course, because we must stay focused? Is there really a disconnect between the 1982 text and Bill C-7? Do not be shy, you have job security. Say what you think, there will be no reprisals.
Á (2345)
The Chair: There is no time, you only have four seconds left. Thank you, Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Comartin.
[English]
Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I must say to Mr. Ménard that I appreciate it. Unfortunately, it took away from some of the notes I was trying to make on this particular--
Mr. Réal Ménard: I can repeat it if there is consent.
[Translation]
M. Joe Comartin: Do you want to try it?
[English]
Mr. Réal Ménard: I can repeat it.
[Translation]
Mr. Joe Comartin: I think that the answer is no.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chair, do we have unanimous consent?
Mr. Joe Comartin: I should add that this is the first time that I have heard the name Roncarelli mentioned.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Excuse me?
Mr. Joe Comartin: This is the first time that I have heard the name Roncarelli mentioned since I was in law school.
Mr. Joe Comartin: I wish to point out that Mr. Scott was the lawyer. He is one of our members.
A voice: From McGill.
Mr. Joe Comartin: He is a member of my party, the NDP.
[English]
If I can, just quickly, the only change that's occurring in subclause 54(1), as I understand it, is to take out the reference to section 81. Otherwise, proposed subsection 83(1) is going to remain the same. That is, you're taking that provision out, and if the bill goes through as amended here, section 81 is not going to be there any more, right?
Mr. Karl Jacques: That's correct.
Mr. Joe Comartin: The provisions then for final approval by the minister for all of these bylaws passed by a council remain in place. That's not changing. The minister still has ultimate approval on all of these bylaws. Can you tell me whether that provision has been in the Indian Act since its inception, or is that a more recent amendment?
Mr. Dave Boileau: I don't know. It wasn't there in the original Indian Act in the 1870s, no. I couldn't tell you exactly when.
Mr. Joe Comartin: Do you have any idea at all?
Mr. Karl Jacques: There's no indication about the date in which it was inserted. It might have been in 1985, but I'd have to check that out. It would be in the statutes for 1985, the Canada statutes, but if there's no indication, I wouldn't be able to answer this question.
Mr. Dave Boileau: I don't know.
Mr. Joe Comartin: I suppose, Mr. Chair, the difficulty the NDP would have with this provision is that again the existing legislation being perpetuated in the new bill. Under the new bill, some pretty straightforward and simple decision-making powers continue to be subject to approval by the minister, and this perpetuates that dominance from one government to another, which the first nations, the aboriginal communities, have found so offensive all this time. In spite of the protestations that we hear regularly from the government of moving away from that type of approach or attitude towards the first nations, in fact it's being perpetuated here, and it is one that we obviously cannot support.
It was interesting this morning to read in the The Globe and Mail the comments of Roberta Jamieson. Here's a person who has played a quite vital role in the governmental structure of certainly the province of Ontario, specifically as the ombudsman for a 10-year period during which she acquitted herself extremely well.
You read the article, and it's like a crying out, in a logical manner, for her people, for herself, to be treated with respect, to acknowledge the skills and talent she brings. But as a chief of the Six Nations of the Grand River Band, she, like all the other leaders of the first nations, can pass laws to govern her people, as a result of her status as a leader, recognized by her people in a democratic fashion.
So she can do all that and then come right up against section 83, whether it's under the current law or the proposed bill, and be told without any requirement for explanation, at the whim of the minister of the day, no, that's not acceptable, go back and do it my way or some other way, or we don't care if you do it all, but we're not approving this bylaw.
That governmental structure that was so offensive under the law is now being continued in this new bill. It's quite obvious that the first nations from all parts of the country are not prepared any longer to live under that type of a regime; it's just unacceptable.
So when you hear Chief Jamieson speaking out, as she does in this article, she is very much reflecting what we heard repeatedly from all those members of the first nations who came forward to oppose this legislation. This section is just an example of why they did speak out so clearly, so overwhelmingly, and she's representing that position taken by the first nations in the way she has conducted herself and in the article she writes here.
It's interesting that, near the end of it, she issues a challenge. She puts it this way:
| I challenge federal and political leaders to recognize and accommodate new institutions, including a First Nations auditor-general (created by a convention among First Nations rather than imposed from outside) and a First Nations electoral officer. |
Á (2350)
Those are interesting ideas, ones that this government would have been well served in responding to, had they given any kind of meaningful response to their attempt at consultation.
Then she goes on to suggest:
| A First Nations human-rights agency could receive appeals from decisions made by First Nations officials across Canada to reconcile individual and collective rights now confirmed in the Constitution. |
She goes on in the next paragraph to say:
| These same agencies, regionally, could engage in public education and provide for the development and exchange of best practices and capacity-building initiatives. As well, many First Nations, including Six Nations, are creating complaint-resolution mechanisms such as an ombudsman.... |
And she obviously can speak quite powerfully from that position. It's something Canada does not offer its own citizens at a federal level, she points out, but something that first nations, from her perspective, are quite prepared to pursue.
She concludes that paragraph by saying:
| Many such options have already been put forward in Royal commissions and other costly, exhaustive reports. |
She is calling upon us really to take into account that a lot of the ideas that the first nations have are good ones, ones that would benefit their people, their societies, and ones that we could emulate in a number of ways, such as the ombudsman and that type of office.
She goes on to say--and again it cries out:
| Action can be taken economically, without imposition on the rights of First Nations, without legislation, without court challenges, and without further damaging-- |
Á (2355)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.
Now we'll go to the vote.
(Clause 54 agreed to on division)
[Translation]
The Chair: You wish to raise a point of order, Mr. Ménard?
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chair, with your permission, I would like to ask you to clarify something for me.
The Chair: A request for clarification is not a point of order. Do you have a point of order?
Mr. Réal Ménard: Let me explain and then you can decide. Would you be kind enough to tell us how you see our work progressing?
The Chair: Asking me to be pleasant is not a point of order.
Mr. Réal Ménard: No, nor is it in your nature. Well, maybe just a little. Mr. Chairman, this is my point of order. Could you tell the committee members how you intend to proceed? Is the government hoping to finish the clause-by-clause study of the bill this evening?
The Chair: That is a reasonable question. Those who have spent any time here know that when there is an adjournment motion, we all leave. It is not up to the chairman to decide.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Then if I were to move that we adjourn, would that be in order?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Then I so move.
[English]
The Chair: We have a motion to adjourn.
(Motion defeated)
(On clause 55)
The Chair: Monsieur Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I will start by telling you that you need not be concerned about my health nor my stamina, as I am a night owl. I would therefore like to ask Mr. Jacques if he can tell us more about the economic aspect of the clause; I will then ask him for some clarifications so as to spice up our nightlife.
[English]
The Chair: I will say to our witnesses, you are professionals; you are here to help us. You have experience, and you know you are being used to use up the 10 minutes. I encourage you, if the questions don't relate to your positions and your professions, to just refuse to answer.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
The Chair: Yes, Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I believe that you are putting words in my mouth, and that reflects poorly on your position. There are rules that allow us to use the 10 minutes that are allotted to us, and we can use them as we see fit. It is not up to you to judge what the members are doing. Your comment was stupid and out of place. I would like to ask our witnesses, as it is my privilege to do, to explain the economics of the act, and the rest is none of your concern, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Karl Jacques: Clauses 85.1 and 86 of the Indian Act are repealed, as is stated in clause 55, because these powers are now found in paragraph 16(1)n) of the bill, which deals with the power to enact legislation for the sale and prohibition of intoxicating, alcoholic beverages. Clause 86 deals with the tabling and evidence of the regulations and legislative texts of the council. This provision has been reproduced in subclauses 30(6) and (7) of the bill.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, when, in a few years, we think back upon this evening, no member of the Bloc Québécois will feel ashamed about the work that we have done. You have implied that we were not being serious and I want everyone in this room as well as those who are listening to know that it is midnight, and that we will be working into Tuesday. I began my day at 6:30 this morning, as is no doubt the case for other colleagues. If we are together here tonight, it is because we firmly believe that we are the friends of the first nations, that the first nations people are our brothers. Contrary to what you may have said, Mr. Chairman, it is because we take our work as legislators seriously that we have agreed to continue, to ask questions, to try to understand.
Mr. Chairman, when I listened to your remarks, in my mind I could see the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Ms. Jane Stewart, apologizing to the first nations. The minister was apologizing, something rather unusual for a government to do. Governments do not often change their mind; the people change the governments. Ministers do not apologize, that is something you know full well. When the minister apologized, her gesture of modesty was, I believe, welcomed by the leaders of the first nations.
Of course, it offered nothing concrete, but we expected the minister's apology, added to the expertise of the Erasmus-Dussault Commission, to lead us to something other than the bill that we have before us. Once again, every single member of the Bloc Québécois is proud of the work that has been done by the Member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot and we have all come to lend him a hand. We will be able to explain to our fellow citizens, to our friends, to our children and our brothers that it is because of our belief in the true development of the first nations that we are here this evening, that we stayed into the night and that we continue to believe that the work that we are doing is worthwhile.
It is true that in a democracy, the government has a responsibility. It is true that the public service has a responsibility. Mr. Chairman, even though we may have been jovial from time to time, in no way did we mean to show any disrespect for our public servants. But you must realize that we are extremely hurt by what has happened to this bill. We cannot understand why, after Erasmus-Dussault, after everything that has happened since 1982, the government can have the nerve, can be so presumptuous as to show such a lack of respect towards the first nations, to display the contempt that we find in the present bill.
Mr. Chairman, I was hurt by what you have said, because you implied that we were not taking our duty seriously. All of the Bloc members who attended the committee meetings have taken this work to heart. We have worked under the leadership of the Member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, we have introduced amendments, and we hoped that the government would listen to reason, but we have come up against an insensitive wall. We were treated to an authoritarian attitude, gag orders, and a lack of respect for the work that the opposition must do in any self-respecting democracy.
Mr. Chairman, I will stay as long as my services are required. I am prepared to sit all night and into tomorrow morning. Because I know full well that we are making history, because we want to be able to look each other in the eye, because the members of the Bloc Québécois understand what it means to say "self-government" and we will do our utmost to delay the return of this bill to the government.
Do not expect us to make your life easier. You insulted us, you led people to believe that we were taking this lightly when we put our questions to the witnesses, you have made the witnesses uncomfortable and you have managed to hurt me as well, but we will never surrender to giving the government a bill that opposition members do not want to see adopted, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have listened with some sense of puzzlement to the honourable member's last few statements--in fact, his last few discourses. At one point I think he was trying to say he was a law student with a B-minus or B average and then he became a historian. The second last time, I probably would have rated him as a C, somewhere in that range.
He talks about needing a sense of humour. Somebody said every circus needs a clown, but I'm not sure if we need one in this committee.
He talks about being a lawmaker, but--
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I would like to say that I am not a clown and if you allow that type of thing to be said, then you can count on having a very long night. I am not a clown and I would like to ask him to apologize.
The Chair: That is not a point of order. He did not name anyone.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I will not accept being insulted by an asshole like him. I will not accept being called a clown. I will not accept this from that man and I am asking him to apologize. I am no clown and I take my work very seriously as do all of the other members of the Bloc Québécois. I am asking that he apologize... [Editor's Note: Inaudible] He does not deserve the position he has. I do not accept his comments and I am asking that he apologize now.
[English]
The Chair: You have the floor, Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: He doesn't really have a sense of humour. A few minutes ago he said you should have one. I'm not sure where it's all coming from, but I do have trouble when he talks about wanting to be a lawmaker, because listening to his last few talks, I'm not sure he is interested in being a lawmaker.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: I do not accept the comments he made about me. I am no clown and I take my work seriously. I do my work at least as seriously as he does and if he does not want to apologize, he should leave, Mr. Chairman. I have been insulted and I am asking him to apologize.
[English]
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, he continues to interrupt me, and I'm following up on his own statement about this sense of humour. I'm not sure about his sense of humour.
I know Mr. Loubier has a good sense of humour. You can tell he has a great sense of humour.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Apologize! I do not accept you questioning the way I do my work. Mr. Chairman, I am asking you to ask him to apologize.
[English]
Mr. Charles Hubbard: You keep quiet now, the two of you.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: We are not here to fight and if you find that funny, Mr. Chairman... I want an apology. We will not allow the committee to operate in an insulting way. I have been here for three hours, I have insulted no one and I will not allow the parliamentary secretary to insult me. You have a decision to make, Mr. Chairman, and if not we will not continue with this debate. I am not a clown. I do my work seriously and I expect some respect. The member may be tired and he is perhaps talking before he thinks.
[English]
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, he seems to take great humour in the fact that this meeting is going on quite late. He simply moved a motion a short time ago wanting to adjourn. The point that we all have to acknowledge is that he is the one--
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Apologize. Shut up and apologize.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: --who's determining how long we're going to be here. If he wants to talk all evening, I'm sure we'll stay here all night.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Apologize right now. It's not the first time. You are crazy that way. Every day you insult me like that.
He insults me.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: You insult me every minute I look across at you, Mr. Loubier.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: He called me a son of a bitch.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: I didn't call you any such thing.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: He insults my mother. He insults people, aboriginal people across Canada.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Don't talk to me like that.
Mr. Chair, if they want to keep us here with these great discourses that do not refer to what we're talking about, we're prepared to sit here.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Apologize.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: The clown is still here; you're acting like a clown.
Thank you, and we will proceed.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: He has to apologize.
Mr. Réal Ménard: A point of order has been made and he has to apologize. I do have a sense of humour, but I do not agree to being insulted, Mr. Chairman. You are not fulfilling your duty as a chairman if you are unable to maintain order.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: He must apologize immediately before speaking to the bill. I want Mr. Hubbard to apologize for calling such a worthy parliamentarian, Mr. Ménard, a clown. He will apologize, otherwise I will not continue the debate. We will spend the entire night raising a point of order if necessary in order to ask that he apologize. We are fed up with being insulted in this manner. When it's not Mr. Hubbard, it is Raymond Bonin who is insulting us, and our mothers as well by calling us bastards. I am fed up. When the microphones are turned off, Mr. Hubbard flings all kinds of insults at us; he also insults the aboriginal people. They cannot hear you because they are sitting on the other side of the room, but you are contemptuous, and in addition, you are contemptible.
Until you apologize, we will continue to demand an apology. Apologize right now. If you were in the House of Commons... The committee is the extension of the House of Commons.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.
You are responsible for ensuring that there is decorum in this committee. I can accept jokes, wit and the honest comradery that sometimes results in us teasing one another. But when a parliamentarian calls me a clown, Mr. Chairman, I find that unacceptable. He must apologize or leave.
M. Yvan Loubier: Demand an apology!
The Chair: People have been insulting...
Mr. Yvan Loubier: No, no, he should apologize.
The Chair: Hang on a minute. People have been insulting one another for the past 15 weeks. I have asked committee members not to name names, and Mr. Hubbard did not name you.
Mr. Réal Ménard: He called me a clown.
The Chair: He did not name you.
Mr. Réal Ménard: You are a decent man. Mr. Chair, and I have a great deal of respect for the position you hold. You have been a parliamentarian since 1993, and you come from the educational field. Mr. Chair, he should apologize or leave. I have never insulted anyone, in any committee. Everybody who has worked with me knows that that is not my way of doing things.
The member called me a clown because I am speaking about first nations, because I am making references to history, because I want to defend my brothers. Mr. Chair, his behaviour is not worthy of a parliamentarian, and we are not prepared to continue until he has apologized. I demand an apology, my feelings have been hurt. I strive to be honest and decent in my work; if a member is not worthy, he should leave.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Go on, apologize!
Mr. Réal Ménard: The fact that he is a parliamentary secretary makes it all the more unacceptable.
[Protests heard in the audience]
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Szabo, on the point of order.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Chair, on the point of order, I need the assistance of the chair and maybe of the legislative clerk or the clerk of the committee. We have a situation here. I'm not very familiar with the rules, but I'd like to ask the table if we run into a situation where we have a member who feels he or she is aggrieved by something that was said and demands an apology, whether--
[Protest from the audience]
Mr. Paul Szabo: For a point of information then, whether--please, Mr. Chairman, if you would bear with me.
The Chair: I would appreciate if Mr. Hubbard would say “I will withdraw” whatever it is that offended Mr. Ménard. I would really appreciate that. We could move on.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, I will review what the blues will indicate, and if I referred directly to the member opposite as being a clown, I will withdraw it, but it's my impression that he spoke about the need for humour and I said we didn't need a clown. If he thinks he's the clown, that's up to him, but I did not refer directly to him as the clown.
The Chair: Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chair, how would you interpret this? This committee is not a circus. Taxpayers pay our salaries, we work hard, it is a quarter past midnight and there are professionals from the public service here with us. This committee is not a circus. If the parliamentary secretary thinks that it is a circus, then he should leave the premises. We do not believe that it is a circus, and, Mr. Chair, I cannot accept you indulging the parliamentary secretary. If you want our respect, I am ready to give it to you, but he must apologize.
The Chair: Mr. Ménard...
Mr. Yvan Loubier: He has to apologize!
The Chair: Mr. Loubier...
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Make him apologize! He has to stop avoiding the issue and apologize!
The Chair: Mr. Ménard, Mr. Hubbard has said that he will check the blues...
Mr. Yvan Loubier: No, no, no. Check the blues... What is that all about! He has to apologize first. We are not prepared to carry on under such circumstances. I don't care about the time. He is going to apologize. I have had enough!
Mr. Chair, you may not be capable of apologizing when you call people sons of bitches, but you do not have to put up with the fact that the parliamentary secretary has been insulting people in this way since the beginning of our examination of the bill. We are fed up with being called sons of bitches and of being told that we are annoying. Today my noble and honourable colleague was called a clown. I have had enough! In nine and a half years, I have never seen such a thing. You and Mr. Hubbard are in the process of transforming this committee into a circus. You are in the process of transforming the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, a branch of the House of Commons, into a circus. There are limits! You are embarrassing us in front of the first nations. The first nations have been here all along. They have been listening to the rubbish and the insults spoken by Liberal members of Parliament, particularly Mr. Hubbard. They have been insulted, and even removed from the room by security officers. We have to intervene to avoid further humiliating the aboriginal women who are here, they are being humiliated by the Chair's indulgence and the parliamentary secretary's rudeness.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Point of order, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Go ahead.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chair, I would ask you to check in the Marleau-Montpetit what is said about a member who openly treats another member with disrespect.
The Chair: Mr. Ménard...
Mr. Réal Ménard: Please, let me finish, Mr. Chair. You will find that there are strong precedents supporting the chair's obligation to maintain decorum. It is even more unacceptable coming from the parliamentary secretary. Mr. Chair, this isn't a circus. Everyone here is giving their best. We don't all have the same talents or knowledge, but this isn't a circus, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Mr. Ménard, that is it for your point of order.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I'm not finished, Mr. Chair. I would like you to tell us what Marleau-Montpetit says...
The Chair: I will do as the speaker would do. We will look over the blues and get back to you.
Mr. Loubier.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: No. We all heard him!
Mr. Réal Ménard: No. The insult was spontaneous and the retraction must be immediate. That is a legal principle, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: You are using up Mr. Loubier's time.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I don't care! The member opposite was disrespectful to my colleague and I demand an apology. At the House, if the speaker prefers to check the blues, that is because the Chamber is very big and we do not sit face-to-face as we do here. Often we don't directly hear what the others say. Here, we distinctly heard the parliamentary secretary insult my colleague. He called him a clown and he must apologize immediately. There's no reason to check the blues and wait for apologies that might or might not come. No, no.
We started in a fairly friendly atmosphere a month and a half ago. If we want to continue that way, Mr. Hubbard must apologize immediately and stop insulting everyone when his microphone is off, or we will demand an apology until morning comes, if need be. We don't care! But we just won't go on like this, when a member is being disrespectful to another and refuses to apologize and when the chair is being complacent. We just won't continue like this. I demand an apology for my colleague.
The Chair: Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Réal Ménard: This is a point of order. What makes these comments even more insulting is that the parliamentary secretary tried to pretend he was joking. Mr. Chair, what have you decided concerning Marleau-Montpetit? I would like you to check with the clerks because there are precedents in this regard.
Mr. Chair, I ask you to adjourn until a decision has been rendered. I am putting an adjournment motion; you can come back with your decision later. I'm sure you do not want to act precipitously even though you have the right to do so, but as for myself, I do not want to work in such conditions.
Those comments were hurtful. I do my work seriously. Everyone who knows me will tell you how much I respect the parliamentary institution. I have never been disrespectful to anyone; I take the high road, Mr. Chairman. I like to think that I have a good sense of humour, but I've never showed disrespect toward anyone. Just ask all those who worked me on the Human Resources Development Committee, on the Justice Committee or on the Health Committee. I had the pleasure to be named to those committees by my whip and I have always done my work seriously and with generosity and dedication.
The parliamentary secretary called me a clown in a contemptuous, cavalier, haughty, impertinent and offhand way, Mr. Chair, I won't take it. I am hurt and I ask you to adjourn and consider my point of order. We will come back when the parliamentary secretary is ready to apologize, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: That's right!
[Applause in the audience]
[English]
An hon. member: On a point of order--
The Chair: Mr. Loubier has the floor. You'll get a chance.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, it is a point of order.
[English]
The Chair: It's not a point of order.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Ménard intervened on a point of order.
The Chair: No, I didn't accept his point of order, and Monsieur Loubier--
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I also have a point of order. The rules are very clear. I don't care about speaking time if my colleague does not get an apology. You, Mr. Chair, are being overly indulgent. You're the one who has made such a mess of this by being so overly indulgent ever since we started.
[English]
The Chair: That is not a point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I don't care. Let the clock run. I have the floor and I will tell you what I've been wanting to tell you for a long time, that I have never seen a chair as ineffective as you are. I have never seen a chair make a mess of a committee's work as you have done. A committee is an extension of the House of Commons and we should be governed by the same rules and count on the same efficiency on the part of the chair.
When a member causes a commotion in the House, what happens? He is expelled or he is called to order. For the last month and a half, because of your complacency, because of your insults, you have fostered chaos and confusion here. It is because of you, because of your complacency that people like Hubbard, Bryden or Derek Lee lose it. They lose their head and do you know why? Because you just won't intervene when your Liberal colleagues insult everybody else when their microphones are on, and especially when their microphones are off.
I also demand that Mr. Hubbard apologize immediately. We won't take these insults anymore. It's been going on for six weeks. In nine and a half years, I've never seen committee members and a chairman with so little respect for everyone else.
[English]
The Chair: Merci, monsieur Loubier.
Mr. Ménard, you have the floor.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.
The Chair: On a point of order.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Once again, Mr. Chairman I will tell you frankly that if the parliamentary secretary apologizes, I will not hold this against him. He may have been tired and maybe he used words that were too strong. These things happen. However, we cannot go on without an apology. So I would ask you, Mr. Chairman...
Le président: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.
M. Réal Ménard: ...to use your authority as chair to ensure decorum, here.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.
M. Réal Ménard: Be very clear on...
The Chair: Thank you, thank you.
M. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, your thanks are very strongly...
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Hubbard, the last resort I have is to do anything I can do to make sure the work progresses. Could I ask you to withdraw whatever it is you said that offended M. Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Serge Marcil (Beauharnois—Salaberry, Lib.): Both sides should apologize. I have heard all sorts of things here.
[English]
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, the blues will indicate that I said the honourable member said we should have a sense of humour. I went on to say, some say that every circus needs a clown. And, Mr. Chair, I went further to say I felt there was no need for a clown in this committee.
Now, if Mr. Ménard felt that it was directed at him, that is his opinion.
The Chair: Can I ask you to withdraw it so we can progress.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: And I did say, Mr. Chair, I would withdraw it if it is what he says I said. But it is not what I said. I said what I said a minute ago.
The Chair: Okay, but you are withdrawing that?
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Yes.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Hubbard.
He has withdrawn it.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, that was easily the most weasel-like apology I have ever seen in my life. I've written a lot of letters of apology sometimes. When is an apology not an apology? Mr. Hubbard could run a tutorial at university about when an apology is not an apology.
The Chair: Mr. Ménard has accepted it. Could we move on, please?
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, I think it's important, as we review whether or not these clauses deserve our attention or deserve our vote.... I personally am going to have a difficult time voting in favour of clause 55. Clause 55, to me, Mr. Chair, is not worthy of our support.
In fact, most of us on this side, especially having had to deal with the abuse that's been hurled at us throughout the day.... I was earlier today called a liar, Mr. Chairman, which offends my sensibilities. I very nearly was unwilling to carry on. In fact, much like Mr. Ménard, at that time when I was called a liar by the parliamentary secretary, we called upon the Speaker to intervene. We called upon the chair to put this matter before the Speaker. In fact, the committee should be adjourned and stood down until such time as the Speaker can review what has been going on in this committee and rule on the demeanour and the character of this committee. As an extension of the House of Commons, this committee has some obligations to maintain decorum, in the same way as the House of Commons does.
But speaking to these clauses, Mr. Chairman, that we find ourselves addressing now, we're dealing with them on a clause-by-clause basis here. I don't believe this particular clause should pass. It's not worthy of our support.
I think we would be wise to revisit, Mr. Chairman, some of the issues related to this bill that so offend first nations people—the people who brought their complaints and grievances to this committee, Mr. Chairman. A great many of the presentations dealt with the fact that we've missed the boat entirely by tinkering with the Indian Act instead of addressing the more substantive issues pertaining to our relationship between first nations and the federal government.
In that context, it's useful to begin at the beginning, where this committee should have begun, which is with the Royal Proclamation of 1763, often referred to as the magna carta of Indian rights. When the colonial British crown found that:
| And whereas it is just and reasonable, and essential to our Interest, and the security of our colonies, that the several nations or tribes of Indians with whom We are connected, and who live under our Protection, should not be molested or disturbed in the possession of such parts of Our dominions and territories as, not having been ceded to or purchased by Us, are reserved to them, or any of them, as their hunting grounds |
Emphasis added. The emphasis is those who “live under our Protection”, because it's that very language in the Royal Proclamation that is the origin of the fiduciary obligation, the fiduciary responsibility. In emphasizing the Crown's concern for the great frauds and abuses committed by purchasers of aboriginal lands, the Royal Commission reserved to the Crown the exclusive right to negotiate cessions, or the giving up of aboriginal title. A century later, section 91.24 of the Constitution Act, 1867, granted the federal Parliament legislative authority over Indians and lands reserved for Indians. Surrenders and designations of reserve land under the Indian Act, the principal vehicle for the exercise of federal jurisdiction over status Indians since 1876, reflect the protective provisions of the Royal Proclamation. In other words, the language in the Royal Proclamation referring to “and who live under our Protection” was reiterated a century later in 1876 when it found its way into the Constitution Act, Mr. Chairman, in section 91.24. In practice, both pre- and post-Confederation federal governments negotiated surrenders of vast aboriginal territories in major treaties concluded throughout the 19th and early 20th centuries, largely in Ontario and in western Canada.
Finally, as we're following this obligation of protection from the Royal Proclamation to the Constitution Act, 1867, section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 now both recognizes and affirms existing aboriginal and treaty rights of Canada's aboriginal peoples. We have had legal opinion upon legal opinion upon legal opinion that this bill, Bill C-7, infringes upon section 35 of the Constitution Act 1982 in specific ways. We've also heard legal opinions of people who've told us that they believe the real intention of Bill C-7 is to undermine the fiduciary obligation, or to relieve the Crown of some of its fiduciary obligations, stemming from this obligation to look after the best interests of first nations people—the protection reference of the Royal Proclamation.
That's where, Mr. Chair, not only is this clause not worthy of our support, the bill itself is not worthy of our support, because our legal opinions say it does infringe. The government says they have legal opinions that it does not infringe but they won't show us those legal opinions. They've refused to disclose to this committee the legal opinions to the contrary. All we have are the smirks from the parliamentary secretary because he has his hands on those legal opinions.
If the government does intend to infringe upon those constitutionally recognized rights, there's a duty to consult. In fact, it goes beyond the duty to consult. You need the consent of first nations and the compensation of first nations to make up for the loss, or the trading off, of any of those rights.
Now the landmark 1984 court ruling, Guerin v. R., portrayed this fiduciary relationship more fully and established that it could and did entail legal consequences. Guerin found that the fiduciary relationship is rooted in the concept of aboriginal title, coupled with the requirement that the aboriginal interests in land may only be alienated via surrender to the Crown. There's been no surrender to the Crown, Mr. Chair.
This requirement that places the Crown between the aboriginal group and third parties to prevent exploitation--so they said at the time--gives the Crown the discretion to decide the aboriginal interests and transforms its obligations into a fiduciary one so as to regulate Crown conduct when dealing with the land for the aboriginal group. In the unique Crown-aboriginal relationship, the fiduciary obligations owed by the Crown to its sui generis, or one of a kind, is sui generis.
The scope of the fiduciary concept was extended significantly in R. v. Sparrow. I've been citing Sparrow for a year and a half now, Mr. Chair, in this context. The court's first decision—the first section 35 ruling—was Sparrow.
Sparrow determined that the general guiding principle for section 35 is that the government has the responsibility to act in a fiduciary capacity with respect to aboriginal peoples. This relationship between the government and aboriginals is trust-like rather than adversarial, although you would never know it given the overwhelming opposition to this bill across the country by first nations people. We have reached the point of an adversarial relationship.
The relationship between the government and aboriginals is trust-like according to R. v. Sparrow and the ruling, rather than adversarial, and contemporary recognition and affirmation of aboriginal rights must be defined in light of this historic relationship. That's the context in which we must visit or review the aboriginal relationship. The honour of the Crown is at stake in dealings with aboriginal peoples.
The Supreme Court ruling goes on to say: “The specialtrust relationship and the responsibility of the government vis-à-vis aboriginal people must be thefirst consideration in determining whether the legislation or action in question can be justified.” In other words, the onus is on the government to justify why it needs to infringe upon constitutionally recognized aboriginal rights.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Now for the vote on clause 55.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I didn't get to speak on it.
The Chair: You had the floor but Mr. Ménard took your time.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: On a point of order; I didn't get my 10 minutes.
[English]
The Chair: Monsieur Ménard occupied your 10 minutes. I kept reminding him that the clock was on. You had your turn. We're on the vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: No, no. These were points of order that you heard during my time.
The Chair: We'll give you three more minutes.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Absolutely not. I want my 10 minutes. They were used for points of order. Do you think that because of Mr. Hubbard, I will sacrifice the 10 minutes I had to speak on this clause?
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Loubier, you've complained that there were interruptions when you were speaking, on points of order, and there were, so I will give you five minutes--cinq minutes.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: No, that's impossible. There were points of order and I respected that. You will not cut my time because Mr. Hubbard wouldn't apologize the first time we asked him to do so. I have 10 minutes and I will use those 10 minutes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for being so understanding.
Before discussing this clause that is absolutely unacceptable, like all the other clauses of Bill C-7, I would like to point out the presence in the room of Chief Rose Laboucan, of the Driftpile First Nation, of the Treaty 8 First Nations of Alberta. I believe she is in the back. She took the time to come here today to see how we were dealing with the future of her first nation, as well as with the future of all first nations, in Bill C-7.
Let me say that this clause is just as unacceptable as all the others. Since we're still here, at 35 minutes past midnight, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that today is the 10th anniversary of the promise made by Mr. Chrétien, when he came to power in 1993, to settle the claims of the Lubicon Lake Cree Nation. The Lubicon Lake Cree Nation should have had its land settlement 10 years ago, as well as all the rules concerning the sharing of the resources. The Prime Minister, during his electoral campaign, even promised that this would be dealt with swiftly. It's been a while, and more promises have been made to this Cree first nation. Since 1939-40, promises have been made year after year. Finally, we realize that just like other first nations, the Lubicons have lived an unacceptable situation that doesn't square with what is being said in Canada, a democratic society that respects the rights and freedoms of people.
If we look at what has happened since 1993, we are astonished. While we promised to settle the land claims and the sharing of resources, we continued to give logging companies to right to unduly use the land claimed by the Lubicons. We've allowed logging companies to do clear-cutting as if there were no land claims, as if those land claims had not been discussed with the Lubicons. We've also allowed a sour natural gas processing business, Unocal, to build a plant close to the land where the Lubicon First Nation was placed, and we're now in a situation where members of this first nation have considerable health problems. The gases from this processing plant have even jeopardized the pregnancy of many female members of this first nation.
Today, it's been 10 years since the Prime Minister promised to solve the problem. But it is worse than it ever was. I would like to remind you that in the early 80s, the Lubicons on the reserves had an unemployment rate of close to 20 per cent. Today, because of the destruction of their environment, of their hunting and fishing grounds, because they were taken away from a land that should rightfully be theirs, for gas exploitation reasons, for sour gas processing that happens just next to them, their unemployment rate is now close to 95 per cent. Today, about 95 per cent of the Lubicon First Nation is inactive. And it is not out of laziness if they are inactive; it's because their resources were taken away from them. They were promised, for example, in 1993, that the land claims and sharing of resources issues would be settled quickly; it is the Prime Minister that we have now who had promised that.
Instead of shoving a bill like C-7, which no one wants, down our throats, the Prime Minister should fulfill his commitment to the Lubicons and to all of the first nations who expected much more than Bill C-7, particularly since the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. I will concede that the Royal Commission worked in a particular way, under a Conservative regime, but should we not think that this Royal Commission presented a sound and objective analysis, since its membership was well-balanced between aboriginal and non-aboriginal representatives?.
The commission, commonly known as Erasmus-Dussault, did a wonderful job. It is not because the work was done while the Conservatives were in power that the Liberals can simply toss it in the garbage. We must recognize that the Erasmus-Dussault Commission did have some worth. The report could have been put to good use to implement the 20-year work plan to which the report refers in order to ensure the reconstruction of most of the first nations and to speed up negotiations on self-government.
Instead of that, we are still debating insignificant clauses like this one. We have not settled the fundamental issues, even when promises were made, as was the case for the Lubicons. These Lubicon have been waiting for 10 years now. For the past 75 years they have been led to believe that their claims would be settled. How many other first nations have been cast aside? The government prefers to devote its energy, what limited financial resources it claims to have, its intelligence as well as the work of its public servants and members of Parliament to analyzing a bill that will in no way improve the social and economic condition of most of Canada's first nations.
It will not speed up the negotiations on self-government and it will most certainly not ensure that we will ever see the end of it. The Erasmus-Dussault Commission stated that we had to start from scratch. We had to attempt to rebuild the first nations and find some way for them to tell us what powers they wanted to include in their inherent rights to self-government. They stated that this was to be done in conjunction with the first nations, that it was up to them to tell us what path they would choose in order to rebuild and express their inherent right to self-government. The Erasmus-Dussault report concluded by saying that this would surely be a long, arduous and difficult process which would take the next 20 years to accomplish. This will require adequate resources and the political will to settle the various self-government issues as they relate to the first nations.
Instead of that, we are still analyzing Bill C-7, something that nobody wants. We will have to reread the briefs. This side of the committee appears to be somewhat more studious, because we have reread the briefs. For the slackers, there are always the summaries prepared by the Library of Parliament. Each brief that we have heard since we began the study of Bill C-7 has been summarized. These summaries are well done and are filed by clause.
In the summary, we can find, for example, that the Canadian Bar Association disagrees with clause 4, clause 8, etc. The interventions are filed according to the clause that they discussed and we can also find summaries of the interventions. We have managed to find our way through the bill thanks to these summaries. Even if we have read all of the briefs, we still require some type of reference material and this was provided by the Library of Parliament, free of charge, incidentally. We would like to thank them for their excellent work. This proved to be extremely useful during the 115 or 116 hours that we spent debating Bill C-7.
It would have been easy for our friends across the way, as they are often called, to read the various analyses that were presented. They could have read the criticisms of Bill C-7 that did not come solely from the first nations representatives. They also came from eminent university professors, the Canadian Bar Association, the Indigenous Bar Association as well as the Quebec Bar. All of these people came to warn us about the potential problems that could arise in the wake of Bill C-7. They told us about the possibility of legal challenges, as if we had not seen enough of them over the past years. The minister even spoke about a new regime that would be free of confrontation.
One really has to be out to lunch to claim that there would no longer be any confrontation, and no more legal challenges, because this bill is chockfull of legal traps, as they say. The interpretations can be totally contradictory, depending on whether one is referring to the Constitution, the Charter of Rights, Bill C-7 or the Indian Act.
We have even gone further. We have talked about...
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier. Your 10 minutes are over.
We will now go to a vote.
Mr. Réal Ménard: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]
The Chair: You were the first one to use up your 10 minutes.
Mr. Réal Ménard: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]
[English]
The Chair: I will call the vote on clause 55.
(Clause 55 agreed to on division)
(On clause 56)
The Chair: Monsieur Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, even though it is quite late, I would like to ask a few questions in the presence of our distinguished guests. My questions will all be serious, as they always are.
I could understand it if you had no answer to my first question, but I will try my luck anyway, as I am familiar with your extensive knowledge of the law.
Has the department considered the fact that there may be charter challenges to this bill?
Now, I understand that knowing the law doesn't mean that you can predict the future, nor that you can predict how judges will react, but what arguments would you use to defend the legality of this bill, if it were challenged?
Mr. Karl Jacques: I don't have any answer to that.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Jacques, it's the second time that you let me down.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: His name is Karl Jacques.
Mr. Réal Ménard: But I would not dare say that we are on a first name basis. So I will call you Mr. Jacques. You are probably a bit older than I am, even if it doesn't show much.
Mr. Jacques, based on jurisprudence, do you believe that the bill, as it is currently worded, is in compliance with sections 25 and 35 of the Constitution of 1982?
Mr. Karl Jacques: I can't answer these questions. This is not part of my usual responsibilities and I'm not qualified to answer this question.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I don't want to pry, but might I ask you what your area of expertise is?
Mr. Karl Jacques: I am a legislative drafter.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Good.
In that case, I will not ask you any further questions, but I know that you will be available if ever...
Mr. Karl Jacques: I would like to clarify something: I did not draft this bill.
Mr. Réal Ménard: You did not draft the bill! I very much appreciate your prudence and your honesty.
Mr. Chairman, I must confess that I feel very sad tonight. I feel a lot of different emotions. The last time I experienced such mixed emotions—my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe will remember—was when we were debating Bill C-20. We spent many hours speaking on that bill, he and I.
Mr. Chairman, could you call your colleagues to order? There are little side conversations that interfere with our work.
Mr. Chairman, I'm feeling intense emotions and the last time I experienced such emotions was when one of your friends, I believe, the Member for Beauport--Montmorency--Côte-de-Beaupré--Île-d'Orléans, whom you think highly of, I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Guimond, spoke for 5 hours and 45 minutes on Bill C-20, which was so roundly criticized by Claude Ryan and all the great intellectuals in Quebec.
Mr. Chairman, when I came into the room at the end of the debate, I was extremely moved and sad as I am tonight. We know that the government can propose a bill. We know that the government must govern. We are in a parliamentary democracy and we do not question that.
I received a letter this morning—Mr. Jacques, if you like, I will make sure you receive it—from the chief of the Assembly of First Nations, Mr. Matthew Coon Come, in which he said that out of 200 witnesses, 187 came out against the bill. Mr. Chairman, that's not an insignificant number. One hundred and eighty-five witnesses out of 200 told parliamentarians who must show leadership and come up with public policies, that they do not support the bill.
Mr. Chairman, how could I characterize the government's attitude while remaining calm, serene and polite as is in my nature? Are there many examples of such a thing? We understand that the government must sometimes play the role of arbitrator. But in this case, it is a question of public policy and not of arbitration. The way the government wants to change our relationship with the first nations will impact negatively on them and will go against what was set out in the Constitution Act of 1982.
Mr. Chairman, I would remind you—and I believe Mr. Jacques is a constitutional history buff—that the National Assembly has not ratified the 1982 Constitution. It is not our constitution. Of course it applies to us because we are democrats and we respect the Constitution. Let me remind you that on the day following the Referendum, at Mirabel Airport, Lucien Bouchard said that no means no but that when Quebeckers say yes, it will mean yes.
Mr. Chairman, we are democrats and we accept the fact the 1982 Constitution applies to us also. However how can one not be gloomy, sad, distressed and upset to see a public policy so unlike what we have the right to expect given the content of the 1982 Constitution?
Again, we do not deny government's right and duty to decide. The best example I can give you—and I know that my colleagues are dying to take part in this debate—is the fight against the deficit. If governments had waited for public opinion to demand the elimination of deficits before they acted, they never would have acted. Sometimes governments must show leadership, but the case of Bill C-7 is not an example of leadership; it is a step backward. I don't believe that first nations deserve such treatment.
Mr. Chairman, I must mention the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission because it is now part of history. I was only five years old then and my colleague was not much older. The Laurendeau-Dunton Report said that first nations were the group that came last in terms of development in Canada.
We have failed miserably in our duty to encourage development of first nations. Instead of addressing the situation and taking remedial action, instead of offering our help, instead of doing things differently as did Minister Stewart when she apologized in the House as minister responsible for aboriginal affairs, we might have expected...
Mr. Chair, I ask you to call the members to order. All these little side conversations are quite annoying.
[English]
The Chair: Can I ask that the conversations be kept lower, please, down to a dull roar?
Thank you.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I do believe that friendship must always prevail over partisan considerations. I would like us to learn from one another.
So, once again, let me repeat that it is very disappointing to see how the bill... Perhaps Mr. Boileau could shed some light from a legal point of view. He wasn't able to do it earlier, but I would like us to benefit from his expertise. If he finds my question too bold, too timid or even intrusive, he can choose not to answer and I will not think less of him.
Would he agree with me that this bill goes against the spirit that prevailed in 1982? Would he agree?
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: I have no comment to make on that.
As far as sections 25 and 35 go, we have a non-derogation clause now in the bill that addresses that.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: That's fine. You are a prudent man, and in law, that is a virtue. We can't hold it against you. We understand perfectly that being prudent is sometimes the best path.
I would simply add that officials should certainly not make any comments when they believe it is inappropriate, but I expected you to be a little more daring.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Loubier.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I too would have expected that we would show some boldness. It is true that the situation is evolving. In fact, my colleague, in his historical review, forgot to mention—and I'm sure it is because he did not have enough time—that even after the unilateral repatriation of the Constitution in 1982, which came with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and which meant that Quebec was left out and crushed as regards the defence of collective interests, despite this humiliation suffered by Mr. Lévesque one night in Ottawa, in the Outaouais region—and I think Mr. Romanow was one of the main players involved at the Château Laurier and that Mr. Chrétien was behind a strategy to crush Quebec—in spite of all that, two constitutional conferences were held after 1982. Mr. Lévesque was present at these two constitutional conferences and he wanted to get our relationship on the right track, in a cordial manner, working in partnership and in respect for the aboriginal people.
Despite this insult inflicted on Quebec and despite the frustration associated with this wagon-circling policy on the part of the other premiers of Canada, which was put forward by Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Chrétien, who was the Minister of Justice at the time, Mr. Lévesque decided at the two constitutional conferences to nevertheless participate in some discussions of the clauses relating specifically to the first nations that appeared in the Constitution and in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is the gist of his comments at those two constitutional conferences: "We in Quebec were humiliated when the Constitution was patriated, together with a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This patriation took place despite our wishes. However, we do not want the negotiations with the first nations to suffer the same fate as those undertaken by Quebec for decades in an effort to get more power".
In this regard, the Government of Quebec has always paid special attention to the provisions of the Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in spite of the fact that Quebec never agreed to the patriation of the Constitution. I think this is all to Quebec's credit. Things have progressed so well in Quebec that relations with the first nations people... Of course, things are not yet perfect, we do have some rebuilding to do. It is like starting over at square one in our relationship and negotiating nation-to-nation on self-government. However, huge strides have been made, for example with the James Bay Agreement at the end of the 1970s. After that, there was the Peace of the Braves, which again involved the James Bay Cree, and was an extension of their self-government. There was also the draft agreement with the Innu.
I am particularly proud of what Quebec has done in its relations with the first nations. In fact, hardly two months ago, at the convention of my party, the Bloc Québécois, in Montreal, which involved more than 500 voting delegates, I put forward a resolution to support all the efforts of the Quebec government to speed up the completion of the draft agreement with the Innu. This is a self-government proposal, and my resolution was in keeping with the values Mr. Lévesque inculcated in us for close to three decades. My resolution was passed by all but two people at our convention. I am particularly proud of this support from all the Bloc Québécois party workers aimed at speeding up negotiations on first nations self-government proposals.
That is a thousand miles away from what is contained in Bill C-7. In light of what has happened in the last 30 years, we cannot repeat too often that we should have had a different bill, one that would have speeded up and given concrete form to self-government for the first nations people. Instead, we have another bill that resembles the 1969 white paper and represents almost no progress on the real issues at stake.
· (0100)
There is no need for me to draw you a picture. The real issues are first and foremost the economic and social development of the first nations. Another issue is hastening the self-government that was given to them by the Creator, an inherent right. Another issue is improving living conditions on a number of reserves and improving the health of aboriginal people. I am thinking particularly about drinking water. It is difficult to believe that a G-8 country, one of the most industrialized and richest countries on earth, has such problems of underdevelopment as regards its first nations people. We cannot shirk this responsibility. We are talking here about the fiduciary responsibility of the federal government.
Personally, I would like to thank colleagues such as Réal, from my party, or Pat Martin, of the NDP, who are sensitive about the future of our relationship with the first nations and to the fact that we must improve the socio-economic situation of their communities. If my other colleagues who have taken part in the debate since the beginning were here, I could thank them as well.
I could thank Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, who was here again today; Francine Lalonde, who made an excellent contribution; Claude Bachand, who came several times; and the tireless Paul Crête, who always weighs in when issues of justice and basic rights are at stake, as does my colleague, Réal Ménard, who for the nth time today was good enough to be present here, even though he was insulted.
We must understand that some corrective action was taken by the parliamentary secretary, and I am sure that with the display of solidarity he witnessed, he will not repeat what he did. I could also thank Mario Laframboise, who took part in the debate, as well as my long-time friend Pierre Paquette, with whom I have been involved in all the battles that have taken place in the last 20 or 25 years. When I think back on it, it makes me realize that we are getting old. But it is true that we started young; so we are not so old after all.
All these colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, particularly Mr. Martin, are concerned about restoring justice and giving history its due. To achieve this, we must develop new relations with the first nations people. The fact is that following the arrival of the first Europeans, our relationships should have never changed.
The first nations people, who greeted the first Europeans on the banks of the St. Lawrence River, welcomed them with open arms, and handshakes. They gave them an extraordinary welcome. The Europeans were able to share the resources and land the first nations people had before the Europeans arrived. In the interest of living together peacefully and in the hope of developing in respect and dignity, the first nations people entered into a number of treaties or wampums, as they are also called. The two-row wampums, for your information, my dear colleague, are an example of the type of agreements entered into several hundred years ago with the aboriginal peoples. They are written on a wampum belt, a drawing of which appears on the back of the report of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government. From this drawing, we can see that an agreement was signed with the Europeans so that the two peoples could develop individually, as good neighbours, while retaining their autonomy and independence. This is the way the first agreements were made between the Europeans and the first nations people.
Throughout history, some incredible tricks have been played. We have not complied with most of the agreements that were entered into with our aboriginal hosts, despite their good will and welcome when we arrived on American soil.
· (0105)
However, the greatest affront we inflicted on them dates back 130 years, with our decision to create the Indian Act.
[English]
The Chair: Merci, monsieur Loubier.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, building off from Mr. Loubier's comments regarding clause 56, I think it's useful for us to revisit some of the fundamentals that we should have spent some time on.
I don't know why Mr. Bryden is so obnoxious. Do you, Mr. Ménard?
· (0110)
Mr. Réal Ménard: I think he is a little bit nervous.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Bryden seeks to antagonize people. I sometimes think he's sick. I think Mr. Bryden is a sick man in many ways. He really likes to antagonize people. It makes him happy to antagonize and goad people. He has a unique capacity to piss me off. Everything about Mr. Bryden, everything he does, pisses me off, more than anybody I know.
I was going to suggest that we revisit some of the major principles, some of the basic principles this bill is supposed to be dealing with.
The minister said one of the reasons this committee was getting this bill at first reading is because after second reading the bill is agreed to in principle. In other words, the principles founded in the bill are established and formed; therefore, subsequent amendments, amendments after second reading, are really dealing with the details and not with the basic principles of the bill. The advantage of getting the bill at first reading is that we've yet to establish the principles we seek to include in the bill. In fact, it implies, at least, that there's flexibility and a willingness to add to or to build on to the issues that the bill seeks to address.
One of the issues we have heard from a number of presenters is that they feel that this bill is acting as a Trojan horse, in a sense, in that even the bill, on the face of it, is supposed to be about accountability and transparency, but accountability and transparency seem to be second to the larger secondary objectives of lessening the fiduciary responsibility of the federal government.
We should start at the beginning and review just what that means. In broad legal terms, a fiduciary is one who holds anything in trust or one who holds a position of trust or confidence with respect to someone else. Therefore, a fiduciary relationship is one in which someone in a position of trust has rights and powers that he is bound to exercise for the benefit of the other.
Such relationships usually include those between trustees and their beneficiaries, or solicitors and their clients, and so forth. The Supreme Court of Canada has adapted what are otherwise largely private law concepts to the context of Crown-aboriginal relations. In the 1950s, the court observed that the Indian Act “embodies the accepted view that these aborigines are, in effect, wards of the state, whose care and welfare are a political trust of the highest obligation”.That was the view of the country in the 1950s.
The court's landmark ruling in 1984 of Guerin v. R.portrayed this relationship more fully and established then that it could or did entail legal consequences. So in 1984 the views of the fiduciary obligation had matured with Guerin. Again we were relying on the courts to establish and give definition to these things.
The fiduciary relationship, according to the Guerin decision, is rooted in the concept of aboriginal title, coupled with the requirement that the aboriginal interest in land may only be alienated via surrender to the Crown. They went on to say that this requirement, which places the Crown between the aboriginal group and third parties to prevent exploitation, gives the Crown the discretion to decide the aboriginal interests--
The Chair: There are too many conversations. Mr. Martin must be having a hard time.
Mr. Pat Martin: We could adjourn for the evening.
Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): I don't want us to adjourn. I'm enjoying--
The Chair: Mr. Martin, you still have the floor.
Mr. Pat Martin: He seeks to annoy me so.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Are you all right?
Mr. Pat Martin: I'll be all right, it's just that I'm offended. I think if I had a drink of water, I'd feel better.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Would you like a drink of water? Please don't hurt him; he is very sensitive.
Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you. That feels better. We should compose ourselves.
So with the fiduciary obligation, we should visit this very seriously, Mr. Chair. I don't think the people around this table are qualified to make laws that will change the lives of aboriginal people, because most people around this table have never read this basic primer on the fiduciary obligation of the Crown.
Parliament passed on that fiduciary obligation to this committee, passed it on to members of the committee. Therefore we, as members of this committee, have a fiduciary obligation to first nations people. We, as individual members of the committee, have an obligation to act only in the best interests of aboriginal people, and therefore it's contradictory that we should be going ahead with legislation that clearly is against the best interests of first nations people.
How do I know? Because they told us so in overwhelming numbers. First nations people right across the country, from coast to coast, have told us that this legislation is not in their best interests, that this legislation is crafted to serve the interests of the minister and the Crown. It's contradictory.
This is where we made the argument that the honour of the Crown is at stake. It's the Crown that has the fiduciary responsibility and obligation, passed on to the Government of Canada with the Constitution Act of 1982. It was originally the Crown that had this fiduciary obligation, and in 1982, with the repatriation of the Constitution, that fiduciary obligation flowed to the Government of Canada.
The Parliament of Canada, and by extension this committee of the Parliament, has a fiduciary obligation, as I've explained, to act only in the best interests of first nations people. The scope of the fiduciary concept--and Mr. Bryden would be particularly interested in this because everything else is just leading up to these points--
The Chair: Mr. Martin, by naming him you're inviting a reaction. You're better not to name him.
Mr. Pat Martin: He seems to be fairly well behaved.
Mr. John Bryden: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, it might be helpful to remind the other members of the committee that my riding's name is Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot. So if they would like to refer to me, then remember Ancaster--Dundas--Flamborough--Aldershot, and then I will respond appropriately.
The Chair: That is not a point of order. Mr. Martin, you have the floor.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Bryden doesn't realize he hasn't spent enough time on this committee to know the rules by which this committee operates. It's nice of him to be a tourist from time to time, and to drop in and antagonize people, but we refer to people by their names frequently on this committee.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Because we are a big family.
Mr. Pat Martin: A big family, and we're all friends.
The scope of the fiduciary concept was extended further and more significantly in R. v. Sparrow in 1990. We can track the fiduciary obligation from the Royal Proclamation of 1763, through the Constitution Act of 1867, further to Supreme Court rulings in the 1950s, to the repatriation of the Constitution in 1982, and now to R. v. Sparrow in 1990, which was the first opportunity the courts had to rule on section 35 of the Constitution, and in it they acknowledged aboriginal and treaty rights.
Sparrow determined that the general guiding principle for section 35 is that “the government has the responsibility to act in a fiduciary capacity in respect to Aboriginal peoples. The relationship is trust-like, rather than adversarial”--this is the Supreme Court speaking here--“and contemporary recognition and affirmation of Aboriginal rights must de defined in light of this historic relationship”.
I argue, Mr. Chairman, that Bill C-7 sets back the relationship between first nations and the federal government by 50 years, maybe farther, maybe even 100 years, because there was a time when there was a glimmer of optimism, a glimmer of progress, between 1982 and Charlottetown in 1992. There was optimism that this government would give meaning and definition--
· (0115)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: A point of order?
Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes. Could you check whether the committee wishes to adjourn? If so, we could put forward a motion to adjourn.
[English]
The Chair: I have a motion to adjourn. Those in favour? Those opposed?
(Motion negatived)
The Chair: We'll go directly to the vote on clause 56. Shall clause 56 carry?
(Clause 56 agreed to on division)
The Chair: Colleagues, CA-53 would create a new clause 56.1.
Mr. Vellacott is not here, therefore we will not deal with that. We are going to--
Mr. Pat Martin: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: On a point of order.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, I understand that past practice of the committee has been that because the motion was submitted as per the rules and prior to the deadline it became part of the work of the committee, and because it's properly before the committee it could be moved by another member of Parliament and be dealt with tonight. It was submitted with due notice, within the time guidelines.
The Chair: All right, we'll go to CA-53. Moved by whom? Who is moving it? Who is moving the amendment?
Mr. Martin is moving CA-53.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin:
Mr. Chairman, the Canadian Alliance has been seeking to introduce a number of amendments regarding:
| real property and immovables of an Indian or a band...on a reserve...not subject to charge, pledge, mortgage, hypothec, attachment, levy, seizure, distress or execution in favour or at the instance of any person other than an Indian or a band. |
Mr. Chairman, we have found it necessary to vote against most of the Canadian Alliance amendments. But we do want the opportunity to address this amendment, at least in the context of being able to move subamendments to it, to possibly make the amendment useful and to make this into an addition of this new clause, which would be clause 56.1. And that would make an amendment to section 89 of the Indian Act, which would deal with language pertaining to real property and immovables.
We believe that we understand what Mr. Pallister's--I believe he was the one who drafted this particular amendment--motivation was and what he was seeking to achieve by this amendment, but we also disagree with the major premise. He put this--
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: I have a point of order, Mr. Martin. I have a point of order.
Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, I believe it's not parliamentary for a person to introduce or move an amendment and to speak against it.
The Chair: I've never heard that. I could be corrected, but I've never heard that.
It's not a point of order.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: So you can make an amendment and then not support it? Is that what you're saying? It can happen?
The Chair: I've seen that happen.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: In the interest of debate, I think it's worth supporting. It could be considered an anthropological study to try to get into the mind of a Canadian Alliance member of Parliament. It's an exercise to try to understand what makes them tick. That's a valuable exercise, Mr. Chairman. It could be very useful to understand what would possibly motivate the Canadian Alliance to put this forward.
The issues of accountability and transparency are what the Canadian Alliance has been touting about this bill, and featuring. Accountability and transparency are the major themes that the minister is using to sell this bill, even though those of us around this table know that accountability and transparency are not the serious issues that the government would have us believe. In fact, it is overstating grossly the financial mismanagement that may occur in isolated incidents in some first nations communities when the actual empirical evidence is that 96% of all first nations file their annual audits on time, without incident, and post those audits for their band council or band members to view if necessary. That leaves 4% where there is some financial problems that need to be addressed.
Often, of those remaining 4%, the issue is the difficulty the band council has in trying to meet the basic needs of their constituents with woefully inadequate resources. In other words, a band council is often in the position of robbing Peter to pay Paul just to provide for basic needs of people living in the community in terms of health care, clothing, shelter, education and all of the other costs associated with running a community.
The transfer of funds has not kept up with the growing band membership lists. In fact, when you divide the total expenditures, $7 billion per year,which is really more like $5 billion of actual product, because $2 billion seems to get eaten up in the administration of the money...the $5 billion remaining, divided by a million people, leaves $5,000 per individual to provide all of their needs, health care, education, housing, welfare, streets, roads, communities, etc. In my community we spend $7,000 per high school student just for education, per person. We expect first nations to survive on $5,000 per year per person total. It's impossible, and the really cruel irony is that we've done some research regarding the amount of money that should be available to first nations for their use, Mr. Chairman, and we find that this transfer of $7 billion should really be more like $25 billion a year annually. That would be closer to the mark.
If you took into account the annual underpayment in the payment of annuities under the treaties, the annual shortfall exceeds the total amount of money generated from property taxes imposed by first nations during the past 13 years. If you add up the total aggregate property taxes of all 13 years, the shortfall in the annuities owing to them exceeds that year after year after year. In other words, the government is taking and taking and taking and only giving a pittance back, and it's no wonder people are starving. It's no wonder people are living in third world conditions. It's no wonder aboriginal children are suffering from malnutrition and rickets and basic disorders stemming from poor early childhood development issues, etc., because they're being robbed, Mr. Chairman.
This is what we were shocked to learn as we investigated more and more. In actual fact, let's listen to what Professor Borrows from Osgoode Hall Law Journal of 1999 has to say: “How can land possessed by Aboriginal peoples for centuries be undermined by another nation’s assertion of sovereignty? It does not make sense that one could secure a legal entitlement to land over another merely through raw assertion.”
· (0120)
In other words, they simply claimed ownership of this land. Now, they couldn't do that internationally, yet they've done it amongst the sovereign nations of our first nations.
Chief Justice Marshall of the United States Supreme Court once observed that this was an extravagant and absurd idea. It was beautiful language he used: “an extravagant and absurd idea”. It's even less of a morally and politically defensible position when this assertion has not been a neutral and noble statement, but has benefited the Crown to the detriment of the land's original inhabitants. The contemporary reliance on assertions of sovereignty, he goes on to say, has the effect of “perpetuating the historical injustice suffered by aboriginal peoples at the hands of colonizers who failed to respect the distinctive cultures of pre-existing aboriginal societies”.
We get accused of using unnecessarily romantic language when we talk about colonizers and sovereignty. Chief Justice Marshall of the United States Supreme Court isn't criticized when he uses the term “colonizer”, etc. Professor Borrows of the Osgoode Hall Law Journal in his article speaks of sovereignty.
We've done the calculations on what first nations have lost from being deprived and denied their fair share of resource revenues. Depending on the assumptions and the timeframes used, the aggregate loss easily exceeds $250 billion, and that's not including the lost opportunity associated with what could be generated were that money invested, and invested in a successful way. So to this it's sensible to add $20 billion for damages arising from the residential schools, and $10 billion to $15 billion underpayment for annuities under the treaties. Quickly we begin to understand the real concerns of the Indian bureaucracy, and I include the lawyers with the Department of Justice in that bureaucracy. In their urgency, they want assimilation or the extinguishment of aboriginal rights by stealth, one way or the other, because they have to get out from under the potential liability that currently exists. They don't want to admit what they owe.
So I suppose we have to ask ourselves, is this really Canada's money? Even the $7 billion a year is woefully inadequate; it should be, we argue, $25 billion annually, which would be closer to the mark in terms of distributing the revenue from lands and resources even just on traditional land use areas. You can't really say that it is Canada's money. In fact, first nations are receiving collectively a fraction of what is owing to them. We wouldn't have issues dealing with poverty, third world conditions, or economic development issues--
· (0125)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I find it very strange to hear Mr. Martin presenting a Canadian Alliance amendment. I hope he is not thinking about changing parties. It suits him so well to be part of the Canadian left.
I appreciate this amendment put forward by the Alliance. When we talk about a "charge, pledge, mortgage, attachment, levy, seizure, distress or execution in favour of or at the insistence of any person other than an Indian or a band", we must ensure, in the provisions of all bills, that the revenues and the assets of the first nations are contained in the trust as was outlined by Mr. Boileau yesterday evening during our discussions, and that they not be converted for the benefit of persons other than members of first nations. I am sensitive to this type of concern.
We have presented amendments to all the clauses of the bill that we have studied to date. We are on clause 56, and Mr. Pallister is suggesting that we add a clause 56.1. However, even though we have put forward amendments and subamendments, the substance of the bill has remained much the same. Since we have only passed a few cosmetic amendments put forward by the government, the bill has remained very similar to the document we were given one month and a half ago, before we began our clause-by-clause study. The bill remains just as unacceptable now as it was then.
The whole bill must be rewritten. I think the testimony on this was quite eloquent, as my colleague, Mr. Ménard and Pat Martin also mentioned. The vast majority of aboriginal and non-aboriginal organizations and individuals that presented briefs were opposed to Bill C-7, for a number of fundamental reasons. First, Bill C-7 is not in keeping with what we should do to achieve self-government for the first nations and the self-government must be defined by the first nations themselves. Second, this bill does not modernize the many existing treaties, some of which date back to time immemorial and should have been brought up to date, in keeping with the interpretations and realities of the 21st century. Third, this bill runs counter to the provisions of the Charter and the Canadian Constitution. the Canadian Bar Association, the Indigenous Bar Association and the Quebec Bar were unanimous in saying that this bill caused some legal problems. To date, we have not corrected one-third of the flaws that were pointed out by the vast majority of stakeholders, constitutional experts and university professors. Fourth, the bill remains unacceptable, even with amendments as acceptable or enriching for the purposes of debate as the one put forward by Mr. Pallister from the Alliance.
This bill must be rejected and we still have time to do so. We are at the 114th or 115th hour. We no longer know how many hours we have spent studying this bill. But despite all these hours, despite the understanding we sought to achieve, we have never been convinced that this bill was well founded. This bill has been presented to us as an obligatory step toward self-government, but we do not see why it should be so, particularly since some self-government proposals have been accepted, and others are still being negotiated. These proposals did not need Bill C-7, and it would not have applied to those being negotiated in any case, because the negotiations are already underway.
· (0130)
Why tell us that Bill C-7 is a necessary step, when we can already sign self-government agreements, even without the provisions of Bill C-7? After 115 hours of debate and clause-by-clause study of this bill, we still can't fathom the convoluted logic that is behind this bill.
I have to come to the conclusion that even with the amendments, even with the good faith shown by the opposition, by the Canadian Alliance as well as by the NDP and the Bloc, nothing can be done to improve this bill. We should set it aside, start over the analysis of the needs of the first nations and base ourselves on the solid reports produced since the early 80s.
My colleague for Hochelaga--Maisonneuve earlier mentioned the enthusiasm there was in 1982. It was said that it was the year of the aboriginal peoples, and this enthusiasm led to the preparation and the conclusion of the report of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government. This self-government was a new thrust. It was said that that year, 1982, was the year of indigenous people, it was the beginning of a new era and that they were luckier than us, in what they gained through the patriation of the Constitution.
This gave rise to a formidable brainstrorming exercise and to the excellent report of the special committee, made up of both natives and non natives, I would like to remind you. That is how we managed to work together, hand in hand, natives and non natives, in the wake of the momentum of 1982.
There was enthusiasm then. Everybody was hopeful and working hard to get as quickly as possible to a definition of native self-government. The first nations were consulted, not the federal government. We were far from this “Ottawa-knows-best” approach. The first nations were the ones who had to be consulted and in the Constitution and the Charter, we had just recognized their inalienable rights. Even if they had not been entrenched in the Constitution and the Charter, the different courts, the Supreme Court among them, would have come to the same conclusions, as well as the United Nations.
Why does this enthusiasm have to be shattered by Bill C-7, which is far from generating the hope that we had in 1982? Why isn't the thinking behind the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples reflected in the legislator's work in this government bill? We should have found all the necessary benchmarks in the this bill. In fact, the Royal Commission set the stage for an important piece of work, but the first project stemming from the conclusions of Erasmus-Dussault should have given us the guidelines to accelerate the negotiation of self-government. How were we to proceed to be, 20 years later, at this historic moment to which the Royal Commission invited the aboriginal peoples?
Why are we shattering those hopes, once again, in 2003? Even after the great adventure of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, even after many consensuses and one global consensus among first nations on the direction we should take, once again, we are heading into a wall. Why destroy the hopes of the aboriginal youth of Canada?
Someone should explain this to me. Still today, we can't understand why this bill was tabled and why we are still discussing it.
· (0135)
I would like to table a subamendment to Mr. Vellacott's amendment.
The Acting Chair (Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma—Manitoulin, Lib.)): Thank you, Mr. Loubier.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I would like to move a subamendment. I want to add, after the words “subject to this act” of section 89(1): “or any law that may be made by the council of a band”.
The Chair: Mr. Loubier.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, as with all of my subamendments, which are motivated by justice, respect of fundamental rights, respect for the inherent right to self-government and respect for our word as direct descendants of the first Europeans who arrived here, my subamendment suggests that if we must recognize the right of the aboriginal people to self-government, as I believe we must, in the bill, in any case, including in the amendments, relating to collateral for a mortgage or real property and buildings, we must necessarily, logically and intelligently recognize that the first nations have the power to decide what they can do and what they must do to best serve their people. Now the people that they serve are members of the first nations. Only in the preamble does it say that we recognize the inherent right to self-government and the possibility to exercise that right, and within the bill itself, when the time comes to take certain steps relating to the management of real property, buildings and collateral for mortgages, we must be able to give the first nations the option to decide on the best way to manage and allocate their assets and their revenue.
I was surprised last night, midway through the evening, when Mr. Boileau talked about the first nations trusts, which included both assets and cash. I was surprised that our first concern was not in keeping with the intention to respect the inherent right to self-government by allowing the first nations to fully manage these trusts. I am astonished that the minister reserves the right, with vague promises, to amend this way of doing things which is completely paternalistic, smacks of colonialism, and is as appalling as the Indian Act has been over the past 130 years.
I am astonished to see that whenever the Bloc Québecois, the NDP and the Alliance have moved amendments to express the right of the first nations to govern themselves, they were rejected out of hand. With respect to government autonomy, the Alliance amendments were less frequent, but that is democracy.
My sub-amendment is intended to recognize the right to self-government and the capability of the first nations to adopt real legislative texts in matters relating to a third level of government, not only in speeches and in the preamble to the bill but also in the text of the bill itself. We must ensure that this capability be recognized in the text of the act. This type of political commitment is not found in political speeches either.
We hear political discourse. Robert Nault, for example, makes speeches almost daily. But there is quite a lot of leeway between what he says and the reality of Bill C-7.
It takes clause 56.1 as proposed in the amendment to realize that, when all is said and done, everywhere, except for certain specific clauses of the Indian Act that have been repealed to be replaced by other clauses in the Governance Act, very little about the Indian Act has changed. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should stop pretending that the Indian Act will be abolished with the advent of Bill C-7.
· (0140)
The same is true of the Prime Minister, who tells us with a straight face in the House that this bill is meant to replace the Indian Act. This is not true, it is absolutely false. It is a lie. Everyone says so, and we have seen that from the bill itself. Some sections of the Indian Act are repealed, but only because they have not been used for about 40 years. I am referring to farms, for example.
Rather than gesticulating like that, why do you not ask for the floor to debate the bill? Why do you not ask to speak about the bill, Mr. Bryden? You are entitled to 10 minutes like everyone else. I am prepared to support you if the chair does not give you 10 minutes to debate the bill, but stop gesticulating like that. It is disturbing to have someone do that while one is trying to speak, but it would take more than that to throw me off, even at 1:45 a.m. I am assuming once again the Zen attitude I had three weeks ago, and I feel like a marathon runner, who is getting his second and even third wind. I am eager to see how things will be around 6:00 a.m.
The sections that have been repealed either no longer serve a purpose, for example section 72 of the Indian Act—apparently the minister has not been concerned about the management of farms for 40 years—or they are taken out of the Indian Act but replaced by clauses in Bill C-7. There is provision for some powers of band councils, but they still depend on a decision, which is now being transferred from the minister to the governor in council. However, that changes absolutely nothing. It amounts to exactly the same thing whether it is the minister or the governor in council who makes the decision.
Whenever a law is passed by the council, in matters that are more municipal in nature than governmental, as one would expect from a third order of government, it must always be in keeping with federal laws and regulations. And regulations are made by the governor in council. It is extremely easy for the governor in council to say that he does not find a law passed by a first nation acceptable. These laws are filed in a band registry. So the registry could be examined and the decision made that the first nations should not be allowed to proceed with the law. The governor in council would then pass a regulation to nullify the law passed by the first nations. These are things that could happen.
My colleague from Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, who is beginning to have a rather incredible expertise on constitutional matters and has taken two courses in administrative law, has developed another area of expertise that makes him an even brighter star on the federal political scene. He was speaking about the disallowance power earlier. The fact that there is a very real possibility that a law or regulation passed by first nations could be challenged by the federal authority or the minister amounts to a type of disallowance power.
For the minister, it will be easy to tell the governor in council that he has just looked at a law passed by a first nation that he does not find acceptable and that a regulation must be passed to nullify the law or regulation passed by the first nation. That could be done; there is a very real power of disallowance.
The fact that the officials refuse to comment on this issue does not mean that the power of disallowance does not exist—and I understand their role, but I understand my own as well. The power of disallowance does exist. The officials actually have a duty to show some reserve, and we can understand that. Moreover, my colleague from Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, Mr. Martin from Winnipeg-Centre and myself often asked the officials questions in which we said that it would be very good if we could get an answer from them, but that if they thought the question was a little too political, they could choose to answer the question or not. So they have a duty to refrain from discussing political issues, and we respect that.
So it is quite clear that this power of disallowance exists. Even if some sections of the Indian Act are abolished—and I would say in passing that there are very few such sections—they had to do with powers that are transferred to the first nations. However, these powers are very limited and subject to the power of disallowance of the minister through the governor in council, with all the danger that may involve.
· (0145)
We have been discussing, analyzing, criticizing and interpreting for quite long enough...
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.
Mr. Ménard.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for giving me the floor.
I have a tendency to speak to Mr. Jacques. When I read the wording of this amendment I cannot help but think back on my property law class, with Mr. Vincelette. I do not know if Mr. Jacques did his schooling in Ottawa, and I would not want to pry. I believe that for all law students, the property law class is the one we hate the most. I do not know if you share this opinion. It is a very technical course. We study the right of usufruct, property, etc.
Since this amendment was moved by the Alliance, I thought to myself that it could not be inspired by the same thinking as the amendments that are moved by the Bolsheviks. I imagined that this amendment from the Alliance would certainly reinforce property rights. It is important because section 89(1) of the amendment, as amended, if I understand it well—I do not presume to be a learned jurist like Mr. Jacques and I am sure that he could explain it all to me—ensures that for different transactions that can be of a commercial nature, or when property is used as security—I feel I can dare use those words—the property rights of the natives would be established. I do not see what other motivation the Alliance could have. For them, it could not be a matter of social justice, or anything that is social or democratic nor anything related to equality. That is impossible, it would be contrary to their nature.
I wonder if Mr. Jacques shares my analysis. If this amendment were adopted by a majority of parliamentarians, what would be the impact on property rights?
· (0150)
Mr. Karl Jacques: The only difference of wording in amendment CA-53 is that the term “personal property” is replaced by “immovable” and, in the French version, the word “biens” by “biens réels et les immeubles”.
Mr. Réal Ménard: We must belong to the same generation. You know that in our law courses we were taught that there is was difference between personal property and real property. Real property includes immovables as well as movables. This is property that can be traced through different transactions.
What then, in your opinion, is the Canadian Alliance's purpose in moving this amendment? What would it do, legally speaking?
Mr. Karl Jacques: All I can see is that it is an attempt to include common law and civil law concepts in the same section. The federal policy of legal duality provides that, whenever possible, the French and the English versions of all legislations must include common law and civil law concepts so that the text is consistent. The justice department has already tabled two bills to that end and is harmonizing different pieces of legislation. This task is far from over.
Obviously that affects the terminology used; words must be chosen carefully. Since we are using terms from common law and civil law, it can happen that the texts are not interpreted consistently.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Could that not lead to problems?
Mr. Karl Jacques: An amendment such as this disregards other provisions in the current act, the Indian Act, where these terms are used. We will create a discrepancy if we introduce terms that do not appear elsewhere in the text.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: So this could lead to problems of interpretation.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I see.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that I am going to be presenting an amendment. Would you be so kind as to tell me when I have two minutes left so that I may do so? You will not do that?
Mr. Chairman, in light of your lack of cooperation, I will have to do that myself. I would like to move an amendment, and I want to use all of my time.
The Chair: You cannot move a subamendment to a subamendment. You are a lawyer, Mr. Ménard...
Mr. Réal Ménard: I apologize, Mr. Chairman, I do not have as much experience as you. I will continue my remarks. Thank you for your clarification. You see that together we could do a great deal to amend a bill that needs a great deal of work. This leads me to some thoughts about the sometimes difficult hybrid coexistence of common law and civil law.
Mr. Chairman, you yourself may have thought about the difference between the common law and the civil code. Under the common law, judges make the law and the courts have a great deal of latitude in interpreting it. They therefore have a very important role to play. When the law is codified, as it is in the civil code, the judges rely on what the lawmakers have already decided. Canada has a tradition of bijuralism, Mr. Chairman. This tradition is openly celebrated at the University of Ottawa, which I had the pleasure to attend.
I understand from Mr. Jacques' comments that he is asking us to be somewhat cautious. I am not sure that he thinks the bill as a whole is harmonious. I did not have the impression that the discrepancies you spoke about were very positive. Are you urging us to be cautious?
· (0155)
Mr. Karl Jacques: Yes, I would urge you to be cautious, because this is an exercise that requires a tremendous amount of work and analysis. A number of justice department experts are working to ensure that the terms correspond.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Your caution will not be in vain. We on this side of the House hear your call for caution, Mr. Jacques. We are not reckless souls, Mr. Chairman. We are bold, but there is a difference between boldness and recklessness. We are bold, but not necessarily reckless. Having clarified that, Mr. Chairman, you are telling me clearly that I cannot move a subamendment. I will therefore continue with my comments.
There is a question that comes to mind. Warren Allmand is a very enlightened individual... I would eat government doughnuts too, Mr. Chairman, since I am referring to the substance, not the details; but there are none on this side. I was speaking about the former member of Parliament for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine, with whom I had the pleasure of working on employment equity. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak to you about the former member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine, the founder of the International Centre for Human Rights and Democratic Development. I was very surprised and disturbed to see that such an intelligent person was opposed to the bill. The former member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-- Lachine was a member of the committee that drafted the first white paper. I do not know whether that might have any influence whatsoever on our colleagues on the government's side... [Editor's Note: the member laughs]
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Martin, you have the floor.
Mr. Pat Martin: I find myself laughing as well, though, but I won't because I actually noticed....
I'd like to begin by asking Mr. Jacques a question. In dealing with the subamendment put forward by Mr. Loubier, I think Mr. Ménard asked, what is the difference between the Canadian Alliance amendment and the Indian Act itself, or what changes are there in proposed subsection 89(1)—the proposed subsection 89(1) as contemplated by the Canadian Alliance—and subsection 89(1) of the Indian Act?
I was about to point out, Mr. Chairman, that in my reading of subsection 89(1) and the proposed subsection 89(1) as contemplated by the Alliance, I see two changes. One is that the term “personal property” is deleted and replaced with something called “immovables”. Secondly, further down in line number 4, they've added a term “hypothec”. I'd like to ask Mr. Jacques about it, because I've never heard of that term “hypothec”. I think I understand the difference in the first case, but what on earth is a “hypothec”?
Mr. Karl Jacques: Hypothec is almost the equivalent of a mortgage in Quebec civil law. However, I caution you that there would not be exactly the same kinds of rights attributed under a hypothec under civil law as under a mortgage under common law.
As I mentioned earlier, these changes appear to me as simply trying to harmonize civil law and common law in both texts. However, as I mentioned--
Mr. Pat Martin: Better minds than our Canadian Alliance colleague have probably tried to do that, unsuccessfully at that.
Mr. Karl Jacques: It's an exercise the Department of Justice has started already. There's tremendous work to be done.
¸ (0200)
Mr. Pat Martin: I'm familiar with it. I understand now more of what you were saying to Mr. Ménard. I didn't understand before. That's interesting.
As to the subamendment Mr. Loubier is putting forward, I was interested in this whole issue of real property, etc., that pertains to Bill C-7. It was certainly raised by some of the very few people across the country we found advocating on behalf of Bill C-7. Some of them did cite the issue of real property, real estate, leasing of property, also the inheritance of property, etc., as being issues they were particularly concerned with. I wasn't surprised to see the Canadian Alliance trying to address, at least in some way, some of these issues.
I can't find the particular reference. Again, as I'm not a lawyer , when I try to plow through legal texts, I find it really difficult to find references that help us to deal with some of those other issues that were raised and that subamendments are seeking to achieve now, regarding, for instance, the disposition of property in the event of a marriage breakup, etc. Can you guide me to where in the current Indian Act we deal with a reference to the descent of property, if you will, in the event of death, breakup, etc.?
Mr. Karl Jacques: I'm not familiar with those sections. I wouldn't be able to answer. I could have a look at it.
Mr. Pat Martin: That's okay. It's not important, seeing as it's not really an aspect of this clause anyway.
I found Johnson v. Pelkey is one example of case law. This guy, Albert Pelkey, was a member of the Tsawout Band and he died leaving substantial amounts of cash and property. The Minister of Indian Affairs consented to the transfer of his authority and jurisdiction to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. He consented to transfer his jurisdictional authority to the courts in this case. The court noted then that it not only had the minister's power under the Indian Act but also had any other powers, jurisdiction, and authority ordinarily vested in the court. This means that the court could refer to common law and to precedents related to dispositions by non-Indians.
That strikes me as something perhaps that would have been of more interest to the Canadian Alliance member if he was seeking to achieve some kind of harmony in that respect.
The powers of the minister are quite absolute, except in cases such as this example, where the minister actually voluntarily transferred his authority and recognized the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to make a ruling in the case of an Indian dying and leaving substantial amounts—there aren't many instances, I suppose, where this would happen—of cash and property.
On the issue of real property and immovables, I understand why the honourable member moved a subamendment to the motion I moved here on behalf of the Canadian Alliance regarding real property. But I wouldn't personally add the word “immovables”, because I don't understand the difference between personal property and immovables quite so much—the relevance of it.
One of the subamendments, were I allowed to move subamendments, I would have been interested in dealing with would make reference to language like “which have been purchased by funds provided by the Crown pursuant to a treaty, fiduciary, constitutional or other obligation of the Crown”. It would have been interesting to insert language similar to that, or to even add a reference to the minister when we're saying “or execution in favour, or at the instance of any person, including the minister”, rather than “other than an Indian or a band”. Those would have opened up the door to more interesting debates, I think.
I don't find the Canadian Alliance's original amendment here very creative. It's disappointing, even at this hour of the night. We need more stimulation if we're going to survive the night. Some of us started at nine o'clock in the morning today, Mr. Chairman--in fact, the chair is one of those who began at nine o'clock in the morning--dealing with this particular bill, and we're still here at 2:15 a.m. the following day. It's ridiculous, really.
It's interesting to talk about how real property and immovables, or even personal property, might be treated in the event of wills. Indians can make wills. I don't think anything in this act or in Bill C-7 would interfere with the rights of an Indian person to devise or bequeath his or her property by the form of a will. The minister may accept as a will any written instrument signed by an Indian. It's funny that the minister has the ultimate say in what can or cannot be accepted as a will: “any written instrument signed by an Indian in which he indicates his wishes or intention with respect to the disposition of his property on his death”.
Under probate, it goes on to say: “No will executed by an Indian is of any legal force or effect as a disposition of property until the Minister has approved the will or a court has granted probate thereof pursuant to this Act”. This involves the minister yet again. Even in death it seems an Indian can't get out from under the control and authority of the minister. Section 46 of the Indian Act even says that the minister may declare a will void in whole or in part if he is satisfied that...etc. We won't go into that, Mr. Chairman.
¸ (0205)
Mr. Chairman, it's interesting. The more you delve into the Indian Act, the more you can see why aboriginal people are so outraged. The first time we open the Indian Act in a generation, our efforts fail to address issues of substance pertaining to the Indian Act. To try to delete or eliminate some of the more offensive and archaic clauses in the Indian Act, Mr. Chairman, just leafing through it, I think, is a useful exercise.
We spent a week reviewing the existing Indian Act before this process of trying to amend the act began with Bill C-7. I don't think a week is adequate to do this document justice. I think when you take a bunch of laypersons like most MPs are--
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: M. Chairman, my colleague from Hochelaga--Maisonneuve, before his laughing fit... Laughter is therapeutic. And I would just mention in passing that he was not laughing at anyone, but at 2:10 in the morning, when you've been up since 5:30 am the day before, as he and I have, and probably Mr. Martin as well, it is to be expected that a person might break into laughter at some point. Laughter is therapeutic. More over, we all had a good laugh. My colleague even withdrew for a few minutes to allow me to recover a little as well. So you see how serene we are now. We are more Zen than ever.
I understood the knowledgeable explanations presented by Mr. Jacques, Mr. Martin, and my eminent colleague, Réal Ménard, and I continue to maintain that this amendment could have been of some use. I saw the safety aspect in the impossibility to place a pledge on aboriginal property, and the disposal of this property by individuals or entities other than an Indian or a band. However, I was enlightened earlier about mixing the common law and civil law. I now say that while this amendment may have some benefits as regards financial security, it could cause a problem with the interpretation of the act itself. I think I will accept M. Jacques' explanation. He says that this would have discrepancies and make it more difficult to interpret the act. That is not our objective. Our objective is to remove discrepancies. The various testimonies we have heard and read on the bill refer to the countless discrepancies in Bill C-7. They could mean that there will be more court challenges in the future compared with the number we have seen in recent decades.
I was saying that laughter was therapeutic. My colleague got everyone laughing—it is contagious. It has happened a few times in caucus that we started laughing, without knowing why. But we were having a good laugh, and we encouraged each other to continue. We've even suspended our caucus meeting for a few minutes, but we remained happy.
My colleague was speaking about Warren Allmand, who is an expert on human rights and aboriginal affairs, because he was formerly the Minister of Indian Affairs and a member of the Special committee on Indian Self-Government in 1983. So he knows what he is talking about. He is the one in the middle of this photograph. He did not have any more hair then than now, but it was a little reddish then, whereas today it is grey. That was a few years ago.
So Mr. Allmand knows what he is talking about. He is not a member of my party or the NDP, but he is progressive. In Montreal he told us quite clearly, and he repeated it to the press, that he was opposed to this Bill C-7, and that we were making a mistake by trying to impose this bill on governance, when everyone was against it. He said we were on the wrong track. He also said that in the 1970s and 80s he had his own idea about the relationship between first nations and the federal government, but that he had evolved since that time. He said that now, in light of the many court judgments, including those of the Supreme Court of Canada, and the recognition of the inherent right to self-government and the fact that aboriginal nations are genuine nations according to the UN, he had changed his ideas about the future relationship between first nations and the federal government.
¸ (0210)
This is not a minor opposition. Mr. Allmand is a Liberal and I hope that all liberals around the table respect this. I, for one, have much respect for Mr. Allmand. Even though we were not of the same opinion for many years, we do agree on this. He has evolved and he sees the relationship with the first nations from a different perspective. He has modernized his concept of that relationship and recognizes the right of the first nations stemming from natural law that was given them by the Creator as well as through the numerous treaties we agreed upon with the first nations many years ago. He has accepted evolution and you also must accept evolution.
We are told that we should not mix self-government negociations and financial management and budgets, but what does Bill C-7 actually settle?
Right now, the fundamental problems of the native peoples have to do with the fact that negotiations on self-government and territorial claims, more specifically, are not progressing fast enough. There are 500 claims that have been set aside and 500 more that will be added to those during the next two years and here we are again discussing Bill C-7.
What are we going to settle with Bill C-7? If we do not settle the matter of self-government, if we do not settle those contentious issues surrounding the sharing of wealth, if we do not improve the social and economic well-being of Canada's first nations, what are we then going to improve through Bill C-7? We are told we must increase transparency. Of course, everyone is in favour of motherhood and apple pie and everyone wants to increase transparency. Now, according to the Auditor General, there is nothing more transparent than the first nations communities; they are open books.
Actually, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has requirements that mean that every week the first nations must fill out forms as to the colours they have painted their chairs in their committee rooms. That is how far it goes. Those documents are filed almost weekly by the first nations and provided to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. And, according to the Auditor General herself, they are simply stocked on a shelf and forgotten. They serve absolutely no purpose.
Where transparency is concerned, I think that the first nations have delivered the goods. The problem stems from the Department of Indian Affairs, which does not know how to react to such abundant transparency. Don't set further transparency objectives; you won't know what to do with the results. The books are opened for you, reports are sent to you, and you place them on shelves to gather dust; it's all nonsense.
As for accountability, it is the same thing. Where is the accountability problem for the first nations? Their books are open. Many departments, including the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, should recognize what the first nations are doing in order to make their management quite transparent and acceptable.
Did you know that 95 per cent of all first nations provide audited statements every year? There are accountability problems, transparency problems, management problems, but where are they? There are marginal problems just like you can find everywhere else in any other community. Stop trying to make us believe that through Bill C-7 we are adding accountability and transparency and that, in order to do that, we have to negotiate self-government. First of all, that would have to be true and I have just proven that it is not true. A myth has been born from nothingness according to which the first nations do not do their work properly in the area of fund management, transparency and democracy.
If memory serves, the Six-Nations people from the Grand River said that far from not holding general public assemblies, they actually hold six per year. Besides having meetings on budgets and ad hoc decisions, they invite the population to meet and discuss with them. I think the first nations have given us lessons in democracy. That democracy was practiced by the first nations long before we ever brought ours in.
¸ (0215)
So what are we fixing with this bill?
[English]
The Chair: Monsieur Loubier.
A recorded vote on subamendment 1 to CA-53 on page 243.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 3)
[Translation]
The Chair: Mr. Ménard, please speak to the amendment.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I apologize for my laughing fit. It happens. As you know, Mr. Chairman, these are long days. This has been a real test for me tonight. I am strong enough physically, but I am still vulnerable.
I would first like to say how much I appreciated the wise counsel of Mr. Karl Jacques. I am glad that I thought of making a connection between property and the amendment and therefore raise these concerns as to whether the thrust of the amendment would result in something that was a hybrid, a blend and completely inconsistent in the end.
All this does not affect the basic debate, which concerns the very nature of the bill and the fact that it is not likely to build the relationships that one would hope for with the first nations. Before being interrupted by my laughter, which was entirely spontaneous, I was speaking about the former member for Notre-Dame- de-Grâce--Lachine. I did not remember that he had been solicitor general. Despite my vast political knowledge, I did not know that he had been the minister responsible for first nations; I associated him more with the role of solicitor general.
In the history of the Liberal Party, Warren Allmand played a very special role. He was always extremely progressive. That is not surprising, because among the anglophones of the Liberal Party, there are some that are very interventionist and progressive. Some people even think that the federal Liberals have been more progressive than the provincial Liberals. I do not know whether the member for Beauharnois--Salaberry, who sat in the National Assembly, shares this view. For example, in the 1970s, Ottawa set up the Council on the Status of Women, and social programs, but things took more time to get moving in Quebec City.
But this is all in the past, and I am just bringing it up to enrich your general knowledge, which can always be improved. Warren Allmand, then, played an extremely special role, in that he represented this left-wing tendency in the Liberal Party that was militant, religious, interventionist and human-rights oriented. I remember sitting with him. After all, I have been around for three parliaments. I know that you might be very upset if I announced all of a sudden, dear colleagues, that I would not be running for a fourth term, but it is very likely that I will be running.
So I was saying that I sat with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-- Lachine on the committee that reviewed the Employment Equity Act. Mr. Allmand felt that the government was not going far enough. Under the act, groups are designated to ensure that people, regardless of race, disability, etc., have equal job opportunities. When such a learned, wise and progressive man such as Warren Allmand calls a halt, people definitely pay attention.
Warren Allmand was Solicitor General in the early 70s, was he not? In light of his work as a whole and his vast experience, I think that his recommendations should be taken seriously.
There is also Ed Broadbent, the great leader of the neo-Bolcheviks to be considered,Mr. Chairman. He is also a very respectable man. For years, when the liberals were in opposition, he was the true opposition.
When he left public life, he founded the Canadian Centre for Civil Rights, if I remember correctly. No, I do not want to mislead you; it is the Canadian Centre for Human Rights. Ed Broadbent met with all the party leaders, including Prime Minister Chrétien; he met with Lucien Bouchard, that great statesman, the president and founder of the Bloc québécois, a man with incomparable human qualities. Ed Broadbent met with the party leaders and asked for support from all parliamentarians to create the Canadian Centre for Human Rights.
¸ (0220)
In the matter of human rights, you never have enough protection. Prime Minister Diefenbaker passed the Canadian Bill of Rights. That document, as Mr. Jacques certainly knows, already had a notwithstanding clause. Thus, if one says that the notwithstanding clause appeared in 1982, that is an error, historically speaking.
The Canadian Bill of Rights was passed by the Conservatives. In 1977, the Canadian Human Rights Act was passed. It is distinct from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms obviously enjoys constitutional protection under clause 52, but the Canadian Human Rights Act of 1977, at the time, defined nine prohibited grounds of discrimination. Had it not been for my insisting upon it, Mr. Chairman, sexual orientation would not have been added in 1996. Week after week, without ever tiring, with a really admirable determination, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot must remember this, I never stopped asking questions about human rights.
In 1997, the Minister of Justice of the day, Allan Rock, the present Minister of Industry, amended the Canadian Human Rights Act, which is not the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as I said. We often tend to get them confused, but the Canadian Human Rights Act is for those who receive services from the federal government or for those who are regulated by the federal government. This is not an insignificant tool where human rights are concerned. For example, there may be a tribunal. It is possible, once the arbitration mechanism and the conciliation mechanism have been exhausted— like we are right now—to set up a human rights tribunal.
Let us get back to Warren Allmand. I think we would be reckless and foolhardy if we were to set aside his very perspicacious and wise analysis and did not take him up on his suggestion to call back the bill. I repeat that we believe that in a parliamentary committee, we must have a spirit of frank cooperation. If the bill had been acceptable, we, the Bloc Québécois, with the sense of responsibility that has always characterized us, would have given our consent.
Just think about René Lévesque. How can one not be moved when one thinks of René Lévesque? I do not know if our viewers would approve if we were to applaud René Lévesque warmly, but the Member for Taillon was a real visionary because native rights were not on the agenda during the 1980s. Very few people were concerned with aboriginal relations. We can also think of Mr. Lévesque's famous book on equality and sovereignty-association. Do you remember the theme song of the 1980 referendum? “From today on, tomorrow is ours! From today on, if we really want it!” So the referendum was held in 1980.
Mr. Chairman, I am getting ready to move a subamendment. I think you will find it in order. It is to replace the word “Indian” by: “a member of a first nation”. It is more inclusive to talk about first nations than Indians. I am tabling this subamendment while hoping, of course, that I have some time left.
I will continue my speech by saying how much of a visionary René Lévesque was because he brought before the National Assembly...
Is my time up?
¸ (0225)
The Chair: Yes, thank you.
Mr. Ménard, you may move your subamendment.
Mr. Réal Ménard: The clock is back at zero?
The Chair: Yes.
Mr. Réal Ménard: That is good news, Mr. Chairman. I am going to start again, using whatever energy I have left at this time in the morning.
This amendment was suggested to me by someone who fully understands the reality of first nations and for whom I have a great deal of respect. I think that this amendment will improve the bill. I do not know whether Mr. Jacques will agree with me when I say that speaking of first nations as opposed to Indians will improve the bill. In my view, such an amendment will make the bill more complete, more modern, more refreshing, and more in line with decisions handed down by the courts. Allow me to assure the member that I am not asking for his opinion, I simply wish to draw his attention to this point.
I will finish the first part of my remarks concerning the former member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine, who has been replaced by Ms. Marlene Jennings, by saying how much I enjoyed working with him when we were debating the Employment Equity Act. In the history of the Liberal Party, certain progressive-minded members have, at times, shown leadership.
Obviously, I cannot but point out that this progressive tradition, a source of pride for some Liberals, is anything but widespread, indeed it is virtually extinct, in the current Liberal Party. Let us say that you were to ask me which tradition the Member for LaSalle--Émard belongs to. After having closely followed current events, I think that it would be safe to say that he has strong support in the Liberal caucus. But, is the Member for LaSalle--Émard of progressive-minded inclination, as exemplified by the former member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce--Lachine?
Mr. Chairman, during the leadership debate, I saw and heard the Member for LaSalle--Émard say that if he were to become Prime Minister—which seemed very likely— the bill would not be brought into force. I would have experienced a real intellectual thrill had the Member for LaSalle--Émard appeared before the committee to explain why he was not planning on implementing the bill in its current form.
Clearly, this leads us to ask ourselves if we are not working in vain: all the time, the energy, the thought... It is a question that we ask ourselves. If I am not mistaken, some ardent supporters of the Member for LaSalle--Émard are here with us today. I saw the list of his supporters in the Hill Times , and, in my opinion, it is entirely plausible that he will become Prime Minister. In law, there is a principle... Mr. Chairman, people are trying to distract me.
A voice: He never has anything to say when it is time to debate an issue.
Mr. Réal Ménard: No, but I realize that all of this is in the spirit of friendship. Comradeship reigns.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask our legal counsel if they agree with me when I say that, given that legislation is rarely retroactive, it would be difficult to repeal this act. I remember that, at the time when the Member for Hochelaga--Maisonneuve was the charming Louise Harel, the Quebec Liberal Party amended the act respecting income security. Forty benchmarks were created. I think that the Member for Beauharnois--Salaberry was in government at that time and, if I am not mistaken, it was Pierre Paradis who revised the act respecting income security. Forty criteria were established, and teams of welfare inspectors were set up. This act made life extremely difficult for the less well off.
Mr. Parizeau—another great Quebecker who has been known to favour a consensual approach— was the leader of the opposition and was set to become Premier. He said that if the Parti Québécois came into power, the act would be repealed. But it is very difficult for a government to repeal a piece of legislation. For this reason, it would have been better for us to suspend proceedings and not go ahead with the clause-by-clause analysis.
¸ (0230)
Even though there are no Paul Martin supporters in front of me... I do not want to deal with administrative matters...
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Hubbard has not left yet.
M. Réal Ménard: I see. I do not want to deal with administrative matters, Mr. Chair, but still, I have seen your name.
So if the honourable Member for LaSalle--Émard were to become Prime Minister, constitutional prerogatives would enable him to give guidance to the government, but ... First of all, the act could not be retroactive if it were passed. That is a principle of law that you learn in the first year of law school and that applies everywhere, except in the area of fiscal matters. So would it not have been simpler and wiser not to examine the bill?
Mr. Yvan Loubier: We have been saying it and repeating it for three weeks.
Mr. Réal Ménard: However, Mr. Chair, that point of view has not been heard and it is quite unfortunate because otherwise we could be elsewhere tonight. We could be with our loved ones and do something else. I am quite sure that many of us would have found other things to do.
Of course, we have a sense of duty and we are doing our work. The Member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, my neo-Bolshevik colleague and myself do not regret being here. We are happy to do our duty as members of Parliament, just like the Member for Winnipeg-Centre.
Politics requires energy. Some would have you believe that parliamentarians do not work; admittedly, our salary is fairly generous—$135,000 a year—but I believe that we deserve it. There are moments such as tonight when we fully realize the scope of our responsibilities.
We will be able to tell our children and our grandchildren about this experience of struggle and adversity, when we had to fight and resist, like warriors. Indeed, the Bloc Québécois and the NDP are tonight warriors for justice, for human rights and for first nations self-government.
It requires energy and we are tired. However, when we put in the balance our level of energy and our sense of duty, it is the sense of duty that prevails. I am sure that our fellow citizens will understand. I would even consider the possibility of going door to door in Ontario, together with my good friend the Member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, to explain and have the people understand the appropriateness of our proposal.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: In Kenora.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, we will go there. I believe that first nations will be with us and will understand the soundness of our fight. If I have one regret to express tonight, it is that some government members that I consider likeable persons have unfortunately shown a subservient attitude and have adopted what I would call a philistine position. I am carefully weighing my words, but I stand by them.
This bill is like an unwanted pregnancy and, just as in any case of unwanted pregnancy, it would have been simpler to induce abortion. Mr. Chairman, there are some stubborn surrogate mothers among the Liberals. Unfortunately, the voice of reason has not been heard. We have been powerless and have failed in our plea for the first nations.
But someday, common sense will prevail. When the time comes to take stock of the situation, both Bloc Québécois members and NDP members will rise simultaneously with a sense of having accomplished their duty, and it is certain that the public will have a lot of sympathy for them. When the time comes to take stock of the situation, government members will be disgraced, shamed and stigmatized and their punishment will be severe. It will be commensurate with the affront that they have inflicted on first nations.
Mr. Chairman, their contempt will come to an end and first nations will remember. The weight of democracy will be felt. There is such a thing as memory in a society. Quebeckers remember. The ballot box will speak and it will speak against this bill. First nations will remember the energy shown by member of Parliament Shawn Murphy, who was always at the forefront of the struggle and very much involved in our discussions.
¸ (0235)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ménard. I would ask you not to name names, if you please.
Mr. Loubier.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, it is extremely unfortunate to have to interrupt such a flight of oratory. Is there unanimous consent to allow my colleague to continue with his flight?
The Chair: No.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I would have liked to hear more from my colleague because he clearly demonstrated that we must fight. Pat Martin and myself began this fight a month and a half ago. We believe in it because we believe in justice and the respect of basic rights. We are ready to continue. As for me, I am willing to go till tomorrow morning, without interruption, if necessary; I couldn't care less.
When important issues and basic human rights are at stake, we have to fight to the end. Of course, we are exhausted, but at least we can say that our cause is noble and that first nations, who are not allowed to sit at the table to discuss this bill and to tell us that they reject it, trust us as their spokespeople.
But we ultimately are just that, spokespeople. We could never walk in the shoes of first nations. We will never be exasperated enough to express our frustration and sadness with regard to this kind of bill. First nations should be represented at the table. Pat Martin and myself have made the suggestion when we started our study of the bill, but people were offended, saying that only members of Parliament, that is, elected representatives, had that right. However, they also said that senators could sit at the table; however, all those senators are appointed by the Prime Minister.
What difference would that have made? For once in his life, the Prime Minister should have demonstrated open-mindedness and appointed, as was recommended by the Assembly of First Nations, first nations representatives to sit with us and tell us what they want for the future and how they want to be able to exercise their human right to self-government. Under the circumstances, that was a fair and reasonable request. But no! People are too close-minded to work in this spirit of cooperation which might have led to a true partnership between nations.
I completely agree with my colleague from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve when he says that this contempt won't last forever. The Liberals will not always be invincible. In fact, the Conservatives won the by-election in southwestern Ontario, which was a Liberal party bastion. In that same by-election, the NDP doubled its share of the vote. That is very significant. Of course, we hope that the NDP and the Conservatives make more gains outside Quebec.
So, the contempt and arrogance won't last forever. When people talk about anything, such as last weekend's hockey games, or the last movie they saw, or what they just bought, instead of paying attention and participating in a debate on a fundamental aspect of Canadian life, they will eventually pay the price. The first nations, and also non-natives, will realize that they are dealing with an arrogant government which does not care about the fundamental rights of native peoples.
Don't for a moment think that Canadians as a whole don't support first nations. The rate at which Canadian support first nations has grown exponentially. If you think the public does not care, and if you only look at the political short term by saying that, in any case, first nations members will not vote for you and that, consequently you don't really care about them, well, you're in for a surprise. If there is one thing which has not changed over the last 20 years, is the fact that the public, in Quebec as well, and throughout the rest of the country, does not like conflict. Canadians don't like the fact that our relationship with first nations is filled with conflict. Canadians are not happy that basic rights are being trampled and that the government is disdainful of the inherent right to self-government, and of the treaties signed by our forefathers.
¸ (0240)
The general public, in Quebec and in Canada, is more respectful than most of the people on the other side of this table. I think that that should be taken into account. At some point, the Liberal Party will pay the price; whether it is Paul Martin or others, who cares?
Do not take the public for a bunch of idiots incapable of properly analyzing the situation and your attitude. Do not think that you can get away with abuse without it winding up in the newspapers. When we get insulted—as was my colleague today, as well as Pat Martin and myself since the beginning of this debate—we never keep it to ourselves. Do not think that it is going to remain here. Even though this debate is not televised, it will be made known outside of the House. Everyone will then know how you are behaving in a debate that deals with something as fundamental as respect for the fundamental rights of aboriginal peoples.
One day, you will pay for this huge farce, meeting and talking about things other than Bill C-7. You are being irresponsible when confronted with the analysis and debate called for by Bill C-7 and the numerous amendments and sub-amendments that we have put forward.
I know that this makes absolutely no difference to you, because every time we propose an amendment, you vote against it, even if it would improve Bill C-7. I also know that you could not care less about the weight of history, given that you are making history out of events that will happen in the near future, and you do not seem overly concerned by that: you are willing to discuss anything but the amendments that we are putting forward.
When have we, here at this table, heard Liberal members take part in the debate and put forward genuine arguments on the amendments that we were proposing? In fact, we have heard, when the microphones were off, the Liberals bellowing instead of participating in the debate on our amendments. I find that the members around this table have shown an incredible lack of seriousness by not participating in such fundamental debates and by accepting anything at all on the basis that the minister and Prime Minister have decided to push this bill through.
Enough with the broken record on the committee's independence! Baloney! It has been years since the committees of the House of Commons have been independent from the executive power. By the way, when it comes to negotiations on how the committee operates, you have to talk to the parliamentary secretary, who has consulted the minister before making a decision. That is the way it has been from the start. It is nonsense to talk about the independence of the committee's deliberations and to say that committees are masters of their own proceedings!
The committee chairman and the parliamentary secretary get their orders from the office of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, who wants this bill rushed through at all costs. And if the minister was less certain of that, then the Prime Minister's office intervened to ram through a bill that nobody wants.
You are pawns in a game of power. You are not parliamentarians. You are not people who counterbalance the executive. Do not even try to make me believe that, when we know how each and every one of you has behaved since we started analyzing Bill C-7. It is not true. You are no counterbalance at all.
As a matter of fact, a couple of weeks ago, even the chairman said that we were nothing but a bunch of powerless backbenchers, and you did not even flinch. He said that we were a bunch of backbenchers. The chairman, who chairs a committee that is supposed to be an extension of the House of Commons, the members of which are entitled to all of the respect that the institution deserves, said that we were just a bunch of backbenchers with no power. He said that it was shameful to invite the first nations to this table to discuss with us, because they would just be discussing with backbenchers.
This chairman, like all of the Liberal members, has not understood his role in the legislative process. These people have not understood that there is more to it than the executive power, there is also the legislative power. They have not understood that they have a special role to play as parliamentarians in analyzing bills. No, they have not!
I think that they have understood, like a few generations of politicians before them, that they are at the service of the executive. Do you know why they quite readily understand this kind of thing? It is because they want to become ministers. Because they are aspiring ministers, they are blinded. They see only the limousine, the department, the people beneath them, to whom they will be able to give orders, and on whom they will be able to impose their point of view. They are frustrated that they have to sit here until 2:50 a.m. It is not funny! But there is not one minister at this table. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is not here to debate the amendments that we are putting forward. No, not at all!
¸ (0245)
[English]
The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Loubier.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you to my colleague Mr. Loubier for pointing out what I think is best described as the democratic deficit in this country and certainly around this table. This committee should be vested with some decision-making authority. We, as elected individuals, should have some decision-making authority about the legislation given to this committee.
I am actually familiar with being part of a ruling party. The NDP is the ruling party in Manitoba, and believe me, their standing committees are a lot more interesting to watch.
Actually, I want to thank also my colleague from the Bloc for pointing out this reference book in which he has found a great deal of direction, and he made specific reference to Mr. Warren Allmand. Mr. Allmand did make a presentation to this committee, and I can quote from his presentation.
The former Minister of Indian Affairs was only one of many non-aboriginal presenters before the committee who also disagreed with Bill C-7. Mr. Allmand's comment was that Bill C-7 should be withdrawn, and the government should approach first nations on a nation-to-nation, government-to-government basis, dealing with the same issues that are contained in the bill. He said if we passed this bill it would be declared unconstitutional.
That was the cautionary note from the former Minister of Indian Affairs and former Solicitor General, Mr. Warren Allmand. We should have listened to him. We would have been well advised to pay attention to that particular presentation. This group of backbenchers would have benefited a great deal had we incorporated the cautionary note from a man of wisdom like Mr. Allmand.
Mr. Allmand's experience goes back to this Penner committee--this was actually after he was the Minister of Indian Affairs.
I have a signed copy, because what I find most significant about this particular Penner report, which was a comprehensive analysis on first nations issues, is that the people around this table were not only members of Parliament. The composition of the Penner inquiry included a member of the Assembly of First Nations, a member representing the Native Women's Association of Canada, and a representative from the Native Council of Canada.
In other words, there were three aboriginal voices around this table as they dealt with the thorny issues of the relationship between the federal government and first nations. I would view that as a recipe for a successful exercise.
We knew this particular exercise was probably going to be unsatisfactory from the outset, because the first motion I made around this table as we got started with Bill C-7 was to expand the representation of this committee, to expand the membership of this committee by three individuals--one from the Assembly of First Nations, one from the Native Women's Association of Canada, and one from the Native Council of Canada--using as a precedent the Penner inquiry, which did just that.
Unfortunately, we lost that by one vote. We did have Liberal members voting in favour of this proposal, but unfortunately we had one person on the Liberal side who did not vote. Had that person cast her ballot....
Unfortunately it was a woman of aboriginal origin who decided to not participate in that vote, abstained from the vote. As a result, we lost that by one vote. It was shameful. It was not a first nations woman, but a woman of aboriginal descent by definition.
I think it was a tragic loss, a real shame, and the shame is that we could have benefited from the wise counsel of first nations people, and we could have avoided many of the pitfalls associated with this bill now. We could have had guidance, because the motion was to afford these people voice but no vote.
No one is saying they should be vested with the same voting privileges that members of Parliament should have. They would be members of this committee in an advisory capacity, to advise the people.
Look around you. It's a bunch of white men in suits who have no firsthand experience or knowledge of the lives of first nations people. We were invited....
¸ (0250)
Mr. Chairman, could you control one of your members on the Liberal side who is calling me a racist?
Mr. Réal Ménard: Oh, did he?
Mr. Bryden, you are impolite.
Mr. Pat Martin: Well, he's using the word “clown”, he's using the word “racist”, and others have used the word “liar” in the context of this debate. This is getting beyond--
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Bryden?
Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, Mr. Bryden owes me an apology, but he owes me a series of apologies from past indiscretions anyway, so I will add that to the list.
Mr. Chairman, I take inspiration from this particular document, which was debated much more fully than we ever have. I want to read from the Penner document, “Indian Self-Government in Canada: Report of the Special Committee”.
In the introduction there's a quote by Leo Tolstoy from 1886 that I think is very interesting. It was entered into the evidence of a special committee on Indian affairs by a Mayo Indian Band member. I used to live in Mayo, Yukon. This is from the Mayo Indian Band, presented to the committee in Ottawa--I don't know if it was in Ottawa actually, but it was a presentation to the committee.
His words, quoting Tolstoy, were:
I sit
on a
man's back
choking him
and making
him carry
me and yet assure myself and
others that I am sorry for him
and wish to lighten his load by
all possible means—except by
getting off his back.
In other words, we're willing to lighten his load by any possible means except by getting off his back. It's interesting that an aboriginal person from the Mayo Indian Band in the Yukon would be quoting Leo Tolstoy in 1886 in making a presentation to an Indian affairs committee in Ottawa, but it's an interesting sentiment.
I can understand; 130 years later, we're sitting around this committee table willing to do anything possible to lighten the burden on our first nations brethren except getting off their backs, except for getting the minister off their backs and out of their lives. That's where we stop short; we refuse to go that far.
Again, this was the promise made when we opened up the Indian Act for amendments with Bill C-7, that this bill would enhance self-government and it would diminish and reduce the role of the minister in the lives of aboriginal people. If anything, Bill C-7 expands and broadens the intervention of the minister in the lives of first nations people in absolute ways, by the default codes and default mechanisms, and in even more absolute ways by way of sanction for those first nations who either cannot or will not comply with the rigid governance codes that will be imposed on them by default--because we know what those sanctions will be.
Those sanctions will be trusteeship, or what we call third-party management. The minister's way of disciplining recalcitrant first nations will be to intervene and put their financial affairs under trusteeship and assign this to a third-party manager, who is usually, as has been the pattern, some good friend of the Liberal Party who gets a juicy, juicy contract to take over the administration of a first nation.
In fact, we have examples of third-party managers being awarded a contract of $30,000 a month to administer the day-to-day affairs of a first nation, which is comparable to the day-to-day financial affairs of a small corner store. That's about the number of financial transactions that take place in a given month.
I interviewed an aboriginal lawyer who has been the third-party manager for first nations communities. He was billing about $1,500 a month for the total services required to administer the day-to-day financial transactions of a first nations community. Instead, the Minister of Indian Affairs gives to his high-school buddy in Kenora a contract for $30,000 a month to administer the affairs of a first nation day to day.
¸ (0255)
This is one of the biggest scandals in the country. This rivals Groupaction and Communication Coffin, and all the other ridiculous Liberal communications scandals--
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Monsieur Ménard.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: I will conclude in 10 minutes, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure I tabled an amendment that could add value to the bill. I hope I can count on the Liberals' support to work in a spirit of cooperation. But if that is not the case, obviously we will have to think of some sanctions.
Mr. Chairman, I cannot overstress the fact that this evening, we, the members of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP, are really taking our responsibilities seriously.
There are a number of questions that must be answered. I remember what happened three weeks ago at the Standing Committee on Health. The chair's approach was somewhat different from yours, Mr. Chairman. We heard from senior officials who had come to tell us about the health of first nations. Don't for one minute think that the health of first nations is not a concern. We even agreed to table a special report on the dental health of first nations. When you look at the cooperation between the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and the Department of Health, you can see that 50 per cent of Health Canada's budget goes to the first nations.
Why is it that the federal government, as trustee for the aboriginal nations, cannot set objective standards to help the first nations? The federal government cannot teach us anything given the way it treated the first nations. Wouldn't the solution be to give the first nations as many powers as possible, to help them handle their own affairs and to say that the first nations must be the masters of their own destiny?
They should be given control over all of their resources, their entire taxation system, all of their democratic systems and their relations with foreign countries. They must be able to ensure their own development, just like other modern nations; that is what the first nations want. That is what history tells us, as well as court rulings and international law, Mr. Chairman.
Why is it that we have ended up with a bill that is 50 years behind the times? It is a retrograde bill, a step backwards, an outdated bill, a colonial bill. We cannot just turn a blind eye to the interests of the first nations, when their future is at stake.
Unfortunately, I see some naive smiles, some candid smiles, devoid of any authenticity. But the discussion will go on. Even if the government passes this bill this evening, the discussion will still go on. Aboriginal people will march in the streets. The first nations will certainly not give up, and aboriginal people will come to see the members of the Block Québécois and the NDP on Parliament Hill because we support their claims. My understanding is that the Conservatives are also against this bill.
Mr. Chairman, the government is being shortsighted, lacks vision, and is being so narrow-minded that sooner or later this will come back to haunt them. The votes will speak for themselves, Mr. Chairman. It is important to note that no member of the Liberal Party is guaranteed victory when people go to the polls. Things could have been different. We could have written a page in history with the ink of equality and respect for aboriginal peoples. Instead of using courtesy, cooperation and negotiations between two equal nations, the Liberal government adopted a colonial approach.
¹ (0300)
Mr. Chairman, I remember Pierre Elliott Trudeau. What was the slogan of the 1968 election? It was "A just society". I was going to snatch the answer right out of his mouth. That's rather unhealthy, Mr. Chairman; the Member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot was whispering the answer to me. The future prime minister, who was Minister of Justice at the time, had chosen the slogan "A just society". Remember that Pierre Elliott Trudeau had invited Quebeckers to export the quiet revolution to Ottawa and that Liberals presented themselves as poverty fighters.
Is this a bill that Pierre Elliott Trudeau would claim as his own? Does it lead to a just society? Is it respectful of first nations? The Bloc Québécois says no, the NDP says no and the PC Party says no. I say that the Canadian Alliance is non-aligned as far as aboriginal rights are concerned.
We will fight on in the House. We are peace warriors. We fight for justice and we feel that by speaking out in the House of Commons the course of events can be changed.
This is a warning to the government. If they want to use their dull and dense majority, and, through sheer force of numbers, vote in this bill, the Bloc will not accept to be gagged at third reading for such a bill. Our fight will be relentless. Without exception, all Bloc members will do their best and command all their energy, expertise and wit to fight in the House of Commons a bill that is a stain on democracy. The same goes for the NDP; we are a team. This is an incestuous relationship, but in the sense that... [Editor's Note: Inaudible]. I will close with a metaphor. I will say that the NDP and the Bloc Québécois are bedfellows entertaining the same dream, Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Fontaine was saying in reference to the cold war.
We do not surrender in the face of hardship. Our only struggle in the coming months will be for the first nations. We shall speak with a single voice. The opposition will be united, Mr. Chairman, and for this reason it will overcome.
But there is still time. If you were to accept an adjournment motion, each of us could go home to reflect on what we experienced tonight, meet again and maybe start discussing ways to withdraw the bill without the government...
This is a motion to adjourn, Mr. Chairman.
¹ (0305)
The Chair: Are you moving to adjourn?
Mr. Réal Ménard: Yes, without the government having to lose face.
[English]
The Chair: I have a motion to adjourn.
(Motion negatived)
The Chair: Mr. Martin, you have the floor.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, I believe--
The Chair: Oh, that completes the second subamendment. We will have a recorded vote on the second subamendment to amendment CA-53, on page 243.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 3)
The Chair: Mr. Martin, we will go to you for closing remarks on the amendment.
Mr. Pat Martin: I will begin again.
Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to be able to build off the sentiments expressed by my colleague with the Bloc québécois. We are united in our opposition to this bill on a number of levels, and we will not be silenced by these tactics and the strategies of the tyranny of the majority in this instance, because we know we're on the side of righteousness in this particular struggle.
We feel quite comfortable that history will judge us favourably. When historians look back on the progress of the emancipation of aboriginal people, they will note that there was a loud voice in Parliament in and about the turn of the millennium, in and about 2003, where some members of Parliament spoke loudly against colonialism and against tinkering with colonialism and spoke in favour of the emancipation of aboriginal people in the truest sense of the words.
There will be an historic record. I think my colleague with the Bloc québécois put it in very decorative terms. Certainly we're proud of the position we're taking, and history will bear that out, probably when this bill gets overturned by a series of court challenges and constitutional challenges.
There will be very little to debate in the coming years around this bill. It will simply be viewed as an expensive exercise and a phenomenal waste of the taxpayers' money.
We should share, for the benefit of those who aren't always at this committee, that the minister has spend $15 million promoting the bill to this point. The advertising budget alone post-consultation is $1.3 million, which is a staggering amount.
A voice: Give us that money and we'll build a college.
An hon. member: [Inaudible—Editor]
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, I'm being heckled again by people on your side. Do you have any control over your team?
¹ (0310)
The Chair: A lot more than I do over yours.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, the amount of money is really quite staggering. In fact, in the minister's own estimate in the internal cabinet memorandum, of which we happen to have a copy, the minister actually estimates, or is budgeting, $110 million per year over five years for the implementation of Bill C-7. This is not taking into consideration the fact that there could be strong opposition to the implementation of the many governance codes associated with Bill C-7.
In fact, we can almost guarantee that there will not be enthusiastic cooperation. We've been served notice of that already by many first nations. The $550 million that the government intends to throw away ramming this bill down the throats of people who have made it abundantly clear they don't want it and they don't need it is being taken right out of the A-base budget of DIAND. The A-base budget—this is not new money. This is money that is taken out of programs, out of product, out of the housing allowances, etc. It is money that would go to meeting the basic needs of people who, by all accounts, are living in third world conditions on reserves that I visited personally in northern Manitoba. Can you imagine squandering half a billion dollars in this day and age on administrative tinkering that nobody wants and everyone, in fact, vigorously opposes?
No one can deny there is overwhelming opposition to this bill right across the country, so the $550 million that the minister has budgeted will be inadequate. It won't be enough money. You could probably multiply that by a factor of three or four realistically. We could be talking a scandalous waste of money comparable to the gun registry, in terms of wasted resources and very little product to show for it, by the time the dust settles on this disastrous piece of legislation.
Imagine the practical difficulty the government is going to have to force a completely new governmental regime on 633 first nations that are wildly diverse. They are different in size. They're different in stages of economic development. They're different in every way. Yet we have a cookie-cutter template approach of governance codes that we intend to force on these communities. It's almost impossible, Mr. Chairman, especially when you take into account that there will not be enthusiastic cooperation. There will be deliberate foot dragging and there will be a lack of cooperation because nobody wants it. They have made it abundantly clear they don't want it.
That, Mr. Chairman, is a challenge. That is a real challenge. DIAND is going to have to drop everything else and be seized of the issue of ramming this down the throats of 633 first nations across the country, because they will have no time for anything else. This will preoccupy DIAND for years to come. There will be no other business done. There will be no attention or energy or resources directed toward all the pressing basic needs issues associated with first nations communities—the health issues that my colleague made reference to, the housing issues. This money is taken directly away from what could be spent on housing budgets to meet these basic needs.
It's a scandalous waste of resources. It's an irresponsible waste of resources from the minister's point of view. When he pitched this to his own cabinet, when he sold this bill of goods to his own cabinet, he admitted, and I'll quote it for you, that $110 million will be coming from the A-base. He also admitted at that time that there was a lot of opposition across the country to this bill.
I found it significant that he wouldn't meet with his own deputy minister for three months. The deputy minister quit. He moved on. Of course, any deputy minister would when your new minister doesn't even call you or meet with you for lunch or ask what you think he should do with the department. Obviously the minister arrived with an agenda and didn't need to consult with anybody.
¹ (0315)
Under “Target audiences and reactions”, which is part of the strategy document for implementing this disaster, it is admitted that the Native Women's Association of Canada is opposed to the initiative. As a result, the National Aboriginal Women's Association was formed to participate in the FNGA. So the Native Women's Association of Canada would not participate--
A voice: Scandalous.
Mr. Pat Martin: --so their funding was cut and a new dummy organization “was formed to participate in the FNGA”. That's the actual language: “was formed to participate in the FNGA”.
A voice: Shame!
Mr. Pat Martin: This is the memorandum to cabinet, first nations governance legislation, imagine.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Pat Martin: We've known all along that those who cooperate with the FNGA get rewarded and those who are opposed to the FNGA get punished--and they get financially punished. In this case, the newly formed native women's association got $2 million--formed out of the blue--and the funding for the old association, which has been around for 35 years, was eliminated, completely cut.
So we have the legitimate Native Women's Association with their budget cut and a new dummy parallel organization formed specifically to sell this bill of goods and to give legitimacy to Nault. He couldn't find any legitimate organizations to support it, so he had to manufacture some. He had to create them.
It's like the kid who had no friends. He had to hang a pork chop around his neck so his dog would play with him. That's how unpopular this bill is. It's just sad, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I cannot believe that.
Mr. Pat Martin: Well, this is a graphic illustration of what we have said all along. Now we find--
Mr. John Bryden: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: On a point of order, Mr. Bryden.
Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether it's a legitimate point of order, but I really do object to the member opposite calling a native women's association a bunch of dummies. That is what he said and I think that is most inappropriate.
The Chair: It's not a point of order.
Mr. Martin, you have the floor.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: It's not a point of order.
Mr. Réal Ménard: No, no, participate in the debate. You must participate in the debate. It's not a point of order.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: It's not a point of order. Shame on you!
The Chair: The clock is running.
Mr. Pat Martin: Shame on you. Mr. Bryden comes to every now and then as a lucid--
Mr. Réal Ménard: You are confused and disturbed.
The Chair: Record it as Mr. Martin.
Mr. Réal Ménard: You are confused and disturbed. I know English now.
Mr. Pat Martin: That's very good. He's uniquely disturbed. He really is. I've often worried about him.
But in analysis, Mr. Chairman, in the same sales pitch to cabinet, the minister admitted he requires another $1.3 million for INAC communications initiatives for the year 2002-03.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
A recorded vote on CA-53, page 243.
(Amendment negatived: nays 11; yeas 0)
¹ (0320)
The Chair: That would have caused an additional clause 56.1. There will not be that clause.
(On clause 57)
We move on to clause 57, amendment G-19.
Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Very briefly, then, in terms of clause 57, changing lines 8 and 9 on page 24 with the following, clause 57 would read:
| 57. Section 92 of the Act is repealed. |
In other words, Mr. Chair, the reference to section 93 is being removed by this amendment.
The reason is that section 93 gives protection to the resources of the first nations peoples, in terms of the natural resources there that cannot be removed without proper legislation dealing with the removal. If we repealed section 93, it would mean that until the first nation had developed a code or bylaws of its own, natural resources, including timber, oil, and so forth, could be removed without any definite regulations or law concerning that.
With that, it's a very short and very clear amendment. I think that all members around the committee would certainly want to support the fact that the resources of first nations peoples must be protected, either by the Indian Act or preferably by legislation the first nations would develop on their own under paragraph 17(1)(a) of Bill C-7.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.
Monsieur Ménard, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Jacques if this intention to protect resources truly gives increased power to first nations communities.
Mr. Karl Jacques: This power is already included in the bill. Proposed section 17(1) refers to the same powers as those found in section 93 of the Indian Act. This is a transitional measure to ensure that there will be no legislative vacuum before councils pass regulations on resources.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Could the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs disallow a regulation that was not to its liking? Do first nations communities have full control over resources?
Mr. Karl Jacques: These regulations are made under subclause 17(1), which has been abundantly discussed earlier. Of course, there is also subclause 17(2) on conflicts between laws and regulations. This is the same...
Mr. Réal Ménard: So federal laws are paramount.
Mr. Karl Jacques: Federal laws are paramount.
Mr. Réal Ménard: And so are regulations.
Mr. Chairman, now you see that the parliamentary secretary did not say everything. You could think that such an amendment is a good thing, that the fact that first nations are left with more natural resources is a good thing. Two sets of laws coexist in our system, and if this bill is passed, federal laws will most certainly remain paramount.
Mr. Jacques, am I mistaken in believing that the Supreme Court has rendered two very important decisions concerning... but your specialty is drafting. I should perhaps put my question to Mr. Boileau who, I can feel it, is dying to take part in the debate. Am I mistaken in believing that the Supreme Court has rendered two decisions where they said that we must be a little bit more generous with aboriginals in terms of their management of natural resources, and that their ancestral treaties had not been taken into account?
¹ (0325)
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: I'm not sure which particular cases you're referring to. Maybe I'll just say one other thing. I think when you consider this section, you also have to look back at amendment G-9 on page 146, because in there it talks about, in subclause 17(5), how the regulations will apply until such time as a band makes a band law related to this particular issue. At that time the regulations will no longer apply. As soon as the band makes a bylaw under paragraph 17(1)(a) related to the removal of material from a reserve, the band law takes precedence and the regulations don't apply to that particular band. In other words, it ensures there's no legislative vacuum.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Am I mistaken in believing that the word “resources” is meant here in a generic sense, or are the kind of resources we are referring to specified?
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: I believe paragraph 17(1)(a) has been amended to specify what those kinds of resources are. If you look at amendment G-8, I guess it is, it talks about resources such as “soil, sand, gravel, clay, marl, peat, timber, mushrooms, plants or plant products.” So that's what it's referring to there.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: But I think that does not include wildlife and fish.
[English]
The Chair: Monsieur Ménard has the floor.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: I believe that does not include wildlife and fish. Am I wrong?
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: Right, we're talking about natural resources here.
[Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I can't blame the officials because they didn't draft the bill. However, it is inconsistent to say on the one hand that you want to give more powers to first nations over resources and on the other hand exclude the very basis of their traditional activities, namely wildlife and fish. Mr. Chairman, if a first year law student had written this he would have gotten a D-. There is a bewildering lack of logic.
We will not be able to support this amendment. Once again, I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to go on to something else and not infringe... The government is on the wrong track. This bill will give rise to a constitutional crisis. I think our NDP colleague is right. Even if the government imposes its majority, how will they inspire cooperation and respect? A bill such as this one should put into effect the will of both parties. There is a limit to authoritarianism. It won't be possible, Mr. Chairman. We will embark on a cycle of court challenges. First nations will go before the courts. There will be disobedience, and the federal government will find itself in an extremely precarious position.
Why not look to Quebec for inspiration, Mr. Chairman. Why not take your lead from Bernard Landry and his Peace of the Braves? Why not emulate René Lévesque? What will Minister Nault's place in the history books be? I don't want to be disrespectful towards anyone, because we are all parliamentarians, but can we agree that this authoritarian approach cannot lead to success?
I would like to think that Wednesday morning, during caucus, the Liberal MPs from Quebec, such as Ms. Liza Frulla, MP for Verdun--Saint-Henri--Saint-Paul--Pointe Saint-Charles, and the MP for the Valleyfield region, who is currently getting a massage—the lucky devil— will come to their senses and that representations will be made to the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister should be well aware of the issue. In 1963, he was elected to Parliament. He even adopted a native son. I know that. I know that the Prime Minister is a humanist who can change his position in the face of great challenges. Therefore, I believe we should adopt a stance that would allow us to tell the Prime Minister that his political career will be tainted by this. Nineteen eighty-two was bad enough. If the Prime Minister doesn't make an about-turn and reverse his stance, his place in history will be compromised.
The Member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot might well say that $100 million are being earmarked for the opening of a museum of political history, but that will be very small compensation if the Prime Minister does not reverse his stance.
This bill must be withdrawn. We should ask the pages who work in the House of Commons to collect all the copies and light a barn fire and make sure that this bill is reduced to ashes; the flames will need to be eternal to repair all of the injustices and the wounds. Then we will put the ashes in an urn and the urn in a vault. Mr. Chairman, I don't see how the government can find a way out of this debate.
It's very disappointing to see that in so many other areas, for example territorial limits, taxation, follow-up, there could have been... I'm sure that a man such as yourself, Mr. Chairman, would put pen to paper to draft a motion to send back the bill and order the committee to meet again to determine the best follow-up to the Erasmus-Dussault Commission. You would garner the cooperation of all opposition members and loud applause. You would be a hero, Mr. Chairman. Not only would your place in the history books be assured, but there wouldn't be words strong enough to express our gratitude and appreciation.
Unfortunately, now when your name comes up in the hallways of Parliament, Mr. Chairman, that's not what we hear.
¹ (0330)
Obviously, it is not out of a lack of respect for you, Mr. Chairman, but if there was some way to...
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Ménard.
Does someone else wish to speak?
Mr. Loubier.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Of course, I agree with my colleague Mr. Ménard. You would have our support. If you were to tell us now, within the next few minutes, that you have finally understood, after almost 120 hours of debate, that this is not the bill that we need, we would take it and burn a number of copies in effigy. How many of us are here in this room? Along with the first nations, we would go and stand in front of the Parliament buildings, near the Eternal Flame, and we would each burn a copy of the bill, we would raise it over our heads and have a picture taken. We have a digital camera here. It would be a symbolic night, with all of us coming together to decide that this is not the solution, this is not the extension nor the undertaking to which we were called by the Erasmus-Dussault Commission. We would set it aside, we would burn it, we would have some fun doing this during what remains of this night and tomorrow morning, at first light, we would continue our work, but this time we would be working all together, with the first nations at the table.
They would be asked, in their capacity as first nations with an inherent right to self-government, what powers they wish to have and how they would like to go about exercising them. We would write all of it down while they are speaking, and we would speed up the negotiations for land and for self-government. It would be so much easier to do it that way.
You would have us on your side, with all of our well-known energy and our sensitivity, along with the historical and constitutional knowledge of my colleague for Hochelaga--Maisonneuve.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Along with the high spirits and infectious joie de vivre of my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot
Mr. Yvan Loubier: We could even invite Chaput to come along, in order to liven things up a little.
That would make us even more enthusiastic about the work that we will have to do. Let's take another 24 hours, or even 48 hours, if you like, to lay the foundation, a real foundation for a great leap into our history. That is what we were asked to do a few years ago when the hefty tomes that are the Erasmus-Dussault reports were tabled. We were called upon to rebuild the future. It would not be that hard to do.
I can promise you that in 48 hours we could all sit down together with the first nations, take up the Erasmus-Dussault report—if I can manage to find a French copy, which would make it easier for us—we could take all of the conclusions from the report and use them as guidelines. And if there is still the same consensus around these reference points as the agreement which existed when the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was made public, the first nations will work quickly alongside us, with all of their intelligence, their knowledge and their ancestral customs. They would put the ancestral treaties that were signed so long ago back on the table and would combine everything in order to express their inherent right to self-government. It would not take 20 years; we could meet the challenge in less than 15 years, I have no doubt about that. But we must build on solid ground. We have to start by being open with each other. We must also be mindful of the fact that this self-government will be negotiated between equals, between nations, with respect and with dignity.
We have to help the first nations without imposing anything on them. We have to support their effort to rebuild on what are the remains of 130 years of the Indian Act. If we are all sleepy around the table—at 3:35 a.m., it is understable—after one and a half's month of discussions on this bill, and if we are not awake to the fact that there's no consensus, that the bill has been rejected by most of the first nations except for a few people who might be closer to power than others, if we have not realized this and we have not realized that there could be a quick consensus... If the members, the population and the first nations chiefs have all managed to come together in opposition to Bill C-7, then we can surely agree to rebuild relations within parameters related to mutual respect, respect for dignity and the great undertaking that was proposed by the Erasmus-Dussault Commission.
¹ (0335)
Fortunately, our debate is not being televised.
Mr. Chairman, it is 3:40 a.m. Could you suspend the meeting for half an hour? We will go to take a little nap and we will come back. I am sure that just an hour will be good for everyone. The lawyers are exhausted. We must ask very specific and sometimes insidious questions.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Mr. Chairman, I want to raise a point of order.
Mr. Chairman, would you have the courtesy to...?
The Chair: That is not a point of order.
Mr. Loubier, you have the floor.
Mr. Réal Ménard: I move that we adjourn for an hour, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: You cannot table a motion to adjourn.
Mr. Loubier, you have the floor.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Why can we not table a motion to adjourn?
The Chair: Mr. Loubier can do it.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: May I have the consent of all present? I move a motion to adjourn.
The Chair: Are you moving that we adjourn for an hour?
Mr. Yvan Loubier: No. I move that we adjourn until 9 o'clock. If that cannot be done, I will move that we adjourn for an hour.
[English]
The Chair: I have a motion to adjourn until 9 a.m.
(Motion negatived)
The Chair: Mr. Martin, you have the floor.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, the government now seems to want to debate their own amendments. It's interesting that all day long, from 9 a.m. until now, 3:40 a.m. the next day, 28 hours later, all day the government, when one of their amendments has come up, has stood, has moved, has made a motion that we shall not debate this amendment, and we shall have this amendment stand. This means it's put to the bottom of the pile. Now, at 28 hours into this exercise here--not quite 28, that's an exaggeration, my math is way off, Mr. Chair--anyway, about 20 or so hours into this exercise, now the government wants to debate their amendment G-19. I don't know what happened to G-18, and G-17, and G-16, and why they weren't of any interest to them. We would have been happy to debate them at an hour of the day when we might have been able to do them justice as well.
But if the government insists on debating this particular amendment now, I don't mind speaking to it. I do have some input that I'd like to make about this particular bill.
The idea of deleting or not deleting sections 92 or 93 of the Indian Act takes us back to a debate we tried to introduce earlier in this whole exercise, weeks ago in fact, Mr. Chairman, when we were dealing with the issue of resources the first nations can have some control or influence over. To refresh the parliamentary secretary's memory, under clause 17 we were dealing with the issue that the council of a band may make laws for band purposes in relation to the disposition of resources for personal or commercial use. Those resources that they saw fit to include, Mr. Chairman, were soil, sand, gravel, clay, marl, peat, timber, mushrooms, plants and plant products.
In other words, mushrooms and mud shall be the jurisdiction of Indians, and all other resources shall be the exclusive domain of white people, the rest of us. So Indians can play with the mud and the mushrooms, and they can sell them if they can find a market for this mud, or all the mushrooms and berries they can gather. But what about copper?
I moved an amendment at the time, and I said let's give jurisdiction to first nations for resources such as copper, diamonds, nickel, gold, asbestos, molybdenum, zinc, silver, iron ore, uranium, water. Those would have been minerals and materials of some value that maybe some people could make some use of and have some economic advantage from were they given control over lands and resources found on Indian lands.
What the honourable parliamentary secretary is trying to imply is that by not deleting section 93 of the Indian Act, we will still be giving Indians permission to gather soil, sand, gravel, clay, peat, timber, etc. This is what the reference is in the Indian Act in sections 92 and 93. He's trying to sell it as a big advantage for first nations that they'll still be able to sell that gravel, and not just gravel, but sand as well, and rocks, rocks if they can find some rocks that they can sell at the local corner. Most people put up fruit stands, so maybe they could put up rock stands and try to sell these rocks, Mr. Chairman.
But there's no mention of control of other lands and resources, which is the primary, key, fundamental point that's been raised from the very beginning. If we're going to open the book and talk about management of lands and resources, then let's have that debate and let's stimulate some economic development and activity stemming from the wealth that exists, if not on the reserves, then certainly within the traditional territory of first nations' historic use.
So lands and resources is of great interest, but it's completely disingenuous, in fact it's misleading, to imply that the government is in some way doing first nations a favour by the amendment they've moved today in amendment G-19, in which, instead of deleting section 93 and leaving the door open to first nations having a rightful claim on resources other than mud and mushrooms, they have seen fit to leave section 93 intact in the Indian Act, so that now the reference is still only to minerals, stone, sand, gravel, clay or soil.
¹ (0340)
And certainly in clause 17 the council of a band may make laws for band purposes in relation to soil, sand, gravel, clay, marl--whatever the heck marl is--peat, mushrooms and plants and plant products. There's no reference to anything of any value. Where's the gold, where are the pearls, where are the rubies? There is no reference to any treasures. There's only reference to mud, and gravel, and mushrooms.
This is what's so astoundingly arrogant about the original Indian Act, and to this day, Mr. Hubbard's job is to continue it. The continuation of that arrogance is the parliamentary secretary's job here. So yes, again, greed and self-interest prevail as opposed to the best interests of first nations.
This is how it's contradictory to the fiduciary obligation. I've tried to explain this in detail, going through what the fiduciary obligation is of individuals around this committee. Because we're an extension of Parliament, we, as individual members of this committee, also have an obligation to act in the best interests of aboriginal people, to put their interests first. Their interests are not being put first by Bill C-7 and, more specifically, by clauses in Bill C-7 that fail to address issues of management of land and resources in the best interests of first nations.
It seems to me that management of lands and resources is in the best interests of the Crown and the best interests of the federal government, but not in the best interests of first nations.
I used one example, Mr. Chairman--I wish I had my notes with me. It was a recent example of the distribution of oil and gas revenues in a first nation in Alberta, and we had the cubic feet of oil, the cubic feet of natural gas in the community, and the one-time lump sum payment per person was $15,000. This was back in 1978 when it was distributed.
That $15,000, the one-time lump sum payment, would have probably bought a new pickup truck in 1978 and that pickup truck would now be 20 years or 25 years old. It would be worn out and on the trash heap. In other words, the oil and gas activity is still underway on reserves, but the benefit, the payout, was made in 1978 and they're no longer benefiting from the activity on the traditional lands of that reserve. That's one example of how it's an oversight of this committee to not deal with the management of lands and resources while we have the Indian Act open.
Mr. Chairman, I do intend to move a subamendment to government amendment G-19. My amendment is to add the numbers (2), (3), and (4) after section 92, with (2), (3) and (4) being subsections.
¹ (0345)
The Chair: Mr. Martin, on the subamendment.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Would you like to repeat, sir?
Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, it's my intention, Mr. Chairman, by way of introducing this subamendment, that I would add subsection (2), subsection (3), and subsection (4) after section 92 in the government's amendment.
Mr. Réal Ménard: It's just great.
Mr. Pat Martin: I can see that my subamendment is garnering support already, Mr. Chairman, and I haven't even begun to debate in defence of the subamendment. But I do intend to explain, Mr. Chairman, what my intention is.
By making reference to deleting.... Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. I have a cough here.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Would you like to adjourn?
Mr. Pat Martin: We should probably adjourn for medical reasons, all of us, because some of the members here live a--
The Chair: Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, can we hear the subamendment before we begin to debate it?
The Chair: You want to hear it again?
Mr. Charles Hubbard: We should hear the subamendment before we start this debate.
The Chair: Could you repeat it?
Mr. Jeffrey LeBlanc (Legislative Clerk): The subamendment is after section 92, adding subsections (2), (3) and (4). The effect of that would be to repeal subsections (2), (3) and (4) of the current section 92. It would leave subsection 92(1) intact.
The Chair: Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
By deleting subsections 92(2), 92(3) and 92(4), we're eliminating the penalty associated with it; that's what we're doing.
Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that there are oversights in the bill in its entirety as it applies to sections 92 and 93, and the original motion, the original government G-19 amendment motion, fails to reflect the issues that I raised, the issues we attempted to deal with in clause 17, where we were dealing with valuable resources as opposed to resources of the most minimal value.
Mr. Chairman, when we passed clause 17 in this bill, we mandated that bands and councils may only make laws pertaining to the commercial use of soil, sand, gravel, clay, marl, etc. I notice that there was a proposal originally to delete section 93 from the Indian Act, which deals with the removal of material from reserves. By leaving section 93 in, again it leaves in reference to “stone, sand, gravel, clay, soil, trees, saplings”, but no reference to any materials of any greater value, Mr. Chairman.
So it strikes me as disingenuous and even misleading for the parliamentary secretary to try to feature the proposed amendment to clause 57 as being in some way advantageous to first nations people. In fact, it seems to me contrary to the fiduciary responsibility and obligation to act in the best interests of first nations people, Mr. Chairman.
We dealt at length with our efforts in clause 17, Mr. Chairman, dealing with items of value. We certainly heard from presenters across the country, not the least of whom was the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, who made it abundantly clear in his opening remarks to this committee that land and resources are the key and fundamental issue if we're dealing with economic development of first nations. Any kind of lasting economic development of first nations must be tied directly to control of lands and resources, the administration of lands and resources.
There are examples. Mr. Loubier cited examples in northern Quebec with the new agreement with the Quebec Cree on hydro development projects, where the Quebec Cree for the first time ever will become in fact equity partners in the development. So if we can call hydroelectricity a resource, and I believe we can, it would be an equity position.
This is also true, Mr. Chairman, with the Cross Lake Cree in northern Manitoba, where a new hydroelectric dam will be developed near the Cross Lake Reserve. In actual fact, in this instance, for the first time in our province of Manitoba, the NDP Government of Manitoba has seen fit to not just provide jobs as a benefit to the first nations residents of the nearest community, but to provide an equity share in that hydro dam so that every unit of energy generated in that hydro dam will provide a benefit to the community in real cash value for the lifespan of the hydro project.
So instead of interfering with the activities of the community, it's actually enhancing the ability of the community to expand and to undertake economic development activity with real capital, with a real equity position in a money-generating hydroelectric project. It does generate money, Mr. Chairman, as the demand for electricity in the United States is growing and growing and growing. It's a very real revenue generator, probably a safer bet than a gambling casino, in actual fact.
¹ (0350)
Mr. Chairman, of the gambling casino licences that have been allowed by the province to develop on first nations, only one is actually making money and one is breaking even. They are not necessarily the revenue generators that people had hoped for, and often the case with gambling casinos as economic development enterprises is that instead of bringing new money into the community, they are recirculating money that is already in the community. They are not necessarily generating wealth, whereas selling the resources, managing and selling the resources within the traditional land base of a first nation, is opportunity.
There is another example, Mr. Chairman, of the frustration that exists among first nations from not having access to valuable land and resources, which is the cutting rights in Manitoba, the largest single cutting rights in the country in terms of timber permits. It takes up two-thirds of northern Manitoba in one cutting licence, one timber permit, and within that territory there are over 15 first nations. Those first nations see all around them the largest single logging, cutting operation in the country--that is, in terms of geographic area, not in terms of cubic feet or value of timber--and yet they are shut out of the operation. They have no access to the economic benefit of the harvesting of all that timber even though it's their backyard, it's their neighbourhood.
This is where, Mr. Chairman, we point out that any discussion around economic development is incomplete among first nations issues if it doesn't deal with enhancing and expanding the management of land and resources as that pertains not only to first nations reserves but to their traditional territory of use.
Mr. Chairman, the subamendment that I have moved would delete subsections 92(2, 92(3), and 92(4). It's hard to understand what that would do.
We're more concerned, Mr. Chairman, with the issue that presents itself surrounding the government's amendment G-19 and we're disappointed that we didn't have an opportunity to debate amendments G-18, G-17, G-16, or any of the Gs that we've come across since we began at 9 o'clock yesterday morning. Here we are faced with, out of the blue, the government deciding that now they would like to start debating their amendments. We were beginning to think they didn't have any confidence in their own amendments and that they didn't see the merit in their own amendments, or they couldn't defend their own amendments. Perhaps they were concerned that their own amendments would not succeed if put to the test. It would be an embarrassment, no doubt, if they couldn't find support among their own membership for their own amendments. I can't think of any other reason why they would be afraid of putting their own amendments up for honest debate.
I'm not sure that government amendment G-19 will succeed, because we haven't heard any compelling arguments from the parliamentary secretary as to why we should support it. I'm inclined to not support amendment G-19 as it stands, unless it's substantially amended. This subamendment would be of some interest to us and we may be able to see fit to--
¹ (0355)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier Why should we support this amendment by the government, since we have undeniable evidence that when certain provisions of the Indian Act are abolished, we end up with a kind of offsetting effect with regard to the legislation we enable first nations to produce in sectors which are supposed to belong to a third order of government?
I welcome Mr. Martin's subamendment, as it is much more specific than the government's amendment and refers directly to the paragraphs of clause 92 of the Indian Act. But even this subamendment, although it is fair and well-advised, does not do much to change this bill, which is replete with noxious provisions that must absolutely be struck down.
Let me come back to our recent debate on clause 17. I was just referring to offsetting effects in some regards; we find in clause 17, theoretically, that the first nations are enabled and empowered to legislate in various fields which should belong to a third order of government. But we notice that even in those sectors where we had expected that some substantial powers be granted to the first nations, these powers are only minimal. I mentioned this a short while ago, when we dealt with the issue of natural resources on reserves.
Paragraph 17(1)(a) says:
| (a) The protection and conservation of natural resources within the band's reserve and the disposition for personal and commercial use of those resources, other than wildlife, fish... |
This does not make any sense. Wildlife and fish are essential to the practice of traditional hunting, trapping or fishing activities. Here we have powers that are extremely limited. Besides, there is also a second paragraph, as we saw previously in clause 16, namely paragraph 16(2), which limits the real legislative power which the first nations should normally hold in order to exercise their inherent right to self-government.
I think that even if we deleted clause 92 and adopted Mr. Martin's subamendment, we would not change much in the fundamentally detestable and unacceptable nature of this bill. This bill must be abandoned, as it cannot provide a foundation to prepare the future of our relations with the first nations.
With regard to partnership, there is many a slip between the cup and the lip. This bill does not clearly provide for any kind of partnership. Besides, how can there be any partnership when throughout the entire bill, the same old relations exist, only expressed in a slightly more modern language than the language of the Indian Act, which dates back 130 years? This is extremely colonialist and paternalistic. How can a partnership be established when there are clear provisions that grant primacy, for instance, to the minister, to the governor in council, to the regulations that the governor in council could adopt on the advice of the minister in charge, and of course, the federal legislation?
The inherent right to self-government cannot be truly established by granting legislative power for a third order of government and saying at the same time that this third order of government has entirely fictitious powers, powers such as those that are granted to municipalities.
This does not recognize the first nations as true nations according to United Nations standards. Mr. Martin just gave a few good examples of this with regard to the use of natural resources. The first nations' ability to use these resources is really limited. Mushrooms were given as an example, but there is no mention of underground resources such as minerals, gas and oil.
º (0400)
Yet, on most of the lands claimed by first nations, which were lands inhabited by them when the first Europeans came, there are some highly profitable resources. How is it that it does not enter our mind that first nations may also be tempted to benefit from this wealth that comes from the land and underground? Why are we talking about mushrooms when we give others the use of oil resources—the oil barrel price keeps going up since the war against Iraq— of metallic and non-metallic ore, of potash, etc. and we do not even think that the first nations could benefit from economic growth, from production development and the marketing of such minerals or of fuel, for instance?
It seems to me that something, somewhere, is wrong. Either we think people are fools—and I think that the government is starting to show that they do in fact think that people in general are fools—or we have not yet grasped that first nations are also entitled to benefit from the wealth on the ground and underground, especially on the lands that they claim to be theirs. They do not claim these lands to be theirs, these lands belong to them. In essence, we borrowed them, shared them and confiscated them. It is we who confiscated the territory that was traditionally inhabited by first nations. Their relationship with the earth and their relationship with property do not have the same meaning for first nations as for us. We are talking about mother earth, an earth that is lent to us, an earth that belongs to nobody but belongs to everybody. How is it that we have not even thought for a second that it would be normal, fair and equitable that we should allow first nations to benefit from the use of resources? How come we are leaving with the cake and eating it too, while we do not even think of leaving a share of it to the first nations? I find that simply disgusting.
As I reminded you a little bit earlier, we are celebrating today the tenth anniversary of a promise, a commitment which is still being trampled upon by the Prime Minister of Canada, namely the promise to settle the Lubicon land claims. How many other first nations have heard such commitments, such promises that were not kept, their hopes forever dashed, decade after decade? We are still faced today with the same situation where, under the pretence of modernity and of granting powers to the first nations, we award first nations powers as pathetic and ridiculous as those we find in Bill C-7.
But who do we take the first nations for? The former Premier of Quebec, Mr. Parizeau, would have said: “But by Jove, who do we take the members of the first nations for?” How come we find ourselves in a situation where we blatantly laugh in the face of the first nations? We had promised a real negotiation, on an equal basis, a partnership, a sharing of resources and the growth of these resources.
I feel more and more disappointed. I look at the government amendments. Those are phoney amendments, window dressing. It is as if the government had resolved to work a little bit more and to better a bill that had been botched at the last minute. That being said, the importance, in terms of volume but not in terms of scope, of the government amendments is rather surprising. There are amendments where they almost rewrite whole sections. We have seen those over the past few days. Two weeks ago, in particular, they completely rewrote the whole bill.
So we asked ourselves the question then and we still ask that question: was this bill botched that way only to please an outgoing prime minister who wants to leave a legacy, no matter how rotten it is? Was this half-baked bill rushed in at the last minute only to please a man who is still frustrated because he could not manage to have the first nations swallow his White Book of 1969 and its main conclusions, which were unanimously condemned by the first nations? Is that his legacy? Has that man not caused enough damage since he entered politics? Could he not leave right now and be replaced by someone else? Paul Martin said he would not implement this bill, but we know that when a bill is passed, it is difficult to set it aside and say ...
º (0405)
[English]
The Chair: Merci, monsieur Loubier.
Mr. Hubbard, on the subamendment.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The member for Saint-Hyacinthe has questioned the government's amendments to this bill. I would like to remind him and all of the members of the committee that the committee listened here in Ottawa to a number of presentations from various presenters, it travelled across the country, and after all of that, amendments were made in good faith. This is another one of the amendments the government is putting forth.
It's quite outstanding that the member for Winnipeg Centre will complain about the time being spent, but we just finished an amendment, Alliance 53, and this was moved by the member for Winnipeg Centre. We spent an hour and a half on it. He did not support the amendment but wanted to spend all that time, and then voted against the amendment he had proposed to our committee.
Furthermore, the subamendment he just made talks about leaving in the Indian Act subsection 91(1), a piece of legislation that was written away back, what, in 1876, talking about missionaries and school teachers on reserves and officers of the department, something very archaic, again just to take more time of this committee.
Mr. Chair, I hope we would move on and we conclude our government amendment, which we've introduced in good faith and which protects the resources of first nations peoples.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
º (0410)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Martin, on your subamendment.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, on my subamendment, I'm happy to answer some of the concerns raised by the parliamentary secretary.
There's logic in my wanting to leave in the language of section 92 of the Indian Act but to delete subsections 92(2), 92(3), and 92(4). The minister chooses to delete section 92, but he actually has things ass-backwards. Frankly, I thought the government would have been better to delete section 93 and leave in section 92. Instead, they have that reversed. The original clause 57 calls for deleting sections 92 and 93. It said simply:
| 57. Sections 92 and 93 of the Act are repealed. |
The government has now interfered with their own bill, which they drafted without the participation of first nations or any members of Parliament on this side. Then they decided in their wisdom to leave section 93 but repeal section 92.
Well, the parliamentary secretary is right, Mr. Chairman, that section 92 talks about missionaries, school teachers, and officers or employees of the department of INAC. It says:
| (1) No person who is(a) an officer or employee in the Department,...shall, without a licence from the Minister...trade for profit with an Indian or sell to him directly or indirectly goods or chattels.... |
This is a problem, Mr. Chairman, because we know that some of the best or most expansive collections of sacred objects, which museums call “artifacts” but first nations people call “sacred objects”, are in fact the private collections of former Indian agents or former employees of the Department of Indian Affairs who exploited the hell out of first nations communities in many respects, often trading for profit privately, collecting sacred objects for themselves or selling them to museums. There was widespread exploitation, which we are critical of. As long as the Indian Act exists, we think it's very appropriate that it include a reference to a prohibition of that type of activity on reserves. So my subamendment is quite logical and has a basis.
We're not burning up the clock here, Mr. Chairman. We are trying to address an issue on which there's a history of abuse. We believe there's good reason why there should be reference in the Indian Act, as long as the Indian Act remains, to prohibit a missionary engaged in mission work from profiting or trading for profit with an Indian or selling to him directly or indirectly. I think it's inappropriate, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, again, we should be considering adjourning this meeting, because I'm told the interpreters are exhausted and are even having difficulty keeping up with me now, for those who are relying on French translation.
No, Mr. Chairman, I'm not moving that, but I will move that toward the end of my time, because I want to make the point that aspects of section 92 should remain in the Indian Act for now.
Section 92 also refers to “a school teacher on a reserve”. School teachers are frequently on reserve, so I want it stated clearly that a school teacher on a reserve without a licence is not allowed to trade for profit with an Indian. In a lot of the first nations communities I've visited, common items of trade are grotesquely overpriced in the local store, etc. Teachers and others come and go from the reserve, so there may be a temptation to start to convey goods for resale in the community at markups. It could happen. I'm not saying it happens widely, but it certainly could happen, so it's appropriate that there are protective measures.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We can set ourselves a work pace here, but we cannot let the interpreters go on working this way...
Just wait a second, you brute. Do you have any sense of judgment? The interpreters are tired. They can't go on under these circumstances.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Martin, you have the floor.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, I can't speak while someone else is speaking. It's not fair to the translator.
The Chair: I stopped the clock.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: How heartless! There are no words strong enough to describe this way of proceeding. It's impossible.
[English]
The Chair: Go ahead, Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The point we're making is simply that section 93 should be deleted. We would support deleting reference to the government's vision or limits on what resources first nations should be having jurisdiction and control over. We don't mind deleting any list of resources including only stone, sand, gravel, clay, saplings, brush, underbrush, or mushrooms. That will now stay in place, in fact, but the reference to exploiting first nations is being deleted.
When I was up at the reserve in Pauingassi recently, I noticed that four bruised apples were on sale for $9. There were four bruised and saran-wrapped apples—which I would walk right past in any store—for sale for $9. A jug of milk is $12 in these communities. The prices are outrageous and outlandish.
I've seen the exploitation of aboriginal people. In fact, the land use officer in Dawson City, Yukon, was also the official magistrate, and he ran a pawn shop out of the back of his house for aboriginal people and the guys from Moosehide Creek, the aboriginal village near Dawson City, who would come to the magistrate's house to hawk their rifles for $20. Leary, his name was, had the best collection of rifles. He had a virtual warehouse of traps and rifles and valuable commodities, which he achieved by ripping off the Indians in the community. This was the local magistrate and land use officer. He was my boss, in fact, because I worked for forest services. It was absolutely atrocious.
That kind of exploitation actually does take place in and around first nations communities, so it's completely appropriate that no “officer or employee in the Department, shall...trade for profit with an Indian or sell him directly or indirectly goods or chattels”...and that no such “licence shall be issued to a full-time officer or employee in the Department”.
What is wrong with that language? It makes me wonder why the government would seek to delete that particular subsection. I'm not here to defend or be a champion of the Indian Act—which I think should be abolished—but as long as the Indian Act exists, surely this subsection should exist to minimize or to at least to send the statement that we don't approve of that kind of exploitation of first nations people, whether by a missionary or by an officer of the department or by a schoolteacher on a reserve. Of course, I should mention that this prohibition applies only on a reserve.
By deleting subsections 93(2), 93(3) and 93(4), we can do away with the penalty aspect, or the reference to it. In the absence of any specific penalties itemized in the bill, then it would be subject to the courts or the common law to indicate what kind of penalty should be assessed. We would prefer that the act be silent and less specific on certain things.
We have the same complaint about the entire Bill C-7, that it is so prescriptive and specific in many areas and details, we'd be better off if the act were simply silent on many of these areas. It would be fairer, in actual fact, because it wouldn't predetermine the outcome or the interpretation of what's right and wrong.
º (0415)
We're often hobbled, bound, and limited by the bill's specific and prescriptive language, especially when it hasn't been thought through or debated adequately. In fact, we're leaving ourselves open to all kinds of challenges. If we leave ambiguities in the act...I have maintained all along that we have built in ambiguities that are going to stymie future jurists as they try to wade through the raft of court challenges that will stem predictably from the passage of Bill C-7. It's just a confounding series of problems that have been opened up by this bill.
So when we move this subamendment, it's in the interests of trying to add or return some value to what the government is doing in amendment G-19. We'd probably all be better off if the government were simply to stand down all of their amendments and deal with them at a future time. I'm not sure what they government's strategy is, whether they plan to reintroduce this at a later date.
º (0420)
The Chair: We'll have a recorded vote on the subamendment to G-19 on page 244.
(Subamendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 2)
The Chair: Mr. Hubbard, your closing remarks on your amendment.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We're ready for the vote.
The Chair: Recorded vote on amendment G-19.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8; nays 2)
(Clause 57 as amended agreed to on division)
The Chair: (On clause 58)
We'll now go to amendment G-19.1 on page 246. Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This is another very brief amendment, to replace lines 15 and 16 on page 24 with the following:
| under section 90 or 93 has been committed may seize any goods and chattels by means of which or in |
Mr. Chair, this provides that subsection 103(1) of the Indian Act applies in respect of section 93 of the Indian Act, and not just in respect of section 90.
Maybe our witness, Mr. Jacques, might want to comment briefly on this before we go to other amendments.
Mr. Karl Jacques: Since section 93 would still be in the Indian Act, property may be seized, as it is currently done. If the amendment were not made, there wouldn't be any provisions permitting the seizure of goods removed illegally from reserve lands.
The Chair: Thank you.
Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I would like someone to tell me what the point of this government amendment is. I didn't fully understand Mr. Jacques' explanation, and I would like him to explain it to me. I understood even less of the parliamentary secretary's explanation. The way he presents the government's amendments, it seems that he doesn't understand what he is presenting. He does not know what he is presenting. That is why I would like you, Mr. Jacques, to explain this amendment. He doesn't even know what he is doing. Can you give me an explanation?
Mr. Karl Jacques: Clause 58 of the bill, in its current form, refers only to section 90, stating that a peace officer may seize goods whenever he believes that an offence against section 90 of the Indian Act has been committed.
Given that section 93 has not been repealed, it is important to put the provisions of that section back into section 103 so that resources that have been illegally removed from reserves can be seized.
It is simply consequential to the previous motion to remove section 93 from clause 57.
º (0425)
Mr. Yvan Loubier: So, it's a matter of consistency with amendments that have already been made. It adds nothing new to the debate. It does not improve the government's bill. It makes it more consistent, given what has already been done and the decisions that were made earlier.
Mr. Karl Jacques: That's right, and it doesn't change section 103 as it currently stands.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: During consideration of the last three amendments, the parliamentary secretary repeatedly told us that the purpose of these amendments was to meet the aspirations, demands and criticisms expressed by the witnesses. This is not true. Either he is not aware of the scope of the amendments that the government is putting forth, or he is trying to make us believe that the government is listening to what the witnesses have to say, witnesses who are in the vast majority opposed to the bill.
This type of amendment is nothing to get excited about; its only purpose is to make the bill consistent. It is merely a technical amendment being proposed for the purposes of consistency.
The expectations of the members of first nations who appeared before us or who had very specific demands regarding their inherent right to self-government have not been met. The many concerns expressed by constitutional experts, lawyers, members of the Canadian Bar Association, the Indigenous Bar Association and the Bar of the Province of Quebec have not been met either.
Since the beginning of our work, the majority of the government's amendments have been drafted simply to ensure consistency with other amendments that have previously been put forward by the government.
In terms of substance, however, I cannot recall any government amendment—unless Pat Martin can—that has been crafted in direct response to criticism expressed by the witnesses who have appeared before us, who have thoroughly analyzed this bill and who have presented briefs. It is rather disappointing to now be at clause 58 and for there to be nothing, not even a small part, reflecting the amendments that have been asked for by many of those who spoke to us, either in person or through a brief.
We have received several briefs. Upon closer scrutiny, one can see that those who oppose the bill are the vast majority of those who came before us and presented a brief. If memory serves me well, there were 191 opposed to the bill and about 10 people or groups who supported Bill C-7. Criticism of this government bill has been quite cutting and the bill enjoys a pitiful amount of support. However, despite this outcry, none or very few of the government's amendments to Bill C-7 have been substantive amendments.
We in the opposition have tried the opposite approach. Rather than suggest amendments and then more amendments to make the bill consistent, we have chosen to be spokespersons to express the main complaints that have been expressed about Bill C-7, especially by first nations who have not had the opportunity to sit at the table, to discuss this and to tell you face to face what they think of you, of your work, and also of your attitude since the very beginning of the consideration of this bill. They are not before you, sitting around the table, to express the indignation they feel because you are brushing off their firm opposition to this bill and because you do not respect their status as a nation, as opposed to the United Nations, which does.
If first nations representatives were sitting around the table, I am certain that you would not be enjoying the experience. The feeling shared by all first nations members, with very few exceptions, is one of additional humiliation, on top of the humiliation that they have had to experience for 130 years under the Indian Act.
I am certain that history will prove us right. When I say "us", I am speaking of those who oppose Bill C-7 and of the first nations. We will not be able to rebuild our relations with first nations on the basis of Bill C-7 provisions. Even loyal Liberal servants, such as Warren Allmand, have said so.
º (0430)
This bill will not go far, because a bill cannot be imposed on the first nations against their will. Besides, for the past month and a half, we repeatedly asked about what would happen if the first nations did not implement this bill. No sanctions are provided and there is no obligation. Mr. Johnson told us yesterday that this bill does not provide for any sanctions, but if the first nations did not implement the new legislation, they would suffer. When the aboriginal people realize, for instance, that they cannot take advantage of the subsidies due to them because their band council has not enforced the provisions of the new act, they will put pressure on their band council.
To me, it is detestable and unacceptable to hear an official speak in such terms. These are thinly veiled threats to the first nations. They are told that if they do not toe the line and enforce the provisions of the new act, their subsidies will be cut, they will be hit where it hurts them the most, by stopping the transfer of funds from the federal government to the first nations for basic needs like education, health, access to drinkable water, the struggle against poverty, social housing, etc.
It is very insulting to state in barely veiled terms, that those who do not enforce the provisions of the new act could lose their federal funding. Only banana republics behave in this way. There is no exchange of ideas or any attempt at persuasion, but only intimidation and threats. This is exactly how organized crime operates. Organized crime operates like this and the federal government has gone so far as to make thinly veiled threats to cut off supplies to the first nations if they do not enforce the provisions of the new act. Institutionalized organized crime has truly crept into the government! They cannot go on treating the first nations like this. Besides, this behaviour seems to be in the very culture of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Many have remarked that the people in the Department of Indian Affairs are running Indian affairs as if they were criminal kingpins. They get the first nations to toe the line. They threaten them and do surprise inspections.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.
Mr. Martin, you have the floor.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, it's confusing, I suppose, for some of us. There are changes in clause 58 that differ from.... Clause 58 deals with subsection 103(1) in the Indian Act. The language in Bill C-7 changes subsection 103(1) of the Indian Act in substantial ways.
Mr. Bryden always seems compelled to heckle me instead of anyone else. I don't quite understand what tickles him so much about trying to antagonize me, but it doesn't bother me, really.
I am confused, Mr. Chairman, about the language that was changed from section 103 in the Indian Act to the language proposed in Bill C-7, and then back again in amendment G-19.1 to the original. I'm referring specifically to “goods and chattels”.
The term “goods and chattels” is used, Mr. Chairman, in the original Indian Act as we have it, unamended. It says he may “seize all goods and chattels”. And then when we look at Bill C-7, it talks about seizing “any property”. And then when it goes back to amendment G-19.1, the proposed amendment to Bill C-7, it talks about “seize any goods and chattels”.
There is also a substantial difference in the language in the Indian Act compared to what we find in clause 58 of Bill C-7 in that an offence against section 90, or section 93, now under the amended version...compared to an offence under section 33, section 85.1, section 90, or section 93.
Section 85.1 deals with the manufacture of alcoholic beverages, I believe, Mr. Chairman. We've deleted, in the government's proposal under clause 58 in Bill C-7, and in its amendment to clause 58 in Bill C-7, any reference to an offence under section 85.1, which I can read for you here, Mr. Chairman.
Section 85.1, as it stands now, says:
| 85.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2), the council of a band may make by-laws |
| (a) prohibiting the sale, barter, supply or manufacture of intoxicants on the reserve of the band; |
| (b) prohibiting any person from being intoxicated on the reserve; |
| (c) prohibiting any person from having intoxicants in his possession on the reserve; and |
| (d) providing for exceptions to any of the prohibitions established pursuant to paragraph (b) or (c). |
So we've lost the ability for a peace officer, a superintendent, or a person authorized by the minister--who I assume would mean the band enforcement officers, as created by Bill C-7--to enforce, or to make seizures, at least, on the committing of any offence under section 85.1, or under section 33, which is worth investigating too, as this will be the only opportunity we have to debate this language before it gets plowed through the House, using closure, I'm sure, and then gets imposed on first nations without their participation or input.
Under section 33, it is now impossible for a peace officer, a superintendent, or a band enforcement officer to seize property for which he has reason to believe an offence was committed under section 33. It says that:
| Every person who enters into a transaction that is void under subsection 32(1) is guilty of an offence. |
So section 33 brings us to section 32. It's very confusing.
º (0435)
It was no wonder, when I raised this issue in Pauingassi with the chief and councillors there and asked them what they thought of the FNGA, they said they didn't know”. So when I presented them with copies of the FNGA, they said, no, we have the copies; we just have no idea what it means to our lives. We don't understand what it's going to do to us. This is the chief and council of a reserve in Manitoba.
I would say that's a fairly typical response from an awful lot of small communities across the country that have no idea what we're doing here, to them, presumably on their behalf. That's the offensive nature of what we're doing here in the middle of the night, a bunch of white guys in suits deciding the future of first nations communities, for them.
It mystifies me why the language that was acceptable in the old Indian Act, that was unacceptable in Bill C-7, is now acceptable again in the government's own amendment to Bill C-7. It's mystifying to me why you wouldn't want a band enforcement officer who's charged with new powers and authorities by virtue of Bill C-7 to be able to deal with any bylaws stemming from or prohibiting the sale of intoxicants on reserves.
So you can't bust a bootlegger and seize their chattel, in other words. To put it in the local parlance, you won't be able to bust a bootlegger, right? So the enforcement officer can't do anything to stop a bootlegger? I guess that's what I'm to understand.
So I can't support this for that reason alone, Mr. Chairman. I think it's a legitimate point that I'm raising. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary really did his homework in respect to these amendments that he's moving here. Perhaps he would have been better off letting this stand until he had time to go home and have a nap and revisit this before he introduced it for debate. He'd be in a better frame of mind. He'd be less irritable, no doubt, if he had a nap. It might have even aided his digestion.
I'm convinced this perennial smirk that the minister has is due to gas. We would find that with people who have gas problems. They have that perplexed, twisted sort of look on their face all the time. Some people interpret it as a smirk, but others who are more sensitive to gastrointestinal problems would agree that it's probably gas.
If he took better care of himself and went to bed at a reasonable hour and got up in the morning at a reasonable hour, we wouldn't have this problem, probably---the oversights, the omissions. This committee isn't dealing with this issue in any full or concrete way because we don't even know what the government is trying to do. Either the government is trying to pull a fast one and they're trying to accomplish something that's not transparent....
It's funny, if this bill is all about accountability and transparency, the government is certainly not being transparent in the way it has presented itself here. I strongly suspect there's a deliberate obfuscation taking place here, that the government is trying to achieve some other...I don't think it's paranoia on my part to assume that the government is up to something.
I should ask the parliamentary secretary. He seems to be the minister's agent here in pushing this stuff through. In section 33 it is now no longer enforceable, or a peace officer, a superintendent or a band enforcement officer cannot seize any property pursuant to section 33. Well, that deals with the sale or barter of produce. It says:
| 32. (1) A transaction of any kind whereby a band or a member thereof purports to sell, barter, exchange, give or otherwise dispose of cattle or other animals, grain or hay, whether wild or cultivated, or root crops or plants or their products from a reserve in Manitoba, Saskatchewan or Alberta, to a person other than a member of that band, is void unless the superintendent approves the transaction... |
So an Indian can't sell a goat without the minister's approval. An Indian couldn't sell a horse, a mule, a root crop, which would be a potato. The member would be familiar with potatoes. An Indian can't do that without the minister's express permission.
Now, perhaps I'm starting to understand why it would be fundamentally wrong for a band officer to seize somebody's potatoes because they had the temerity to sell those potatoes.
º (0440)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Mr. Hubbard, your closing remarks.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think we're ready for the vote on the amendment.
The Chair: We will have a recorded vote on amendment G-19.1 on page 246.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8, nays 2)
(Clause 58 agreed to on division)
The Chair: We are now on clause 58.1, amendment G-20 on page 248.
Mr. Hubbard.
º (0445)
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
This in fact creates a new clause 58.1. I move that Bill C-7 be amended by adding after line 19 on page 24 the following, under the title “Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act”:
| 58.1 The definition “council of the first nation” in section 8 of the Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act is replaced by the following: |
| “council” |
| « conseil » |
| “council”, in relation to a first nation, has the same meaning as in the First Nations Governance Act. |
This merely is a technical amendment and it provides for an amendment to a federal statute in order to harmonize the definition of “council of the band”, which is referred to in the FNGA that we're looking at in terms of Bill C-7.
I don't think it needs debate, Mr. Chair. It's merely a technical improvement of the bill.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.
Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Who does the parliamentary secretary think he is, telling us whether or not we can debate an amendment? It's none of his business. We want to debate this amendment. It is our most fundamental right and we are going to do so.
Once again, they're talking about harmonization. The purpose of this amendment is harmonization, but with what? Its purpose is harmonization with technical amendments put forth by the government since the very beginning of Bill C-7's consideration. There is no harmonization with first nations' needs. There is harmonization with technical writing issues, that have surfaced with the government's successive amendments. It's absolutely ridiculous.
The parliamentary secretary dares tell us, and other Liberals as well—we haven't heard them in a while, however, at least in three weeks, because they don't speak very often—that these amendments are being proposed in order to meet the needs and requirements expressed by witnesses before this committee, or by briefs that were presented. This is absolutely ridiculous.
None of the government's amendments meet the objections, requirements and needs of the first nations. The Prime Minister replied to one of my questions in the House of Commons that we have the opportunity of debating Bill C-7 in committee and of proposing amendments. When I pointed out to them that we had been proposing amendments and that after 50 hours of debate none of the opposition's amendments had been passed, all he could do was stand up and insult me, just as this committee's chairman has been insulting just about all the opposition members, as has Hubbard most of the time when the microphones are off.
The Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development tell us that we can propose amendments, that there are consultations, that briefs have been presented and proposals have been made to improve Bill C-7. But where are these proposals to improve Bill C-7?
All those proposals in briefs that were tabled before us, or that were sent by e-mail or by mail, all those proposals for substantive amendments have been rejected by the Liberals. I would call most of them tourists. They come here from time to time, they are not aware of what is happening, they are not aware of the content of Bill C-7, but they are happy to vote and tell those colleagues who have been here for longer, how to vote. How can they claim to be serious about this, given this type of behaviour?
Once again we have an amendment whose purpose is to harmonize Bill C-7, as amended by the government, with the government's own amendments. But where are there any proposals to truly improve self-government for first nations? That is the issue.
All or most of the criticisms have been about respect for the fundamental rights of first nations and their right to self-government. Nowhere is there a government amendment that improves the situation regarding self-government agreements. Apparently there are currently eight series of ongoing negotiations on self-government. But what about the others? What is happening with the others? What is happening with the 500 land claims that have been set aside since consideration of this bill has begun, a bill that does nothing in terms of improving the first nations' situation?
Nor does it help improve relations between the federal government and first nations, who have been at daggers drawn for a month and a half. In Kenora, according to police estimates, there were 8,000 people in the street, 8,000 first nations demonstrators who were chanting slogans like: "Down with Bill C-7", "Throw the governance bill in the garbage", "This makes no sense, this is racism, this is colonialism, this is neo-colonialism." There were all kinds of placards, and justifiably so. The first nations do not want this bill.
º (0450)
How many first nations members will have to demonstrate in the streets for you to understand that it makes no sense to try to pass a bill that no first nation wants any part of? What more must they do, and when will we break down the wall of indifference, or even arrogance, of the government Liberal members? It makes no sense.
It seems that nothing can break through the indifference and cynicism shown by the Liberal members on this committee. Nothing can shake the firm conviction that they are right, not even the 8,000 demonstrators and the constant battle that is being waged by the first nations against Bill C-7. We just can't get it into their heads. An earthquake or a bomb exploding beside them would go completely unnoticed; they are absolutely convinced that they are right.
These people will have to wake up eventually. In order for that to happen, will 25,000 people have to march in front of the House of Commons? Is that a normal way for society to operate? Must we demonstrate, raise our voices, turn the screws a little harder and debate until five in the morning whenever we want to avail ourselves of rights that are as fundamental as those of the aboriginal people?
Why is it that we can no longer listen, even though we could do so in the past, to someone who is not satisfied with the way in which his rights will be exercised, particularly when it involves the inherent right to self-government? We are told that our society does not want to do that, but would prefer to negotiate as equals. Why is it that we can no longer speak to one another in this society? I find it absolutely scandalous that at five o'clock in the morning we are still discussing such a ridiculous amendment which represents complete harmonization of the other amendments introduced by the government. It is completely ridiculous!
I don't know where we will end up with this bill, but one thing is certain: nobody wants it. How will it be imposed? How will the first nations be forced to respect its provisions?
I hope that the government will wake up and I also hope that Mr. Chrétien will be able to leave without being allowed to once again upset the first nations, as he did in 1969. At that time it was a white paper that nobody wanted. He is doing it again with Bill C-7—that is what we have been working on for six weeks—and it has only served to increase the aggressive feelings by the first nations toward the federal government.
Don't you think it is sickening to have before us these people who babble on about anything, make jokes and turn their backs on us when we are attempting to debate an amendment, one which, moreover, was introduced by the government? The Liberal members on this committee can't even take the trouble to listen to the comments we are making about their own amendment. You have to be a few bricks short of a load to act that way! It makes no sense.
How can you expect the first nations members who are listening to us in this room to take you seriously?
º (0455)
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin: On a point of order, I don't seem to be getting the translation in my receiver, Mr. Chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Can we check that? Can you hear the interpreter?
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin: Yes.
The Chair: You're getting it.
Monsieur Loubier.
Mr. Pat Martin: I was missing some of what Mr. Loubier was saying.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: For the benefit of Mr. Martin and of the members of the first nations who are present, I will repeat that I find totally loathsome that we, as members of the opposition, are debating an amendment proposed by the government and that the Liberal members can't even bring themselves to listen to our arguments on amendments that they themselves moved. The first nations are in the room and they have been carefully following the discussion, non-stop, since yesterday morning; they are still here and it is 4:55 a.m. I am asking for a bit of respect for the people, for the House of Commons as an institution, and for one of its entities, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and National Resources.
We are not here to have a pub discussion. We are speaking to an amendment moved by the government relating to a government bill and you're not even polite enough to listen to what we have to say. I find it sickening! And you, Mr. Hubbard, shut up. If you want to have the floor, speak when it is time to do so: speak to the motion.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: It's irritating, Mr. Chairman. Often when I begin to speak, Mr. Bryden interrupts me and speaks out of turn, instead of making a contribution to the debate.
Mr. Réal Ménard: It's very impolite. Everybody around the table who is a Liberal is very impolite.
Some hon. members: Shame, shame.
Mr. Pat Martin: I think any of the members opposite should take an opportunity to take the microphone and share their views, if they like, instead of having this cheap catcalling. It's a terrible thing. I've never seen anything like it.
Mr. Réal Ménard: Didn't you learn anything from your mother when you were young? You're acting like babies, without any education.
Mr. Pat Martin: It's interesting. When the former Prime Minister of Canada was here earlier today and was making a presentation, he leaned over to me and said it had been a long time since he had sat on a committee, but he couldn't believe how it had degenerated. He said committee work has changed from when he used to sit on committees. It was terrible. He confided in me how disappointed he was--the demeanour and the lack of decorum, the quality of work had diminished. It was nice of him to share that with me.
I was honoured to have Mr. Clark with us today. In fact, I think he tried to make some good contributions to the work of the committee.
We're dealing with an amendment that makes reference to the Manitoba Claim Settlements Implementation Act. That's my home province of Manitoba. We're certainly familiar with the act. In fact, I'm very proud that the NDP government in Manitoba has made some really innovative progress in terms of its relationship with first nations people, partly due to the fact that we not only elect aboriginal members of the legislature, but we also assign them to cabinet. Our Minister of Northern and Indian Affairs is an Indian, which I think is a novel and unique idea. If you're going to have a minister of aboriginal affairs, choose an aboriginal person to do it.
The Honourable Eric Robinson is our Minister of Northern and Indian Affairs, representing Rupertsland in northern Manitoba, which is two-thirds of the province, some 50-odd first nations communities. And Oscar Lathlin, the chief of the Opasquia Cree Nation in The Pas, Manitoba, is our Minister of Conservation. And the Speaker of the House in Manitoba is an indigenous person, as well, although an Inuit. Mr. George Hicks is the Speaker of the House.
So there are three cabinet ministers from the aboriginal people in the Manitoba government, and I think that has helped a great deal in moving forward the relationship between first nations and the Government of Manitoba. There's been a great deal of innovative work going on in trying to open up the north and sponsor economic development.
Now a new hydroelectric dam has been announced next to Cross Lake, the Wuskwatim Dam. As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, this is innovative in and of itself, in that the first nation community will not just benefit from jobs from this hydroelectric project, they will have an equity share in the dam. They will actually own a big chunk of this hydro dam, so that every unit of energy generated from that hydroelectric dam and sold to Ontario, hopefully at a good mark-up, will generate some wealth for the first nation to be able to chart their own course in terms of economic development.
That's innovative and that's progressive and that's the kind of thing you can do where there's a will.
It's interesting for me to note that the only person on the Liberal side whose first language is Cree, who was raised in the Cree environment, isn't even a member of this committee. He's not allowed on this committee because he has strongly held views about the First Nations Governance Act. He's not allowed anywhere near this room. When he does sit in on the committee, he's not allowed to speak. We've seen that happen in the tour.
Mr. John Bryden: That's garbage.
Mr. Pat Martin: No, it's not garbage, Mr. Bryden. You don't know what you're talking about.
» (0500)
This is the guy who was trying to tell me there are no rabbits in the Yukon. No, it was beavers in the Yukon. That's right, I'm sorry. To be fair, Mr. Bryden's point was that there are no beavers in the Yukon. He in his wisdom, the man who knows all, was trying to convince us--in fact accusing me of being a liar, essentially, when I was telling him about trapping beaver in the Yukon--that there are no beaver in the Yukon. He said that I was misleading this committee. It would be news to all of the trappers in the Yukon that there are no beaver there. I guess they're wasting their time.
You should know, Mr. Bryden, better than us, surely, about the beaver population in the Yukon. I mean, you've been up the Dempster Highway, so you would know.
Now, in northern Manitoba, Red Sucker Lake is the home community of Elijah Harper, former Liberal member of Parliament who lost his seat recently. The Red Sucker Lake community lives in abject poverty. It's a sad situation now because the children at Red Sucker Lake are not in school. They're waiting outside the school for a suitable school to be built. The mould problem is so severe in the school that it's not safe for the children to occupy it.
If that were a southern community, you would think perhaps portables would be brought in or some accommodation would be made so these children would not lose a school year. As per the governance of the minister, the fiduciary obligation of the minister toward the people of Red Sucker Lake, the solution is to wait. They'll miss this school year, but I guess the next year maybe they'll catch up. Maybe they'll take two years at once, I don't know.
The Pukatawagan and Shamattawa reserves, Shamattawa reserve in particular, are plagued with social problems, Mr. Chairman, yet to be addressed, and which can't be addressed unilaterally by the NDP government because we don't have the resources. The provincial government of Manitoba would like to intervene and address some of these urgent social problems, but it's the obligation of the federal government. It's a federal government responsibility.
They would dearly love to off-load this burden onto the provinces if they could. I guess they're hoping, if they don't intervene, that out of sheer humanitarian interests provincial governments will begin to address some of these concerns in communities. That's the only thing I can think of--well, other than milking first nations like a cash cow in terms of hoarding the revenue and the money that should rightfully go to first nations. They're clearly not spending first nations money on first nations issues.
On the underpayment of annuities under the treaties, I think I pointed out earlier, Mr. Chairman, that there's an annual shortfall in the payment of annuities that exceeds the total amount generated from property taxes imposed by first nations during the past 13 years. That's a startling figure. If this money were released for the use of first nations to address these concerns, then the annual transfer of money would be $25 billion a year, not the $7 billion a year currently spent by the Department of Indian Affairs.
Let me do the math now. That would be over three times what is spent now, an increase of over 300%. I think a lot of the first nations struggling to meet the basic needs of their constituents with inadequate resources would find it possible, finally, to do something about the third world conditions in Pukatawagan, or Shamattawa, or Red Sucker Lake, or Garden Hill, or many of the communities in desperate, urgent need.
Red Sucker Lake doesn't even have fresh running water. I think there are more houses without sewer and water in Red Sucker Lake than there are with sewer and water. This is a tragedy. Not one new house will be built by virtue of Bill C-7. Not one child will be better fed or better educated by virtue of Bill C-7. It's not designed to address the urgent basic needs. It's ass-backwards in tinkering with administrative details. Because if you asked any....
It's interesting trying to deal with the running monologue from Mr. Bryden.
» (0505)
Mr. Bryden, if you want to make a speech, why don't you just press the microphone?
The Chair: Mr. Hubbard, closing remarks.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The hour is late and I think we've heard enough debate. Can we have the vote?
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8 ; nays 2)
(On clause 59--Order of Governor in Council)
The Chair: We now go to clause 59, amendment G-21, page 250.
Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Amendment G-21 reads that Bill C-7, in clause 59, be amended by replacing lines 20 to 29 on page 24 with the following, under the title “Orders of Governor in Council”:
| 59(1) The provisions of this Act, other than subsections 43(2) and (4) and sections 44 and 52, come into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council. |
Furthermore, under “Certain provisions deferred”, it reads as follows:
| (2) Subsections 43(2) and (4) and sections 44 and 52 come into force on the day that is |
--this should read “three years”--
| three years after the day fixed by the Governor in Council for the coming into force of section 4. |
I'd emphasize that it is three years, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: You cannot move a subamendment to your own amendment.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: I'd ask for unanimous consent that it should read “three years”, as per other sections of Bill C-7.
» (0510)
The Chair: You don't have unanimous consent.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Subclause 59(1) in Bill C-7 is amended so that most sections of the act will come into force at a time to be fixed by the Governor in Council. It also amends subclause 59(1) to provide that the coming into force may occur on a day or days fixed for the Governor in Council in order to allow flexibility of timing.
Subclause 59(2) is amended to clarify that the provisions listed in the subclause will come into force two years after the date fixed for the Governor in Council under subsection 59(1), the coming into force of section 4.
Mr. Chair, with this, I'm rather amazed, after the three-year provision was put in by this committee some weeks ago, that we don't now have unanimous consent that it be changed in terms of the amendment that was submitted in fact over a month ago.
With that, Mr. Chair, I'm prepared to leave the two years in. I'm disappointed to find that the opposition members are in that way attempting to refuse further improvements under this amendment, which would better accommodate our first nations peoples. I don't know why they refused to go along with this when we asked for unanimous consent, but we're prepared to debate the amendment as it is presented now.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.
Does anyone want to speak on amendment G-21?
Monsieur Loubier?
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, I want to speak on amendment G-21; I find it important.
Mr. Chairman: could you explain to the tourist, to Mr. Bryden, that there are rules and that if he wants to take part in the debate as a tourist or as an MP, he is entitled to do so. He just has to ask you to give him the floor and he will have 10 minutes. But maybe he has nohing sensible to say to us, which is possible in view of what we are hearing when the mikes are turned off; the things that are being said are irrelevant and do not show a high degree of intelligence. I do not object to his taking part in the debate. Indeed, some help would be very welcome, but he must stop bugging us with his ludicrous statements and his inept comments. It is becoming tiresome.
I would like Mr. Jacques or Mr. Boileau to explain to me in a more comprehensive way—if my colleague Mr. Ménard was here he would speak of the general dynamics of amendment G-21—the scope of this amendment. What does it change within the bill and why were these provisions not directly included in the bill? Is it an omission? Was the drafting of the bill a rush job? I would like to hear Mr. Jacques or Mr. Boileau on that issue.
Mr. Karl Jacques: By having a general provision in subsection (1) and by avoiding a list, we thus avoid omissions that could happen, since amendments are moved in committee. If these clauses are not included we will end up with an omission when the bill comes into force.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Jacques: if we take into account the requirements or the corrective measures suggested by the committee, one might say that this amendment will not improve the bill. It will not make it better. Once again it is a question of consistency.
Mr. Karl Jacques: It simplifies the coming into force provisions. What is in subsection (1) comes into force at a certain date and what is in subsection (2) comes into force two years after the coming into force of clause 4.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Therefore it aims to facilitate the implementation of that bill by the government, but it does not respond to the critics of the bill. It does not change anything, it is not an improvement, and it meets no one's concerns. To your knowledge, were there briefs that asked for changes to section 59, replacing lines 20 to 29 with the new wording proposed in the amendment? Is it not, on the contrary, just for consistency's sake?
» (0515)
M. Karl Jacques: I cannot make any comments.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I cannot remember having heard that we should make that kind of change. The aim of this amendment is to simplify the implementation of this bill by the government and its coming into force.
I come to the same conclusion as for the other government amendments: they always want to do exactly the same thing. For the sake of internal consistency, the government is looking for standardization in its legislation and amends its own bill which seems to have been botched up since the technical and consistency amendments which are made are rather substantial. They are not substantial in terms of content because like others have pointed out, they are intended to bring about internal consistency and harmonization. But actually, Bill C-7 remains the same.
I wonder why the government is not responding in a more positive way to the first nations' claims in particular substantive changes to Bill C-7. I do not know what will happen to the government's amendments that all day yesterday have been stood, and set aside for future discussion. There are 12 or 15 of them. We do not know what will happen to those amendments but if memory serves, these are also amendments relating to the internal consistency of the bill so that the bill is not full of omissions or legislative gaps mainly between its implementation and the repeal of some sections of the Indian Act. But basically, when the Prime Minister and the Minister of Indian Affairs tell us that consultations have taken place, that the government is moving amendments, that we have the opportunity to move amendments to improve Bill C-7... The Prime Minister even says that he is open to changes if we think that we can improve the bill. But in reality, when we propose improvements they are defeated. We know full well that in this committee it is the PMO that pulls the strings. We thought it was the minister but I rather believe that it is the PMO that controls the work of this committee. It is neither the members nor the chairman, far from it. These are orders from the Prime Minister.
Indeed, if we are made to work until 5:20 a.m. and kept busy for 24 hours, it is because the chairman and the parliamentary secretary were ordered by the Prime Minister to do whatever was necessary to make sure that Bill C-7 is rapidly disposed of at third reading in the House of Commons. I cannot see any other explanation. If it had been a bill to improve our capacity to fight epidemics such as mad cow disease or SARS, I would have understood the urgency of the situation. I would have gladly contributed to the quick passing of a bill to fight against the spread of such epidemics.
But why is it so urgent to pass a bill such as this one, Bill C-7?
You want to put it on a fast track. You absolutely want that this bill be passed before the summer break, that is before that faithful autumn that will see the Liberal leadership race stepped up. The Prime Minister knows full well that if he wants Bill C-7 to be passed, it will be a bit more difficult in the fall because the challenges will then be a bit more electoral. You will be in the process of choosing his successor. Statements such as the one we heard two weeks ago from Paul Martin saying that he will not implement Bill C-7 will multiply as fast as the future Prime Minister, Mr. Martin, gets closer to power.
That is how one can explain the government's sense of urgency. It is not by passing such a bill before the summer recess that we will improve the lot of the first nations. These are absolutely ridiculous and demagogic arguments.The first nations do not want this bill, and even if it were rushed through Parliament, they would not implement it. They told us: they do not want this bill.
» (0520)
There is no other explanation for this.
I really wonder what else could justify that we should rush through Parliament the passing today of a bill of no particular national urgency and which will, at any rate, adversely affect the relationships between the federal government and the first nations instead of improving them. I don't see why they are in such a hurry.
We have been working until 5:20 a.m. We are killing our interpreters, who graciously agreed to work for us and continue to do in an admirable way and with the same determination. But there are moments when we can well see that interpreting is not easy. That requires a continuous concentration of mind. We sometimes talk fast, as I do so myself sometimes when I get carried away, when we deal with such matters. I see the interpreter nodding.
I don't understand why we continue to make people work like that, it is completely inhuman. We no longer live at the beginning of the last century, when the assembly line was invented, where people were made to work on very repetitive tasks, six days a week, without the slightest consideration for the workers and the people. We would make them work seven days a week, with a two-hour break on Sunday so that they could be with their families. Those days are long gone. Those who continue to run their business like that without any regard for the well-being of people who are being worked to death, as a Quebec author said, are people of another century. If there are people of another century, we can understand why there are rushing through a bill which also dates back to another century.
[English]
The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Loubier.
Mr. Bryden.
Mr. John Bryden: The member for Saint-Hyacinthe in an earlier remark suggested that this member on this side should enter the debate and make some sort of positive contribution to the debate on the particular clause at hand. I want to note for the record that the member for Saint-Hyacinthe spoke for his full ten minutes and he did not address the content of the clause whatsoever.
The reason there isn't participation on this side of the table.... We all are very alert and following the bill very closely, but it is very difficult, Mr. Chairman, when there is a ten-minute monologue that does not address the issue whatsoever.
The Chair: We're not getting the translation.
Are we getting the translation, Monsieur Loubier?
Mr. John Bryden: Anyway, the point I was trying to make, Mr. Chairman, is that the Hansard will show that the member for Saint-Hyacinthe did not address the content of this amendment whatsoever in his ten-minute remark. Clearly, it's because the amendment is very clear, very simple, and fixes a very important problem by adding a time limit to the period in which the order in council can be brought forward. I think it's very positive. After you've said that, Mr. Chairman, there's nothing else to say, other than to listen to comments about the translators and things that are not relevant at all.
I think, Mr. Chairman, if this side does not enter into the dialogue or the discourse on particular amendments, it's because we value Parliament's time. We don't want to waste the taxpayers' money in commentary that has no bearing on the task at hand.
With that, Mr. Chairman, if the member for Saint-Hyacinthe wants me to join in at any time, I would ask him to make speeches that have some content to which I can reply. And that might apply to the member for Winnipeg Centre as well.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.
Mr. Lee.
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the absence of consent earlier to make a change to this clause, I'm going to move a subamendment. I move that the English version of subclause 59(2) of Bill C-7 be amended by striking out the words “two years” and substituting “three years” so that it will read “the day that is three years after the day fixed by the Governor in Council for the coming into force of section 4”.
» (0525)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Lee. You may speak to your subamendment.
Mr. Derek Lee: On the subamendment, this is perhaps basic mathematics. It is the view of the government that the in-force date should be altered from two years to three years. I think everybody grasps that one pretty well.
Thank you.
The Chair: Does anyone else wish to speak on the subamendment?
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: I don't mind speaking to the subamendment, Mr. Chairman.
You can't, I think, speak to the subamendment in isolation. You have to view the whole package in context and....
What is so funny about that? This is such a...it's so bizarre. Being in the same room with Bryden is always interesting, that's for sure.
Mr. Chairman, in looking at proposed subclause 59(1), “The provisions of this Act, other than subsections 43(2) and (4) and sections 44 and 52, come into force on a day or days to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council.”... When you read the original subclause 59(1), “The definition “council” in subsection 2(1), subsection 2(3), sections 4 to 7, subsections 10(1) and (2), sections 16 to 30, 36 to 38 and 40 to 42, subsection 43(1), and sections 45, 47 to 49, 51, 53 to 56 and 58 come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council”, the change here is “day or days”. Also, Mr. Chairman, under subclause 59(2), it says that “Subsections 43(2) and (4) and sections 44 and 52 come into force on a day to be fixed by order of the Governor in Council”.
Now the “two years” after the day is a change, Mr. Chairman. It's noteworthy because you can understand the logic in subclause 59(1). Rather than listing all of these amendments, they simply say that everywhere it's referenced other than... It's shorter to list the exemptions than it is to list the clauses that are affected. So where the term “council” is used in all of those clauses, it will now read...except for this much shorter list, subclauses 43(2) and (4) and clauses 44 and 52, which we should now assess.
I mean, in the interest of being thorough, we should review why those clauses are treated differently. I think it's worth visiting. I did flip open my particular copy of Bill C-7--it's not an act yet--to subclause 43(2), which reads as follows:
| The definition of “council of the band” in subsection 2(1) of the Act is replaced by the following: |
| “council”, in relation to a band, has the same meaning as in the First Nations Governance Act. |
So they seek to include reference to the First Nations Governance Act, which will become an act by order of Governor in Council. It's logical that this is when it would come into force and effect.
What concerns me in subclause 59(2), however, Mr. Chairman, notwithstanding Mr. Lee's move from two years to three years, is that it should be two years “after the day fixed by the Governor in Council”, whereas, in all other references to the two-year, or now three-year, window, it has to do with three years after the development of the regulations pertaining to the act, which is a much different thing. It may take 18 months to develop the regulations, if any of the promises are true that there will be full participation and consultation in developing the regulations.
But everywhere the two-year, or now three-year, timeframe is referenced, the start date is at the end of and the adoption of the development of the regulations. And here now there's no reference to that. It's two years after the day fixed by the Governor in Council, which is the day, then, that this gets royal assent.
» (0530)
Once we're finished negotiating the First Nations Governance Act, and once it's gone through the stages of Parliament--we still don't have any regulations--all these clauses will come into force and effect, except for subclauses 43(2) and (4) and clauses 44 and 52. They will now come into force and effect three years after that date, because of Mr. Lee's subamendment, instead of three years after the development and introduction of the regulations.
This is key, Mr. Chairman. Again, there is a substantial difference between these last-minute or tail-end amendments the government is now putting through and all other treatments of the three-year timeframe.
It's easy to make the mistake of talking about two years, because it was a two-year period until the bill was amended. It's now to be three years after the regulations are completed and concluded. That's interesting to me, and in and of itself warrants consideration by this committee. We should be giving this the attention it deserves, which doesn't mean having a cursory overview at 5:30 in the morning after you've been up all night debating these same issues.
The criticism about the timeframe is simply that no amount of time is adequate without adequate resources. In the other context, the timeframes deal with the adoption of codes in keeping with the default codes listed in clauses 16, 17, and 18 of Bill C-7.
As for the very specific details, the first nations band and council have three years to develop codes meeting the standards imposed by Bill C-7, or those same codes will be imposed on them. That's the magic of it: the minister is saying “They're free to develop their own codes of governance, providing they exactly match the strict guidelines of the codes we dictate in Bill C-7”. They'e not guidelines; they're requirements. If they were guidelines or this were an optional exercise, it would be a different thing. But no, Mr. Chairman, we have language in clauses 15, 16, and 17 specifically and rigidly outlining exactly what the council of a band may make laws for, or what the law-making powers shall be, and the band laws regarding governance, the election of officers, and the details of financial administration.
So if the timeframe were two years or three years, or the ten years in the subamendment I was going to move, it would give an opportunity to change governments before this bill came into effect. It would give one more term for the current Liberal government and an opportunity for a government-in-waiting to take over. Then we would have a new Prime Minister, a new political party, and a new Minister of Indian Affairs, who would never implement these changes.
So I'm actually sorry that Mr. Lee beat me to the punch, because I intended to move a subamendment to this particular clause, saying that ten years after the day affixed by the Governor in Council for the coming into force of section 4.... In other words, this clause would never come into force and effect, because we'll be changing governments before then. Surely a more enlightened federal government will do away with or eradicate Bill C-7, or dig a hole in the backyard and bury Bill C-7, filling it back in and then doing a little dance on the bill's grave. That's what should be done.
Some of us will do a little ceremony to that effect when we have finished this exercise, Mr. Chairman. We'll dig a hole and bury this bill, maybe in the tulip gardens outside, because this bill doesn't implement any of the recommendations put forward by the many presenters.
» (0535)
A summary of the recommendations put forward by the Indigenous Bar Association deals with these timeframes. It's worth listing some of those, Mr. Chairman. They recommend first of all that the process be founded on a reasonable time period on which all parties agree, and not be subject to a condensed timeline. That's number one, or the first recommendation in their summary of recommendations.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Monsieur Loubier.
Mr. Pat Martin: The member gets more obnoxious as the night goes on. By breakfast time, you're going to be unbearable.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I would like to put a question to Mr. Boileau or Mr. Jacques. What would have changed if we had said two years instead of three? Why are three years so important for the government?
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: What that does is to make it consistent with the other provisions already changed in the bill. It allows the regulations to come into force at the same time as other provisions, such as those mentioned in subclause 59(2), the definitions mentioned in subclauses 43(2) and 43(4), and clauses 44 and 52. All of the legislation ties together better that way. In fact, if it isn't changed to three years, it doesn't really make any sense. It would cause a significant problem.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, but I think that my question was poorly worded. No matter if it's 2, 3, 4 or 10 years, if the first nations tell you they don't want the bill and they will not implement it, what difference will it make?
You have already said the bill has no teeth. Whether it is two or three years, whether it is consistent or not, if they foam at the mouth when they see this bill, what difference does it make whether we change the deadline from two to three years?
We are dealing with clause 59. This is the last one following 120 or 125 hours of debate. I will make a prediction. The three-year deadline will probably be adopted. So will the bill in committee. But I am going to make a prediction and we will see if the eagle has enlightened me in reference to the past, the present and the future. I am convinced that within six months, one year at the outside, the next Prime Minister will tear up this bill and scrap it. This is what he will do and this is all what this bill deserves. This bill is shit. Nobody wants it.
Do you remember Brian Mulroney when he tore up the Charlottetown Accord? Symbolically, this is what I am doing. Can you put it back together so that we can work on it for the next hour? I would like that. Do you have... I have another copy.
This is what we will do. This is my prediction. I have not always been in agreement with Warren Allmand, but on this issue, I am. He said it would come exactly to this. You cannot force a bill on someone. You cannot force this piece of legislation on people against their will. It makes no sense.
This even violates the UN International Human Rights Charter. You cannot force on people, against their will, an agreement they reject, especially when it violates—I said so during the clause-by-clause study—the United Nations Human Rights Charter. There are allegedly eight violations in this bill. Forcing this bill on the first nations would entail eight violations of the international Human Rights Charter.
Do you think you can ignore the International Human Rights Charter, the United Nations Organization, the Supreme Court, the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Come on. This bill is shit. There is no other word to describe it.
What do we do with this? What Mr. Martin suggested earlier. You spread it as fertilizer on tulip beds. We'll end up with big fat tulips and start from square one again. We don't need to begin from scratch since we already have the building blocks. There is the Penner report an the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. All we have to do is put these two reports together. This will form the basis for negotiations with the first nations respectful of the dignity of first nations and respectful of what they are, that is true nations under the United Nations.
This is what will happen within six months or one year at the most. This is like tax legislation. I am more familiar with it because I spent nine years in opposition, including four as the official opposition critic for finance and taxation. Tax legislation is a contract between the government and taxpayers, agreed to by both. If taxpayers no longer trust the government, democracy or the institution, they will gradually pay fewer taxes to the federal or provincial governments. It's a contract.
The same holds true for the Canadian dollar. It is a contract between the issuer, the Bank of Canada, and the guarantor, that is the government, and that is the source of the trust we can put in a bank note that has no intrinsic value. Such trust is the basis for the value of the currency and the soundness of the taxation system.
Use the same rationale with this bill. The trust it inspires is based on how sound the trust of the bill is.
» (0540)
To be successfully implemented, the provisions and features of the bill must rely mostly on consensus. Without such a consensus and trust, do not expect that, like two centuries ago, the government will be able to impose anything on anyone. People will not put up with this without ever more forceful protest. This will not go down easy and, mark my word, within a year we will look at this bill with contempt and wonder what narrow-mindedness led us to spend 125 hours to debate, clause-by-clause, this shabby piece of legislation. How, people ask, could we have thought for one minute that this piece of trash was the way to rebuild a partnership relation as equals with the first nations, nation to nation?
We will look at this from a distance and ask who were the sponsors and promoters of this bill. We will have a look at the mosaic of members in the House of Commons and find Mr. Bryden, Derek Lee, Hubbard and so on. We will see that it is they who fought tooth and nail for such a pathetic bill. People will ask what type of MPs they were and we'll answer that they had no real understanding of their role and had no inkling that they were missing a date with history. Such a lack of vision and judgment, not seeing the forest for the trees, is beyond comprehension.
It is unbelievable to see that the past is being negated, that the future is being ignored and that the present is occupied with naval gazing. It is beyond me that this piece of garbage of a bill has been finding for a month and a half so many supporters across the table. How can the Liberals stay up until 5:45 to debate this stupidity incarnate that is Bill C-7? How can you not see further than the tip of your nose and understand this will not work? The stakeholders tell us they do not want this bill; how could you think that forcing it upon them would be a breeze?
One has to have taken leave of one's senses to think so and to believe that such a demented piece of legislation as Bill C-7 will go through. There is something wrong here. Could the Liberals be ready for the opposition benches? That might be a good idea. Maybe that would put some sense into them; maybe they would return to a better frame of mind. Maybe would they be more willing to...
» (0545)
[English]
The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Loubier.
Before I give closing remarks to Mr. Lee, I'd like to wish Mr. St. Denis a happy birthday.
Voices: Hear, hear.
The Chair: I would not want to offend anyone, but I can think of better ways to spend a birthday.
Mr. Brent St. Denis: I thought this was a surprise party you were having for me.
The Chair: It's a long party.
Mr. Lee.
Mr. Derek Lee: This is just the reception for the party.
You may call the question, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair: A recorded vote on subamendment 1 to G-21 on page 250.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 9; nays 1)
The Chair: A recorded vote on G-21 as amended.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8; nays 2)
(Clause 59 as amended agreed to on division)
(On clause 2--Definitions)
The Chair: I will refer you back to page 7 to do clause 2. Amendments BQ-53 and BQ-54 were not admissible, so we are now on amendment BQ-4 in clause 2.
Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: You're catching me off guard; I had forgotten that amendment. I will find it. What page?
The Chair: Page 7.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: It must be a good amendment.
I've got a suggestion for you, Mr. Chairman. We could restart consideration of the bill from the first to the 59th clause and see whether there would not be any other arguments to each of those clauses. We could move other amendments or take a week to reconsider the bill clause-by-clause; it seems to me that we have forgotten a few things.
I'm just joking. Through this amendment we propose to take into account the fact that the first nations can choose what they want since they have the power of a third level government and that this power is vested in them as ruled by the Supreme Court and as recognized by the Canadian Charter and by the Constitution.
This amendment is similar to those moved by Pat Martin or myself. It makes certain that it is the first nations that are entitled to decide for themselves how to administer themselves, how to select their leaders and what is good for them. We have to put a stop to the old saying that "Ottawa knows best". It is not true. First nations are prepared to assume self-government and to make sure that they can themselves...
But why do I bother speaking to my amendments? Nobody's listening. Damn it; it has got to stop. To see members of the committee—Mr. Derek Lee, Mr. Bryden—talk among themselves about the last hockey game is absolutely incredible. What do you think you look like? You look like some guys around a table, in a pub, talking about anything but the bill. That kind of behaviour is rather unbelievable, mainly from you who have been a minister. Behave yourself; respect the committee's decorum.
It is an amendment that was suggested by several witnesses, in particular by the Opaskwayak Cree Nation of Manitoba who said that it was with a view to making sure that the first nations would not lose control of their assets and their trust funds.
By the way, we discussed it yesterday with Mr. Boileau, if my memory is correct. We were saying that the first nations trust funds that amount to nearly $1 billion were administered not by the first nations, but by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The second part of my amendment, which aims at having first nations respected, relates to the voting age; it was even proposed by 7 tribal councils. We want the first nations to have more flexibility in the implementation of Bill C-7. It has been asked by the Blood Indian Reserve of the Kainaiwa Nation in Alberta.
We, in the opposition, in the Bloc Québécois or in the NDP, respect tradition. We want that what has been proposed in numerous briefs, by representatives of the first nations and by constitutional experts, be translated into an amendment to the bill. Now, that's the purpose of BQ-4.
» (0550)
When we drafted amendment BQ-4 I said to myself that it was impossible for the Liberal majority not to pass this type of amendment which was requested by so many people. We know what happened. Amendment BQ-4 was rejected, then we went on to the other amendments, and we know what happened to those amendments dealing with the substance of the bill. Our amendments were practically all rejected. In fact none of them passed, contrary to what the Prime Minister has said. It has not been possible to improve the bill. We've had no chance. All the amendments moved by the NDP or the Bloc Québécois were based on what was requested by the witnesses.
I'm used to committee work, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Finance for nine years. We travelled, we received briefs. Mr. Martin took into account the main recommendations for the preparation of his budget, when he was Minister of Finance not so long ago. Sometimes there were dissenting opinions, but we still took into account the suggestions put forward by the majority. That's what we did. We went through the same exercise. We would look at the briefs to see what the majority of witnesses had requested and we would present amendments, clause after clause. You didn't do that. You merely harmonized your own amendments, technical and often cosmetic amendments that brought nothing new and in no way improved Bill C-7.
For the sake of consistency and standardization, you moved amendments that went through like dominos. But, contrary to what the parliamentary secretary suggested, never ever did you move amendments that were in any way based on what was presented to us in the many briefs opposed to Bill C-7. If memory serves, there were 191 against 9. There were 191 against 10, but without the minister, there were 191 against 9.
I haven't seen any proposal reflecting the main requests put forward by first nations, or constitutional experts or the many professors who went to the trouble of appearing before this committee. We saw nothing of the sort. The parliamentary secretary says that all those presentations were taken into account that there was an exchange of ideas when amendments were put forward. My eye! That is not true.
The Prime Minister told us that we would have a chance to improve Bill C-7. He also said, in response to one of my supplementary questions in the House of Commons, that my amendments were being rejected because people knew me and knew that my amendments were worthless. I find that very derogatory. And that disregard rubs off on his members. Most of them have a slightly disdainful and arrogant attitude. They feel that they are better than everybody else and that they hold the only real truth with no possible compromise.
Even while I'm presenting this amendment, nobody is listening. Perhaps Mr. Bryden is listening a little more closely; that's a slight improvement compared to the rest of the time. Very few of your colleagues are listening to my arguments. Mr. Szabo is perhaps listening a bit, out of respect. But I am convinced that this amendment will be rejected, because that's what happened to all of the amendments that Pat Martin and myself have presented since we started considering this bill.
I therefore submit this amendment, even though I have no hope that it will pass, because you seem to think that this is a futile exercise.
» (0555)
[English]
The Chair: Merci, monsieur Loubier.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, I am looking for a document I want to share with the committee. Perhaps I'll have time to speak and to look in my briefcase at the same time.
I appreciate and admire the work Mr. Loubier has done on this particular clause and the research he's undertaken. Being able to actually cite and quote from presentations made to the committee I think is very valuable to remind the other colleagues here of what was said to us, of what we heard throughout our presentation. I envy him his research capability. And his very capable staff, obviously, have done him a great service by providing him with this background and research that he can now share with us.
I also admire and envy the fluid and rhythmic speaking style Mr. Loubier has. I find it very soothing and agreeable at this late hour to listen to Mr. Loubier explain his points in a way that truly reflects his love for the language. His love for the language comes through in his manner of speaking and in the way he seems to enjoy.... That translates very well even to those of us who are not francophone. The love for the language is a great aid and I think it helps the honourable member make his points in such a fluid and clear way. So I personally do stand in great respect for not only the content of Mr. Loubier's speech but also for his presentation of the speech. In spite of these adversarial circumstances--
¼ (0600)
The Chair: A bit of order, please.
Mr. Pat Martin: --he still manages to maintain his dignity and make meaningful points, as I say, in spite of terribly adverse conditions.
I understand the motivation the member has here. I understand that it finds its origins in presentations made to the committee that reflected the legitimate concerns of first nations people about this bill, especially dealing with the age of majority, Mr. Chairman, in clause 2.
Under the definition of who shall be an eligible voter, it says it shall be a person residing “on or off reserve”, in deference to Corbiere, of course, “who has attained the age of eighteen years”.
It's an example of this micromanagement style that the government has adopted all throughout Bill C-7 to dictate to first nations, without any deference to what could be a tradition or customs regarding the age of majority and what shall be the age of majority. We believe this should be a matter left up to first nations to decide for themselves what should be the age of majority. It should be determined by first nations customs. It may be different.
I note that the Liberal Party of Canada, for instance, allows people to vote in their leadership selection process at 14 years of age. So 14 years of age is good enough to vote for the future Prime Minister of Canada and the Liberal Party, but 18 years is the requirement for this bill, Bill C-7, Mr. Chair.
I could probably say a bunch of really rude things and no one would really notice. It's a perfect opportunity to lambaste some of my least favourite members of the committee. I could probably get away with it because they wouldn't have any idea that I was talking about them because they're not paying any attention anyway, Mr. Chair.
I understand the chair is still awake and he is still paying attention.
What I would say about Bill C-7 is, instead of--
The Chair: Colleagues, it's a little noisy. We're allowing some stuff, but it's a little much, so please, my friends....
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: I was going to explain that I wasn't going to tear up Bill C-7. My idea is, I'm going to feed it to my horse and then throw it on my roses, put it to some good practical use, Mr. Chair. If we tear it up, it will just go into the recycling committee.
So feed it to your horse and throw it on your roses, just like that old ad for straw hats.
Mr. Chairman, I can accept the Bloc's amendment. I intend to vote in favour of amendment BQ-4 for the simple reason that it pays attention to not one, but two issues. In fact, the honourable member could have easily made this into two separate amendments had he seen fit, but in the interest of economy of words and in the interest of not wasting the committee's time, he chose to incorporate two legitimate points of view into one legitimate amendment.
We have an opportunity before us to address two issues with one vote, because by amending clause 2, to delete the word “trust” from line 14, it addresses one of the concerns raised before us by the presenters from the Opaskwayak Cree Nation, according to my colleague from the Bloc. I appreciate him using a reference from a first nation in Manitoba. The 17 communities that form the Opaskwayak Cree Nation are headed by the chief, Oscar Lathlin, who is in fact now the Minister of Conservation under the NDP government. He's a cabinet minister in the NDP government. So the Opaskwayak Cree Nation suggested that we remove the reference to “trust” under definitions of what are considered band funds.
This has an important, meaningful impact as well, because consequences flow from the reference to trust under the definition of “band funds” in terms of the provisions under subclause 9(3). Later on in the bill, I think, we'll all remember that under subclause 9(3) it's where they talk about the full disclosure to any person who asks about any band funds. This is of some concern. There may in fact be trust funds that may be for purposes known to the first nations that put in this request, who may have a legitimate reason to not include the word “trust” under paragraph 2(1)(d). So it says:
| (d) money paid to or received or collected by the band under any band law, trust or contract and that is to be disbursed for a purpose specified in or pursuant to that band law, trust or contract, |
So I presume if the word “trust” is deleted from line 14, it is also intended to be deleted from line 17.
I do admire the research done by Mr. Loubier, because he's reminded us of requests made to this committee by presenters before the committee.
I also respect the second point Mr. Loubier has made in terms of the age of majority, which should be determined by first nations custom. It's not really our business what age they determine. I see that Bill C-7 says that someone who has attained the age of 18 years shall be an eligible voter. It may be that some first nations wish that age to be 21 years of age, or some may wish that age to be 14 years of age, like the Liberal Party of Canada, which is allowing people to vote at age 14 in their leadership selection process. It may be that one age is suitable for leadership selection and another age would be suitable for other matters, depending on what matter is being voted on, on whether it's the ratification of a money matter to do with a band council or whether it's the election of an officer. It should be completely the business of the first nation to decide what the age of an eligible voter shall be.
¼ (0605)
Obviously, an eligible voter should be a member of the band, whether they are residing on or off reserve, which is stated quite accurately in Bill C-7. But the words “who has attained the age of eighteen years” fail to take into consideration customs or traditions that may be prevalent in that particular first nation and would be denying history and perhaps centuries of custom by imposing the standard we have decided should be the legal age to vote.
The Chair: Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned when I introduced my amendment on the disappearance of the concept of trust and the redefinition of electors and the voting age, I drafted it with all the goodwill for which I am known, based on the demands made by the Manitoba Cree, the Treaty 7 Council, and even the Blood/Kainaiwa Tribe in Alberta, among others.
I worked with my team. I would like to thank my colleague, Pat Martin, for his kind words, but particularly for his kind words about Brock and Jean-François, who work with Leslie. They are excellent researchers. They have been working on this from the beginning, before April 9 of this year. We have worked out our amendments together, in a collegial manner. We made an excellent team and showed that by pulling our talents, experience and particularly our determination, and despite the background noise we hear particularly from the parliamentary secretary, we could maintain our dignity, just as the members of the first nations do. It has sometimes been very difficult, because the contempt and cynicism from the Liberal majority could infuriate anyone, even someone with the patience of an angel. So I would like therefore like to thank Jean-François, Brock and Leslie for their good advice, and Pat Martin, who have been in this fight with us constantly since April 9.
We have now been studying the clauses of Bill C-7 for 48 days. That amounts to a total of 125 hours. I think we have shown that there were a number of good reasons to oppose Bill C-7. We have been motivated by our desire for justice, respect for basic rights and respect for the dignity of the first nations people. The fact is that since April 9, the first nations have not been able to be at the table to express their own feelings about the bill. Pat Martin and I agreed, and this is a fundamental conviction of ours—together with the whole team, to debate this bill to the end, often at ridiculous times and in absolutely dismal working conditions, and to present arguments against Bill C-7.
We have to face facts: we have not managed to convince the government majority that Bill C-7 should be rejected. We have not even convinced the government majority that we could improve the bill on the basis of the comments made in the 191 briefs that were opposed to Bill C-7. We have moved some amendments, but we have not been able to convince them that by translating the witnesses' demands into amendments, such as BQ-4, they would have done their job properly and responsibly. Such amendments would have improved the bill in an effort to satisfy the main group targeted by the bill, namely the members of the first nations.
Ms. Roberta Jamieson, the Chief of the Six Nations, told us on April 9 or 10 that every 10 minutes is important.
I understand why each of these 10-minute interventions is important. I understood why this comment is wise and so important. Each of these 10-minute interventions, in which we explained our amendments and the scope of the clauses of Bill C-7, allowed us to speak to people who could watch these debates. This did not happen very often, apparently, because our debates were not televised every day.
¼ (0610)
We were able to reach many people since the beginning of our hearings, and among them many members of first nations who were in the room and did not miss a minute of our deliberations. Unfortunately, they were not at the table. We also reached interested groups who wanted to see the “blues”; that's how we call the transcripts of our proceedings in paper form. There were also a lot of news articles in both the French-speaking and English-speaking press as well as a few television programs which enabled Pat Martin, the representatives of the first nations poeple and myself to explain the ins and outs of the bill. The 48 days of hearings on Bill C-7 were very useful.
Obviously, debates have no importance for people who are closed-minded, who do not have a clue about what is going on around them and who prefer to holler or complain when all microphones are off. But for us and members of the first nations, the work we have accomplished in the past 48 days was important, given the fact that we were able to give a glimmer of hopeto the first nations poeple, to foster a better understand of their real needs and to make clear, through this clause-by-clause debate, day and night, that Bill C-7 is really not the response needed.
I see smiles around the table because our fight is practically coming to an end here, but don't think for one second that the fight is over elsewhere. You are wrong. You will still find us on your path. We will show the same determination and energy elsewhere, in the House of Commons or not, to support our brothers and sisters of the first nations because they are now our brothers and sisters. We will keep on working. Do you know what our motivation is? It is the fight for justice, basic rights, rights and freedoms and the empowerment of peoples, which is a today cause. We have kept the first nations enslaved for far too long to go on like this. Bill C-7 is doomed.
We are now in the XXIst century, in 2003. Discrimination, even racism and these attempts to assimilate the first nations, all that is over, starting today. The energy that we have deployed in fighting this bill for 48 days will motivate us to go on fighting until the end of the year if we have to, and to pressure Paul Martin if he ever forgets the promise that he made that he would not implement the proposed bill. You will find us on your path. “Every 10 minutes is important!” Chief Jamieson was right since in every 10 minutes that we had to debate this bill,enabled us to see more clearly what we want as citizens. We are first and foremost citizens. We don't want such complicated relationships with the first nations, we don't want to repeat the mistakes of the past, and we don't want to enslave them as past generations did. We want a new relationship with the first nations that will be defined on a modern basis and on our desire to respect their fundamental rights. From now on, we will never tolerate that the claims of the first nations fall on deaf ears. We will work relentlessly. Over the past 48 days, the fight of the first nations has become our fight.
I don't know if Pat Martin agrees with me, but the fight that we fought over the past 48 days will go on. We will deploy the energy that is needed to make government understand. We will keep on fighting until victory. The fact that we had 48 days to explain the ins and outs of the bill, to explain what the government does to the first nations...
¼ (0615)
[English]
The Chair: Merci, monsieur Loubier.
We will have a recorded vote on amendment BQ-4 on page 7.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 2)
The Chair: On page 8, amendment G-0.1, Mr. Hubbard.
¼ (0620)
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
It's really, you might say, a technical amendment because we did hear, as presentations were made to the committee, that there were concerns that the chief should also be included as a member of council. We'd be amending, then, line 25 on page 2 to read as follows:
| chief and other members of the council selected by election or custom in |
Thank you, Mr. Chair
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.
(Amendment agreed to on division)
The Chair: We have amendment NDP-4 on page 10.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, we just had this debate, it would seem.
Can I ask a question, I suppose on a point of order, Mr. Chair, before we get going?
It was my understanding that this amendment was already debated. Can you tell me when this amendment was stood down, skipped, or missed?
The Chair: These were discussed before. They were technical. Was that it? That was an exercise we went through before.
Because these are definitions, they come after the majority of the clauses.
Mr. Pat Martin: I understood that was the logic to the preamble, but frankly I'd forgotten that this was the case with definitions.
Our argument is, Mr. Chairman, that the age of 18 for voting eligibility proposed by Bill C-7 fails to take into consideration what could be the custom and traditions in bands or first nations where another age may be more desirable. I pointed out that the federal Liberal Party allows 14-year-olds to take part in leadership election votes. It may be that a first nation chooses to have 21 as the age for an eligible voter. But why we have to apply our view or our norm of 18 as the age to be an eligible voter, why that's deemed necessary or even desirable in terms of Bill C-7, is beyond me.
Now, it would be a small gesture to show some deference to the possibility that there may be first nations communities who have a completely different passage into adulthood, if you will, where citizens are allowed to vote in elections, whether it be an election for the election of leaders or a vote to ratify a band council resolution, a BCR.... There are different ages. I suppose even different types of votes could have different ages associated with them. You may want 18 years of age or older dealing with a BCR that is a money matter, a spending matter, a ways and means kind of a motion. You may find it's not important to be 18 years old when it's a leadership selection vote.
So it would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, if we're recognizing tradition and custom in leadership selection processes, that this should be extended to include this sort of deference in the definitions as to what is an eligible voter. I point out that, under custom codes--Mr. Chairman, I'm going to find that clause. I think it would be relevant to read the provisions of where we recognize custom rules because it has a direct bearing. I would argue that the age of an eligible voter should be one of those things that may be determined by custom and tradition and not by our western view of the magic age of 18 years.
All of us can probably think of and point out a great variability regarding maturity of 18-year-olds. I'm not sure how we arrived at the magic age of 18 in our own election processes, but there are very mature 18-year-olds and very immature 18-year-olds. There's nothing magic about that particular year.
Somehow, it's been tied together, in our province at least, that 18 is the age you can drink alcohol, vote, etc. You can drive a car at 16. In Ontario the drinking age is 19. These things do vary from government to government, from issue to issue, and it's not inconceivable that there may not be a consensus, even among the 633 first nations, as to what that age should be. It could vary wildly, Mr. Chairman.
I think we're obliged to recognize custom and tradition as we're working our way through this bill. We should be cognizant of the fact that the way first nations structure themselves is in keeping with their right to self-determination and constitutionally recognized aboriginal treaty rights.
¼ (0625)
So there's nothing particularly magical about the age 18. I have written down here, Mr. Chairman, notes I made I guess back in April, when we were first starting to deal with the clause-by-clause analysis of this bill--April 9, I believe it was, when we were starting to work on this bill. At that point I said in my notes here that some places maintain 21 should be the age.
Actually, we could leave the reference to 18 years of age if we added the words, as proposed in my amendment here, “The eligible voter shall be a person who has reached the age of 18 years or the age determined by individual first nations existing custom”.I think it's a perfectly reasonable amendment. It reflects what we heard in many of the submissions made by first nations to the committee.
We certainly heard an exhaustive number of briefs and presentations, the overwhelming majority of which were vehemently opposed to Bill C-7 and had very specific amendments and comments to make, and proposals for amendments, virtually none of which have been implemented, with the exception of, I suppose, the non-derogation clause, which we believe the minister was going to put into the bill anyway.
In fact, when we look at the internal cabinet document, the memorandum to cabinet document, the minister assures his cabinet colleagues that--here it is in section 9: to give further assurance to first nations, the proposed legislation contains a declaratory non-derogation provision as previously used in federal statutes, stating that, for greater certainty, nothing in this act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Exactly the same language I proposed in my amendment, word for word, was what the minister told cabinet would be in the bill. In fact he told cabinet it was already in the proposed legislation even before the legislation was written, which I guess pretty much indicates how useless the whole consultation process was because the minister already knew exactly what would be in the bill long before the consultation process even took place, even when he was seeking the approval of his cabinet to proceed with a bill that would ultimately become Bill C-7. It seemed it was predetermined what would be an aspect of the bill.
We find other disturbing features in this cabinet memorandum, Mr. Chairman, worth sharing with the committee. We're quite concerned when we see proof, a graphic illustration, of the kinds of tactics used by the government to garner support--or where support couldn't be garnered, to fabricate, manufacture, and buy and pay for support. This is especially upsetting when you look at what happened to the Native Women's Association of Canada because they had the temerity to oppose this initiative.
I should note that the--
¼ (0630)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 2)
The Chair: We are now on page 11, G-02.
Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: In amendment G-0.2, Mr. Chair, we're looking in clause 2 at (a) adding after line 37 on page 2, under marginal note “inspection”, the following:
| “inspection” means entry into a place that is subject to regulation under a band law made for the regulation of an activity on a reserve, and examination of the place or any place in it, for the purpose of verifying compliance with a band law, that is conducted during normal business hours and |
| (a) at intervals specified in the band law; or |
| (b) after the giving of reasonable notice to the person appearing to be in charge of the place. |
With (b), I move to add after line 39 on page 2, the following, under marginal note “place”:
| “place”, in relation to an inspection or search, includes a vehicle or vessel. |
And the following, under marginal note “search”:
| “search” means entry into a place, and examination of the place or any thing in it, for the purpose of enforcing a band law, excluding an inspection. |
Mr. Chair, we had a lot of witnesses appear before us dealing with this particular aspect of the legislation. I think this amendment certainly follows the advice that many presenters offered to our committee. With that, I would ask for approval of amendment G-0.2.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: We will have a recorded vote on amendment G-0.2 on page 11.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8; nays 2 )
¼ (0635)
The Chair: Amendment CA-1 is not admissible; therefore, we are dealing with clause 2.
(Clause 2 as amended agreed to on division)
The Chair: We now go to page 215. This is amendment G-13, which will create a new clause, 36.1.
Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
In terms of subsection 36(1), we're looking at, first of all, “Deemed repeal of orders”. With it, under subsection 36.1(1), it will read as follows:
| An order made under subsection 74(1) of the Indian Act in respect of a band is deemed to be repealed on the earliest of |
| (a) the adoption by the band of a leadership selection code, |
| (b) the adoption by the band, pursuant to section 36, of regulations made under section 32, providing for the matters with respect to which a code may be adopted under subsection 5(1), and |
| (c) |
Mr. Chair, the written amendment reads “two years”. I'll ask later for unanimous consent to change that to “three years after the coming into course of section 4”.
Under “Election appeals”, subsection (2), it reads:
| (2) Regulations made under section 76 of the Indian Act in respect of election appeals do not apply--and the Governor in Council's powers under section 79 of that Act may not be exercised--before the coming into force of section 52, to a band that adopts a code under section 5 or adopts regulations referred to in paragraph (1)(b). |
Further, under “Election appeals”, subsection (3), it reads:
| (3) Regulations made under section 76 of the Indian Act in respect of election appeals continue to apply--and the Governor in Council's powers under section 79 of that Act may continue to be exercised--after the coming into force of section 52, in respect of elections held before the coming into force of that section. |
All of this, Mr. Chair, deals with the period in between, in other words in terms of an interim period when first nations are working towards their own codes and their own system of bylaws. With this, we're hoping that as soon as possible bands will be able to operate on their own without direction from the Indian Act, or from the minister himself or from the department.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Is that it, Mr. Hubbard?
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Yes.
The Chair: Does anyone else wish to comment on G-13?
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, Bill C-7, in clause 36, currently says “Transitional Provisions”, “Grace period”. It says, “Regulations made under section 32 do not apply to a band until two years after the coming into force of section 4”. That will be three years, and presumably somebody is probably going to move a subamendment to that effect, I would think, Mr. Chairman.
Before I even begin this argument I need to confirm with the officials that I'm right or wrong about a certain point. When a first nation adopts a leadership selection code, what happens if it omits a key point? In other words, if it doesn't satisfy all of the requirements, would the default regulations kick in to cover that point, for example, that they cover nominations or the vote of the returning officer? There's no mention made of appeal. If you have nine-tenths of the provisions covered, would just the one aspect you forgot be imposed on you or would the entire regime kick in? Could you answer that question before I begin my remarks, please?
¼ (0640)
Mr. Karl Jacques: As it stands now, it would provide that all the rules would have to be in the code. If the code is not complete, there's an argument that could be made that it would not be a code for the purpose of this act.
Mr. Pat Martin: Then I have other questions.
Further, Mr. Chairman, I'm wondering, is it obligatory in the leadership selection code, for instance, to have a recall provision? What if the council is unhappy about a chief and they wish to have him removed? Do the codes have to have a provision with this feature? Do the default regulations have to have this feature?
Mr. Dave Boileau: That's one thing a band could have in its code.
Mr. Pat Martin: Does it have to have it in its code?
Mr. Dave Boileau: It talks in paragraph 5(1)(h) about specifying that the code has to include rules that specify the grounds in establishing a process for removal from office of elected and non-elected members of the council respectively. That's what you refer to in terms of the word “recall”, correct? So clause 5 of the leadership code provisions of the bill do mandate that the band's leadership selection code has to address the issue of recall.
Mr. Pat Martin: That's interesting. That was the clarification I wanted, and I appreciate the straight and brief answer, because I'm concerned that this is a provision that no other jurisdiction in the country has, except for British Columbia. British Columbia is looking for a way to get out from under their recall provisions, and I'm wondering why we would impose this kind of recall provision on first nations that doesn't apply at the federal regime; it's doesn't apply in any jurisdiction, other than British Columbia.
Bible Bill Aberhart had it in Alberta, and as soon as he introduced it, they began a recall procedure to unseat him, so he quickly got rid of it. He didn't want it any more when he became the target of his own recall provisions.
I think it's a dangerous thing that we haven't explored adequately in our study of the bill, and it just came to my attention now. It's complicated. I'm glad the resource people are here, because to really understand clause 36.1, you have to have five different pieces of legislation open in front of you. You have to have subsection 74(1) of the Indian Act, which I have over here. You have to have clause 36 itself open, which I have here. You have to have clause 32 and you have subclause 5(1) and clause 4, because that's the total package of what we're dealing with here in a really comprehensive and sweeping amendment.
The changes to the Indian Act under Bill C-7 are one thing. The amendment moved forward now by the government, which we've had time to peruse, is still incredibly complex.
The committee was told by Professor Anna Hunter that even though first nations were building their government's capacity “two years before we skip over to default codes is not enough time for us to build the necessary capacity”. That was the two-year time span, and I would argue that the three-year time span contemplated by the government now needs to be increased. Furthermore, as the AFN pointed out in their presentation, “we need the tools for governance”. So you don't skip right into legislation; you need the tools for good governance first. You need the skills, the education, and the resources, and the basics obviously have to be dealt with first, like housing and water and job opportunities. “Those are the things that are going to get us to the good governance.” That's a quote from the Assembly of First Nations presentation to this committee, Mr. Chairman.
The minister, in the message on his “Report on Plans and Priorities 2003-04”, said, and I quote:
| A key part of our role is to enable progress, and an integrated suite of legislative initiatives undertaken for and with First Nations supports that objective. We are building on progress to date with the First Nations Land Management Act. The proposed First Nations Governance Act (FNGA), the proposed Specific Claims Resolution Act and the proposed First Nations Fiscal and Statistical Management Act are intended to lay a strong foundation for a First Nations economy that will give First Nations people real choices for the future through control over reserve lands and resources, faster claims processing and power to raise capital. |
He goes on to say:
| Until self-government agreements can be negotiated and implemented, the proposed FNGA will provide more effective tools of governance, invest First Nations governments with the authority they need to build brighter futures for their communities, and empower First Nations citizens to hold their governments to account. |
Given that it will take time for the bill to become law, then the planned consultation for regulations, and then the two years before the regulations kick in, I am wondering if the officials can advise us what they think about the number of self-government agreements that are expected to be signed in the interim. The minister I think said only one had been signed in 15 years. So what I would like to know is if the meaning of the term “interim” in this legislation is just for a short time until agreements are signed. What is the estimated projected schedule for reaching self-government agreements in this interim period?
¼ (0645)
Have you ever seen any documentation regarding what the proposed timeframe is?
Mr. Dave Boileau: As you may know, there are something like approximately 80 active self-government tables at the present time. I can't tell you exactly how many are going to be signed over the next few years. Nobody can predict that for sure. Even if they're close to settlement, sometimes a ratification vote occurs and the agreement does not come to fruition. This is the band members themselves deciding they don't want that particular self-government agreement to come into effect.
I'm sorry that I can't give you a specific number.
Mr. Pat Martin: No, it was a ridiculous question.
The time to develop codes is relevant to this amendment. Now, developing codes is one thing; developing the regulations is another. You don't start counting that three years until the regulations are developed. That's been the way we understand it. The regulations, we are told, will include first nations.
I wonder. We haven't been told to anybody's satisfaction what that process will look like and how first nations views will be incorporated into the development of regulations before this clock even starts ticking about the implementation process. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, the time to develop codes is relevant and the resources are relevant to the time required as well.
I don't see any kind of assurance, I think is the word, to first nations that there will be adequate resources to develop--
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Mr. Dromisky.
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
In light of what we have in our amendment here in proposed section 36.1, I would like everyone to refer to paragraph (c) in that clause. I'm asking for unanimous consent to change paragraph (c) so that it reads “three years” instead of “two years”, in harmony will all of the other changes we made throughout the bill up to this point.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dromisky.
Do we have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Chair: We don't have unanimous consent.
¼ (0650)
Mr. Stan Dromisky: Mr. Chairman, I therefore would like to make a subamendment to this amendment--
The Chair: Acceptable.
Mr. Stan Dromisky: --which would read, “three years after the coming into force of section 4”.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dromisky.
Do you wish to speak to your subamendment?
Mr. Stan Dromisky: Mr. Chairman, I believe we should harmonize this time factor, which opposition members have been referring to constantly, so that it's identical all the way through. We shouldn't be demanding one set of exercises to be performed by any band within a two-year period and others under a three-year period because we'd be doing nothing but confusing the entire operation.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Dromisky.
On the subamendment, Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I would like to know why we are talking about the third anniversary of the coming into force of section 4. Why not the fourth, the fifth or the tenth anniversary? To propose an anniversary date for the coming into force of this section is arbitrary, as well as for other sections.
Anyway, that is not my main concern. Of course, we are talking about the sub-amendment, but I would like to get back to the meaning of the amendment and the meaning of the sub-amendment, where we obviously discuss the third anniversary of the coming into force of section 4. I would like Mr. Boileau or Mr. Jacques to tell us precisely what will be the effect of this amendment compared to the initial wording and to tell us exactly what we are trying to achieve with this government amendment and sub-amendment. I would like to have an explanation that would be a little more detailed than the ones we heard earlier regarding the effect of this government amendment and the effect it will have on the Bill C-7.
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: These clauses here essentially harmonize the other clauses in the bill, such that when the regulations come into effect, everything falls into place. The three years after coming into force of section 4--that coincides with the three-year period after coming into force of section 4, and that's also mentioned in clause 36, which deals with the regulations. As we looked at subclause 59(1) just a few minutes ago, the three-year period is also mentioned there--three years from the coming into force of section 4. All the provisions are tied in so that they're synchronized. If this type of provision isn't approved, it just won't make sense.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Regardless of Mr. Dromisky's sub-amendment, Mr. Boileau, I would like you to tell me...
Before you make any comments about Mr. Martin, I would like to remind you that just about every Liberal member on the other side of the table fell asleep a month and a half ago, in front of the whole world, and that they didn't even show any respect for the members of the first nations who are in this room. So I would like you to show a little more restraint when making comments about Mr. Martin.
Mr. Boileau, what is the true meaning of this amendment? I am not talking about the sub-amendment, which deals with the third anniversary, because I can understand that it may be necessary to harmonize the other clauses. We are talking about sub-clause 74(1) of the Indian Act, for instance, and about the powers under section 79. I would like you to explain to me sub-clause 74(1) of the Indian Act and especially the provisions contained in section 79, which says: “the governor in council's powers under section 79 of that act may not be exercised...”. I would like you to explain these powers as well as the wording of sub-clause 74(1) of the Indian Act.
[English]
Mr. Dave Boileau: With respect to 74(1) and the order referred to in 36.1(1), bands that are under the Indian Act now and conduct their elections according to the Indian Act elections method come under that method through an order that is made by Governor in Council. This is saying that as soon as the regulations come into force, that order is no longer needed because that only applies while the Indian Act is in effect. But three years after the coming into force of section 4, the regulations related to leadership selection will come into force. You no longer need those orders made under subsection 74(1), so everything that needs to be adjusted is adjusted. Those orders no longer have effect, the regulations do have effect, and sections 74 to 80 of the Indian Act, which deal with Indian Act elections, are repealed. So all this stuff happens at the same time.
¼ (0655)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: All right. Now what about section 79? We are talking about the exercise of powers under section 79. What powers do we give the governor in council in section 79 of the Indian Act?
Mr. Karl Jacques: We are talking about the governor in council's power to set aside the election of a chief or councillor of a band.Since this section is dealing with the election of a council, the code must also provide for an appeal process for election. These provisions will take precedence over the power of the governor in council.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: That's fine.
[English]
The Chair: Mr. Dromisky, closing remarks.
Mr. Stan Dromisky: I think my statements, and the position of the government, are quite clear regarding this amendment, that we must harmonize and not have any conflicting terms related to the number of years.
The Chair: A recorded vote on subamendment 1 to G-13 on page 215. They want a recorded vote on everything.
(Subamendment agreed to: yeas 8; nays 2)
The Chair: On the amendment as amended.
Mr. Martin, you spoke on that already.
Anyone else?
Mr. Hubbard, closing remarks.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, I think we're ready for the vote.
The Chair: We'll have a recorded vote on G-13 as amended.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8; nays 2)
The Chair: We are now on G-14 on page 217.
Mr. Hubbard.
(On clause 37--Continuation of existing by-laws)
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Did we do the clause?
The Chair: We don't have to. It's a new clause. By moving the amendment, you move the clause.
Mr. Charles Hubbard:
I move that clause 37 be amended by replacing lines 2 and 3 on page 20 with the following:
| section 81, any of paragraphs 83(1), (a.1) to (d) or section 85.1 of the Indian Act, that is in force immediately before the coming into force of sections 53 and 54 of this Act. |
The explanation of this, Mr. Chair, is again that we want to make sure there's continuity in terms of what laws are, how they exist, and how codes may be developed. It certainly wouldn't be good to have conflicts between the proposed First Nations Governance Act and the band codes. So I think the amendment merely clarifies the position we've heard from others.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
½ (0700)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.
Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I have trouble understanding the parliamentary secretary. Every time he presents us with a government amendment, he reads it and does not provide any kind of explanation, as if we were too stupid to read on our own the government's proposed amendment. That's not what we want from him. Whenever he presents an amendment, he should explain to us the impact of that amendment. I think that whenever he presents government amendments, he doesn't know what he is presenting; he does not even know what impact these amendments will have.
I'll put the question to Mr. Boileau or Mr. Salembier. I would like to know exactly what will be the effect of this amendment, since the parliamentary secretary is not telling us anything. This starts to be irritating, and I mean it.
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: This provision carries forward bylaw-making powers from the Indian Act into this act. The existing provision, clause 37, says that any bylaw made under the Indian Act that is in force before this bill comes into force will be carried forward and be deemed to be a law made under this act.
Unfortunately, there was an oversight in the drafting, because there are section 83 bylaws made under the Indian Act that are not carried forward into Bill C-7. As we discussed earlier, they are going to be dealt with in Bill C-19. To remedy that oversight, the reference to the provisions of the Indian Act has been changed to specifically target those bylaws carried forward into Bill C-7.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: We are talking about a carrying forward of Indian Act provisions to Bill C-7. What are we changing in Bill C-7 with the carrying forward of these Indian Act provisions? What does that change for a band council, for instance? What is that changing for a first nation? Is that a good thing? Is that a bad thing? Is this carrying forward unimportant because in fact, this power already existed under the Indian Act? We simply carried forward this power in Bill C-7, but in fact, this is no improvement. I would like your view on that comment.
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: If you have a power in a statute to make subordinate legislation like regulations or bylaws, and that power disappears, as will happen with this statute when we repeal sections 81 and 82, then normally the standard rule is that the bylaw or the regulation would be rendered inoperative by that fact.
However, section 44 of the Interpretation Act provides that when you are dealing with regulations, including bylaws for the purposes of that act, with an enabling power in one statute being carried forward into another statute, those regulations and bylaws are deemed to have been made under the new statute. Clause 37 was included in the bill more or less for greater certainty, in case there was any question about whether section 44 of the Interpretation Act would have applied.
So clause 37 just gives greater certainty to first nations governments. It doesn't have any effect on them; in fact, it removes the requirement for them to suddenly remake all of their bylaws under the new bill once it comes into force. So any bylaws they already have in place, made under section 81 and any of the paragraphs 83(1), (a.1) to (d) and section 85.1, will be carried forward automatically.
To answer your question, I think it represents a savings of administrative effort for first nations during the transition period between the Indian Act and Bill C-7.
½ (0705)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Our first concern was to improve Bill C-7 so that it truly serves the first nations and we realize that there hasn't been any improvement. It is just a transfer from the Indian Act to Bill C-7 to ensure that there's no legal vacuum between the time the new act is going to be implemented and now when the Indian Act is still in force. This is how we understand it. It is kind of a transitional amendment. Thank you for your explanation, Mr. Salembier, but it brings us back to the heart of the problem.
I'm talking to the government. All the amendments that have been moved by the Liberal government since the beginning did not affect the substance of the bill and do not improve on the situation that has been decried by the overwhelming majority of witnesses who have appeared before the committee and who were kind enough to submit briefs in which they criticized the government and Bill C-7 quite strongly.
It is 7:05. We have been at the clause-by-clause consideration for at least 125 if not 130 hours. Nobody has managed to convince us, either Pat Martin or me, nor the members of the first nations who are here. And I want to thank them for being here and listening to our debates. I would have preferred that they sit around the table with us but this was not allowed.
Almost everything we have moved so far which would have improved the bill and which was the result of the 191 briefs that were against Bill C-7 but offered some ways of amending the bill, was rejected.
I am not criticizing Mr. Salembier nor Mr. Boileau, because they have answered our questions. I am criticizing the government. How is it that we, on the opposition side, have been able, in spite of the very short timeframe and the scarce means available to us as compared to you, to move over 70 or 75 amendments of substance that dealt with the criticisms we had heard about the bill, constructive criticism mostly, and that, on your side, you haven't been able to do the same and to recognize that Bill C-7 needed some major improvements so that it became acceptable to the first nations who are directly affected by this bill?
How is it that you haven't been able to do it when we, even in the short time available, have taken the trouble to re-read the briefs and to use a lot of the material prepared by the Library of Parliament to present substantive amendments? Indeed, you have rejected them all because, as soon as we're talking about substance or improving things, you seem to become nervous and you vote against our amendments.
How is it that with our limited means as an opposition, we have come to such a situation? How is it that you have only worked on consequential amendments, harmonization and fill in legal vacuums that could exist between the time the bill is implemented and the time when certain sections of the Indian Act are repealed?
This is quite incredible. Look at your amendments. Your amendments are dictated by yourself, by your goal, your agenda, your concern for consistency between clauses. You did not want to answer the concerns we've heard during our consultations. For you, consultations had no weight. If they had had some weight, you would have taken into account the different claims that were made and the objections that were raised with regard to Bill C-7 and you would have incorporated all this in sub-amendments as we have done ourselves.
½ (0710)
You could have yourself used the criticism and the solutions that were presented to us by members of the first nations who appeared before us and by other witnesses, be they constitutional experts, the Quebec Bar Association, the Canadian Bar Association, etc.
[English]
The Chair: Merci, Mr. Loubier.
Mr. Hubbard, closing remarks.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think we're ready to vote on this.
The Chair: Recorded vote on amendment G-14 on page 217.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1)
The Chair: We are now on amendment G-15 on page 221.
Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you again, Mr. Chair.
I move that clause 37 on page 20 be amended under the topic “Cessation of certain by-laws” by adding after line 12 the following:
| (3) A by-law made by the council of a band under section 83 of the Indian Act in respect of financial administration ceases to have effect on the earliest of |
| (a) the adoption by the band of a financial management an accountability code, |
| (b) the adoption by the band, pursuant to section 36, of regulations made under section 32 providing for the matters with respect to which such a code may be adopted; and |
And again, Mr. Chair, I'll ask for unanimous consent to change “two years” to “three years” in paragraph 37(3)(c), so that the paragraph would read:
| (c) three years after the coming into force of section 4. |
The Chair: You have unanimous consent.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: This amendment adds subsection 37(3) to Bill C-7, to state that an existing financial administration bylaw will have no force or effect after the earlier of either the adoption of a financial administration code under clause 7 of the bill—which we've dealt with—or the coming into force of a section 32 regulation adopted by the band. I believe this gives definite accountability and governance to the financial management of a band. It's merely a technical amendment that should improve the overall operation of the First Nations Governance Act.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.
Monsieur Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like the officials to explain to us again the context of this amendment and the purpose of section 83 of the Indian Act with regard to the financial management of a band.
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: Mr. Chairman, I can address that.
Under the existing section 83 of the Indian Act, certain first nations have made their own bylaws relating to financial administration. Under this bill, these same first nations will either be adopting codes or perhaps be adopting regulations made by the Governor in Council in respect of financial administration during the first three years in which the bill comes into force. If they don't, then at the time the fallback regulations come into place, those regulations will basically oust their financial administration bylaw, since we wouldn't want to have a conflict between the two.
Therefore, the effect of this section is simply to avoid any conflict between existing bylaws and the new codes or default regulations to be put in place under this bill.
½ (0715)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête:
By-laws that cease to have effect if one of three conditions were met. The third one is:
| (c) two years after the coming into force of section 4. |
Could you remind me what this means? How is that this event would be one of the deadlines in this context?
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: It's now three years, as just amended by the committee, coinciding with the time at which the fallback or default regulations relating to financial management will come into force under section 36. I believe those come into force three years after the coming into force of section 4. Section 4 is the ratification procedure for the making of codes.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: I am not sure I have understood correctly. Are you telling me that right now, it is three years and that the purpose of the amendment is to bring it back to two years? Here we're talking about the second anniversary of the coming into force of section 4.
The Chair: I asked the unanimous consent to bring it from two to three years. I've got the unanimous consent.
Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you. So, it seems that it is more an administrative decision regarding the implementation of the act. I do not find anything in this amendment that was dealt with by the witnesses whom we have heard. It seems that this amendment has been moved to ensure the proper implementation of the act.
It is not an amendment which really improves the bill. It is not an amendment which will allow us to give first nations a better bill. I do not think that with this amendment we're going to give the people concerned a better legislation.
This amendment is similar to those that have been moved since we completed consideration of the technical amendments. These new amendments aim at ensuring that the legislation is hermetically closed so that the government can have all the necessary legal safeguards. However, I do not think that this amendment is the answer to what the witnesses have been asking. We are therefore going to vote against it.
I would like to ask the officials a question . It says in subsection (b):
| (b) the adoption by the band, pursuant to section 36, of regulations made under section 32 providing for the matters with respect to which such a code may be adopted, and |
Is this way of making regulations made under section 32 cease to have effect, pursuant to section 36, having a lesser impact than the whole by-law? Can you really use a particular section that does not deal with the whole by-law to make it cease to have effect?
½ (0720)
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: By its terms, this will affect the whole bylaw—and not all of their bylaws made under section 83. But to the extent they have made bylaws relating to financial administration, then it will definitely affect that bylaw. We want to avoid a conflict where first nation members are uncertain about what laws should be applying to them, and what laws should be governing their council. You don't want to have a situation where you have, say, an existing financial administration bylaw in place, and then you have a first nation adopting its own financial administration and management code under section 7 of this bill. If there were ever a conflict between the two, first nation members would be uncertain about which bylaw would apply.
Therefore, as you mentioned, we're in the transitional provisions of this bill. These are not meant to be substantive amendments, but are just amendments meant to govern and smooth the transition between the Indian Act government regime of bylaws approved by the minister and Bill C-7's regime of band laws made independently by the first nation.
Again, aside from the fact that this amendment will avoid conflict between existing financial administration bylaws and band laws made under Bill C-7, there's nothing particularly substantive about it.
The Chair: Mr. Martin, on amendment G-15.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, we're finally debating some of the government's bills that it deliberately set aside when we reached them in the normal order of things.
I can't help but think that the government deliberately put these amendments to the side so as to catch us unawares, or when we're exhausted. I'm looking at the clock here at 7:30 in the morning, after having sat here since 9 a.m. yesterday. When amendments like these come up at 2 o'clock or 4 o'clock in the afternoon, people are at least still able to debate these things substantively with the benefit of rest and food. The minister's assistant is now taking advantage of this situation and trivializing the issues we're dealing with by trying to ram all of these things through at this late hour in the day.
Well, frankly, Mr. Chairman, my energy was flagging until a few moments ago, when I saw even more grassroots aboriginal people here. They drove all through the night so they could be here to attend these hearings and observe at least a few of us around this table trying to represent and defend their point of view, which they've made abundantly clear. These people left home at 8:30 last night, drove all through the night and got lost, driving right past Ottawa, before rolling into this meeting at 7:30 in the morning to lend support to those of us around the table who are trying to represent their views.
This is what I find so ironic and cruel and dishonest in the campaign of misinformation put forward by the parliamentary secretary and his government about this bill. They are trying to project to the public that it's only the chiefs who are opposed to this piece of legislation, whereas in actual fact we've been at demonstrations and rallies in the last two weeks, Mr. Chair, where there have been thousands and thousands of ordinary aboriginal people. They can't all be chiefs in a town like Kenora, Ontario. Right? Chiefs aren't usually six years old or 80 years old, which was the range of ages in that crowd of babies to seniors who came motivated to object and to protest against Bill C-7, Mr. Chair.
There's this cruel myth being pushed by the government side that the only people opposed to this bill are chiefs who are trying to featherbed their own nests, or something. It's language to that effect that I've heard government-side members use. It's absolutely untrue and it's absolutely false. In fact, it's completely unfair.
I think, Mr. Chair, we're honoured that the people who came to join us today also brought some sacred objects or representations of the treaty relationship existing between the crown and first nations. I think it's marvellous that we have actual examples of the Two Row Wampum belts here, including an example of a friendship belt, and an another belt whose name I can't read. But it's the Onondaga, or the Keepers of the Fire, who brought us these belts to remind the committee of the significance of the Two Row Wampum and the symbolism associated with it, which is best used to describe the treaty relationship that should be the basis for all of these dialogues.
So rather than tinkering with administrative and bureaucratic details of the Indian Act, we should be dealing with the substantive issues of renewing and rebuilding their relationship between first nations and the federal government.
½ (0725)
Mr. Chair, I believe it was just yesterday that The Globe and Mail had a good balanced article trying to provide some editorial balance to the $1.3 million campaign of misinformation the minister is pushing through editorial boards across the country. We have a good editorial from The Globe and Mail. The subheading says, “Pull the plug on Bill C-7...and leave First Nations government to First Nations people”. The text reads:
| As Ottawa pushes through the final phases of the First Nations Governance Act (Bill C-7), Canadians are confused. The bill is supposed to address the unacceptable results of colonialism—so why is a prescription for more colonialism the remedy? |
In other words, why would you try to eradicate colonialism by imposing colonialism? It seems bizarre, yet this article says,
| Yet that is exactly what Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and Indian Affairs Minister Robert Nault seem intent on doing as they railroad through Parliament an ill-conceived package of legislation that purports to teach First Nations people how to be democratic. Consider a recent Globe and Mail headline: If He Differs With Nault, What Is Martin's Plan? |
That was The Globe and Mail's editorial slant, challenging the future prime minister or prime minister in waiting, Paul Martin, on what his plan would be if he differs with Nault. The headline implied that it's now up to Paul Martin to come up with an alternative to Nault's plan. But what they're missing with that editorial slant is that it's not up to Paul Martin to spell out plans to modernize native government any more than it is Bob Nault's job to spell out plans to modernize native government. As the article states, it's the “right of First Nations themselves, a right now constitutionally recognized” to deal with first nations governance issues. So “Mr. Martin's best option” is “to work with First Nations, and provide access to the real tools of governance our people require—lands, resources and fiscal transfers”.
It's the fiscal relationship that is the cause of the poverty we see in first nations. It's not poor governance that has caused the poverty, but the lack of adequate funds transferred, or first nations' lack of use of the funds stemming from the lands and the natural resources within their traditional territories that is the root of the problem.
It sounds like I wrote the article myself. It continues, “Meanwhile, Mr. Nault is engaged in a costly exercise of misinformation”. I've made that same point here, that this is a deliberate and calculated campaign of misinformation. He wasted $15 million on just a consultation process, which didn't meet any of the tests of what constitutes true consultation, and another $1.3 million he's budgeted for his own advertising campaign to promote his own bill, in his worry that opposition to this bill is not only overwhelming, but it's also growing. As news about this bill percolates through Indian country, everyone who is exposed to it is opposed to it. There are no converts coming onboard to this bill; the only converts were at the onset—those who were bought and paid for, who delivered their loyalty to the government. But there's no growth in the base of those who support the bill. In fact, we can't find anybody who supports the bill. Certainly nobody came to the committee meetings to present their support.
All we see are dozens and dozens of honest, legitimate, hardworking aboriginal people who are opposed to this bill, and who are so motivated that they are willing to give up their days and evenings to come here to plead—with their presence—to the government to stop Bill C-7. That's the message these people bring to us today, after driving all through the night. They want Bill C-7 stopped, terminated, finito.
So none of the amendments the government has now decided they wish to debate impress me in the least, because they have no effect on the package being forced down first nations people's throats. If they had only listened in the consultation process to the many, many dozens of presentations with useful guidance, we wouldn't be in this situation now.
½ (0730)
The Assembly of First Nations of Nova Scotia and Newfoundland said “When the Government of Canada talks about good governance and accountability in the first nations across this country...the contempt starts to rise....”—contempt.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Mr. Hubbard, closing remarks.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, I'll refer back to our expert witness, who said this is not a substantive amendment, but merely one improving the operations between point X and point Y in terms of the coming into effect of the First Nations Governance Act.
With that, we'll ask for the vote.
The Chair: Recorded vote on amendement G-15 on page 221, as amended by unanimous consent.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 2)
(Clause 37 as amended agreed to on division)
The Chair: We are now on amendment G-16 on page 224.
Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you again, Mr. Chair.
This actually introduces a new series of proposed clauses, 40.1 to 40.4. Again, they're mainly technical notations to draw the relation between the First Nations Governance Act and other acts that have already been approved by Parliament.
I move that Bill C-7 be amended by adding before the heading “Canadian Human Rights Act”, and preceding line 1 on page 21, the following:
| British Columbia Indian Cut-off Lands Settlement Act |
| 40.1 The definition “council of a band” in section 2 of the British Columbia Indian Cut-off Lands Settlement Act is replaced by the following: |
| “council”, |
| “council”, in relation to a band, has the same meaning as in the First Nations Governance Act. |
| Budget Implementation Act, 1997 |
| 40.2 The definition “council” in section 35 of the Budget Implementation Act, 1997 is replaced by the following: |
| “council” |
| “council”, in relation to the Cowichan Tribes, has the same meaning as in the First Nations Governance Act. |
| Budget Implementation Act, 2000 |
| 40.3 The definition “council of a band” in subsection 23(1) of the Budget Implementation Act, 2000 is replaced by the following: |
| “council” |
| “council”, in relation to a band, has the same meaning as in the First Nations Governance Act. |
| Canadian Environmental Assessment Act |
| 40.4 The portion of the definition “federal authority” in subsection 2(1) of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act is replaced by the following: |
| but does not include the Executive Council of—or a minister, department, agency or body of the government of—Yukon, the Northwest Territories or Nunavut, the council of a band within the meaning of the First Nations Governance Act, The Hamilton Harbour Commissioners constituted pursuant to The Hamilton Harbour Commissioners' Act, the Toronto Harbour Commissioner's constituted pursuant to The Toronto Harbour Commissioners' Act, 1911, a harbour commission established pursuant to the Harbour Commissions Act, a Crown corporation within the meaning of the Financial Administration Act, a not-for-profit organization that enters into an agreement under subsection 80(5) of the Canada Marine Act or a port authority established under that Act; |
These are a very lengthy series of amendments, but they provide for federal statutes to be harmonized with the definition of “council” of a band referred to in the First Nations Governance Act, or Bill C-7.
I would probably again ask our expert witness to briefly state the necessity of having these four sections.
½ (0735)
Mr. Paul Salembier: Bill C-7 has amended the definition in the Indian Act that used to read “council of the band”, and modernized it to read: “'council', in relation to a band, has the same meaning as in the First Nations Governance Act”. Having changed that definition to the single word, “council”, it is standard practice in looking at other statutes across the board to change those cross-references to accurately reflect the new definition. Since our definition in the Indian Act is now just pointing people to the First Nations Governance Act, we also went to the other references in the act to that definition, “council of the band”, to point those references directly to the First Nations Governance Act as well.
So these are basically consequential amendments to a range of other statutes, with the purpose of correcting the cross-references to the definition of “council”. We're now pointing them to the definition of “council” in the First Nations Governance Act.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.
Monsieur Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The experts have just explained the consequential nature of the amendment. In each case, what effect does it have on the legislation itself? Does it have a neutral effect or will it lead to different or specific interpretations in each and every of the four cases that this amendment deals with?
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: These amendments would be completely neutral; they would not affect the meaning of any of those other statutes in any respect.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Replacing the definition has no effect on the balance of the legislation that this amendment seeks to change. Does that mean that the amendment is not necessary?
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: No, it's necessary to correct the cross-references in those other statutes. Because of the changes brought by Bill C-7, the existing provisions of those other statutes would have incorrect cross-references. So correcting them is necessary to that extent.
But, as you say, I think it's really purely technical in nature, and doesn't have an impact on the substance of the bill or what it achieves.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: I understand that this amendment has no impact on the legislation that we are considering but does it have one on the legislation that this bill would modify? These are consequential clauses that amend other legislation. Are you telling us that changing these definitions in the other pieces of legislation has no effect within them?
½ (0740)
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: Exactly, that's right.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: So, why change them?
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: We wouldn't want to have an incorrect cross-reference in those other statutes. As I say, it doesn't change what these other statutes do, but we want to have the laws of Canada in harmony. Therefore, we wouldn't want an incorrect cross-reference in a statute like the British Columbia Indian Cut-off Lands Settlement Act, for example. We wouldn't want a reference in it to a definition in the Indian Act that no longer exists. We're making the change, so that when someone reads the B.C. Indian Cut-off Lands Settlement Act and then goes to the Indian Act, they won't become confused by not finding the definition referred to. We change the reference in there, so that when they do go to check, everything will work properly together. All of the statutes will be in harmony.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Fine.
I have a more specific question with regard to clause 40.4, which refers to marine legislation. It says:
| ...within the meaning of the First Nations Governance Act (...) a harbour commission established pursuant to the Harbour Commissions Act... |
How does this proposed clause change the status quo? Is the same wording more or less contained in the current act? How significant are these changes?
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: There's no change in respect to the harbour commissioners.
What has been done is to substitute a correct cross-reference to the First Nations Governance Act, and also to make changes to the manner in which the commissioner and council of the Yukon is referred to. The commissioner and council is now called the Executive Council of the Yukon. Similarly, the agencies or bodies of the Yukon referred to in the old version of the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act are now referred to as ministers, departments, agencies, or bodies of the Government of Yukon. These changes have been brought forward by recent legislation for the Yukon, as part of the Yukon devolution process.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Oh, so the amendment would only bring the bill in line with certain provisions of Yukon legislation.
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: That's right. The purpose is to make a more accurate reference to the executive council of the Government of Yukon.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: The Yukon legislation refers to the relationship with Canada's Marine Act, for instance, but only to the extent that it affects the Yukon legislation. Is that why the situation is being corrected?
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: No. Given its geography, I would be surprised if the Yukon had much reference to maritime legislation. This is a definition of federal authority in the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. The definition covers a broad range of statutes, including things like harbour commissioners, the Canada Marine Act, and port authorities. But I would be very surprised if the particular Yukon statute that changed the nomenclature for their governmental bodies extended to ports or the Canada Marine Act.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, it is easy to understand these amendments, given the attitude of the government, which has a majority. In many cases, it's just a matter of making a technical amendment. The government has made logical technical amendments, but did not listen to the suggestions it received. Every time the government proposes an amendment, it is adding insult to injury. Other proposed amendments were much more substantial and would have led to a greater respect of the will of first nations. We are now studying technical amendments, but we are ignoring the substantial amendments which we feel are important and which the government decided to reject.
½ (0745)
[English]
The Chair: I understand there is a camera in the room. Cameras are not accepted in the room.
Maybe the clerk can ask whoever has a camera to put it away, please.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Did someone take a picture and we're looking for the camera? I see.
The Chair: Let's not make a big deal out of it. Mr. Crête, you may continue.
Mr. Paul Crête: When I was interrupted by this outside event... In fact, it's easy to understand why people want to capture this historic moment, not because of the importance of the amendment we are studying, but because of the government's steamroller approach to adopting legislation affecting first nations. At first, the intent was to modernize the act and to create an equal relationship with first nations, and to do it all in a spirit of respect.
Today, we're simply passing all the administrative amendments enabling the government to continue to enforce an act which, in my mind, is very paternalistic and ineffective.
Of course, cameras are not allowed in this room, but it's easy to understand that people want to capture the memory of this moment. It will not necessarily be a happy memory; rather, it will be a sad one. This is not one of the government's shining moments. In fact, this is evident in the amendment we are now considering. This type of amendment is superficial and does not help solve the problems we wanted to address from the outset.
For that reason, Mr. Chairman, the Bloc Québécois will in all likelihood vote against this amendment.
[English]
The Chair: Do you wish to speak on amendment G-16, Mr. Martin?
Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, I do in fact, Mr. Chair. Thank you.
I'd like to continue citing for the committee some of the comments made in this editorial in The Globe and Mail yesterday. The $15 million consultation process that Mr. Nault hypes was a farce, according to this editorial in The Globe and Mail.
| Despite cross-country hearings, the lawmakers did not visit a single First Nations community affected by the bill. They heard from 191 witnesses adamantly opposed to the legislation, and only 10 (including the Minister and his officials) in favour. Despite evidence from the Canadian Bar Association, the Indigenous Bar Association, and former minister of Indian affairs Warren Allmand that C-7 will be struck down as unconstitutional and in violation of treaties and inherent rights, Mr. Chretien and Mr. Nault remain intent on ramming it through. |
This is what The Globe and Mail has to say about this bill.
Let's look at one area that Bill C-7 is supposed to address. More transparent accounting for the $6 billion plus that is supposedly spent on native programs and services. It begs the question of how much of this actually reaches first nations communities. Well, that's good; we should dwell on that somewhat. The fact is, more than 20% of this goes to a mix of federal administration and claim settlements, and less than 1% is spent on building better governance and accounting systems.
So if the priority of the government were to build better accounting and transparency or governance issues even, they could spend some time and resources on building national standards for accountability. I think that would be welcome. I think it would be met with a great interest, frankly, because one thing that is pointed out in this article--and others will concur--is that accountability and transparency are just as much goals for first nations as they are for all Canadians. Hardly a model of accountability, Indian Affairs itself is very much involved in setting up situations in which bad government can flourish.
I pointed out, Mr. Chair, the issues of accountability we wish to see dealt with. I'd like to share with the committee the accountability issues we deem to be a priority, as cited for us by the Canadian Bar Association in their presentation to this committee. They were very helpful, this bunch of lawyers; not all lawyers are helpful, but some lawyers are more helpful than others. In this case, Mr. Chairman, I'm going to find the section on accountability and share this with the committee, because I think it's helpful.
The Indigenous Bar Association, the lawyers who are actually the legal counsel for many first nations and who are first nations individuals themselves, make the point that there are at least three different levels of accountability that come into play when addressing Indian Act matters and the relationship between the Department of Indian Affairs and first nations. They say that in a general way these different levels of accountability can be referred to as the Crown-Indian accountability framework, which can be summarized as follows.
The IBA says that the first level of accountability first nations want dealt with is the administrative accountability of the department for decisions it makes affecting bands and bands councils. This is an accountability issue that has not been addressed, but it's been cited by virtually all of the 191 presenters who opposed this bill. They cited accountability issues on the department's part and the transparency in its activities as they affect bands and band councils.
Now, it's funny how that hasn't come up as a priority of the government to investigate. I noted earlier, Mr. Chairman, that our information is that the minister doesn't really seem to be too concerned about those accountability issues. In fact he wasn't even motivated to contact his own deputy minister for three months after his appointment as the Minister of Indian Affairs--a shocking, shocking revelation. When we learned that, we could hardly believe it.
That deputy is obviously no longer with the department. Who would stay when the minister of your own department didn't even reach out and want to have lunch to find out what's going on in the department? Clearly, the minister arrived with an agenda of his own and wasn't even remotely interested in what his deputy had to say, or he would have contacted him on the telephone, you would think.
½ (0750)
The second accountability issue as it pertains to the Crown and first nations, according to the IBA, is the “accountability of the Crown with respect to the fiduciary relationship and indigenous peoples, and the corresponding fiduciary duties”.
Mr. Chairman, I've tried to walk us through the fiduciary obligations of members of Parliament as it pertains to our treatment of first nations people. That fiduciary obligation stems from the obligation of the Crown, through Parliament, through to this standing committee, through to us, as individuals. We, as individuals, have a fiduciary obligation to act only in the best interests of first nations people, Mr. Chairman.
I would argue that none of our treatment of Bill C-7, from the bogus farce of a consultation process up to and including these all-night emergency sessions to ram this bill through, is in keeping with our fiduciary obligations to act only in the best interests of first nations people. In fact--in fact--it's in direct conflict and contrast to our fiduciary obligations. So this is another level of accountability that first nations people wanted dealt with.
And the third level of accountability, as contemplated by the Indigenous Bar Association, is the accountability of band councils to their memberships, “including political accountability, financial accountability and accountability for administrative decisions that affect the rights of individual Band members”. That's number three in order of priority, but that's the one the government has seized upon--the accountability of band councils.
There's no objection anywhere in Indian country that we can find to that degree of accountability. And the evidence speaks for itself: 96% of all first nations submit their audits on time and post those audits for the information of band members.
The IBA goes on to say that “the first aspect of this accountability framework places an onus on the federal government to ensure it conducts itself in a manner that is open and transparent and in a fashion where the unfair exercise of administrative discretion can be challenged”. And there are plenty of instances of the unfair administrative discretion imposed on first nations, but they have no avenue of recourse other than going to court.
Currently there is no process whereby a first nation can challenge the discretion exercised by the minister or the minister's delegated officials without going to court. There is no avenue of recourse. There is no accountability. You'd think that would be the primary obligation, to be accountable to the people they're charged with the responsibility of administrating, but no; it's a one-way street.
The IBA continues: “Secondly, there are matters of accountability regarding the conduct of the Crown as a fiduciary”--and this is what I raised as a second issue of accountability. “We raised this matter earlier because of our concern over the failure of the Crown, as a fiduciary, to disclose information respecting the impact of Bill C-7 on the fiduciary relationship and Aboriginal and Treaty rights”.
We know the government has in its possession legal opinions regarding the impact of this bill on aboriginal and treaty rights and on a number of outstanding court cases, but they won't share this information with the members of the committee. They refuse to disclose their own legal opinions to members of the committee. We can't do our job effectively, we can't do our job properly, without having access to that information.
We have our own legal opinions, but our legal opinions say that this bill does infringe upon constitutionally recognized aboriginal and treaty rights. The government says they have legal opinions to the contrary. Well, show us. We should have those in our hands. We should have those on this table so we can compare them and make informed choices about this bill, instead of being kept in the dark.
You talk about transparency. This government is the master of obfuscation when it comes to information surrounding this bill. There's no transparency here, not even for members of Parliament who are members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs. We're not even allowed to see the government's privileged, secret information they're using as guidance as they're ramming this bill through.
½ (0755)
We understand Bill C-7 was not designed to look at these broader issues of accountability. That's our interpretation. Bill C-7 is designed to deal only with what we call the third aspect of the accountability framework, which involves the overall accountability of band councils. It's very narrow in its scope. In fact, it has very little to do with accountability on the large scale, in the global perspective.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I think we've argued for this amendment as best we can and we're ready for the vote.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8, nays 2)
(Clause 40 agreed to on division)
The Chair: We now go to page 230, G-17. Before we go there, we can vote on clause 42.
(Clause 42 agreed to on division)
The Chair: And now we are dealing with new clauses 42.1 to 42.4, G-17 on page 230.
Mr. Hubbard.
¾ (0800)
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, with your permission, I will not read all of the amendment. It deals again with trying to harmonize our federal statutes. In that, we have clause 42.1, which deals with claim settlements, the Alberta and Saskatchewan Implementation Act; and we have clause 42.2, which deals with the definition of “aboriginal government” in subsection 2(1) of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, which is to be replaced by the following....
As well, we have clause 42.3, in which the definition of “council” in subsection 2(1) of the First Nations Land Management Act is replaced by the following...again dealing with the word “council”.
And in clause 42.4, subsection 20(4) of the act is replaced by the following, under “Inconsistency”:
| (4) The land code of a first nation prevails over the provisions of the first nation law, or of a law made under any of sections 16 to 18 of the First Nations Governance Act, to the extent of any inconsistency or conflict. |
Mr. Chair, again, these are technical amendments. I don't think we need long debate. With that, I'll turn the floor over to other members.
The Chair: Does anyone else want to speak on amendment G-17?
Monsieur Crête.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I realize that this amendment is similar to the previous one, which would amend other legislation in the interest of consistency.
However, I would like the experts to clarify section 42.4 of the amendment, which says:
| 42.4 Subsection 20(4) of the act is replaced by the following: |
| Inconsistency. |
I would like to know which problem this addresses in the existing legislation.
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: Mr. Chair, this is a reference to subsection 20(4) of the First Nations Land Management Act, and that subsection right now refers to section 81 of the Indian Act. We are repealing section 81 of the Indian Act in this bill; therefore, the cross-reference would be inaccurate. The equivalent of the bylaw-making powers in section 81 are now contained in sections 16 to 18 of the First Nations Governance Act, and we've therefore substituted a reference to those particular provisions in place of the reference to section 81 of the Indian Act.
Mr. Warren Johnson: If I could, I think it's important to note, in the context of clause 42.4, this also results from an intervention by the Lands Advisory Board, operating under the First Nations Land Management Act.
The issue here is that under the First Nations Land Management Act, first nations develop their own land management codes. Those codes, like the codes in the First Nations Governance Act, have significant status, in that law-making has to be consistent with these codes. Otherwise there is a requirement that the community amend the codes. The code has, if you want, the status of a constitution in the area it operates under, and the laws must be consistent with it.
One of the interventions of the Lands Advisory Board's chiefs was to ensure that there was a consistency in the law-making treatment between the First Nations Governance Act and the First Nations Land Management Act. Since there are authorities in sections 16, 17, and 18 that relate to land and could be similar to the law-making authorities under the First Nations Land Management Act, they wanted to ensure that whatever law-making authority a first nation is using--either under the First Nations Governance Act or the First Nations Land Management Act--there would be consistency with the code developed under the First Nations Land Management Act, just as there is a requirement in First Nations Governance Act that the laws there also be consistent with the codes developed under the First Nations Governance Act.
¾ (0805)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Mr. Chairman, I have another question. Did subsection 20(4) deal with the notion of incompatibility? Was this aspect already contained in subsection 20(4), or does it change the content of the provision?
It says:
| 42.4 Subsection 20(4) of the act is replaced by the following: |
| Inconsistency. |
It says which one has priority if there is an inconsistency. Is it already contained in the act as an “inconsistency”?
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: Perhaps I can answer that.
To a large extent this is simply a question of changing the cross-reference. Subsection 20(4) of the First Nations Land Management Act already provides that land codes do have paramountcy over bylaws made under section 81. This carries this forward and applies it to band laws made under this act.
Under this act, law-making power is expanded, so in one sense the codes could have priority over more laws that might be made under Bill C-7 than under section 81; but the essential principle is the same and remains unchanged from the First Nations Land Management Act as it reads now.
Does that make any sense?
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête: Thank you for your explanation; it helps me better understand the point of this amendment involving subsection 42.4. The explanation was correct, but it demonstrates the approach taken with regard to this bill and the way the government wishes to pass it. These are very technical changes, but they in no way affect the spirit of the Indian Act. The former Indian Act was adopted in another time, in another historical context, when things were done differently, with the British Empire as a backdrop.
But today, we are trying to draft a new bill which would establish a new relationship between the first nations and the federal government, and the amendment we are dealing with as well as the previous amendments, do not reflect the spirit which should underlie the modernization of this legislation. These are fairly technical changes which maintain the state of dependency contained in the former Indian Act. The current bill does not reflect the changes we had a right to expect.
It is easy to understand why Mr. Martin, the Liberal Party leadership candidate, has reservations. In so many words, he has said that instead of complicating our lives by studying this bill, we should use this energy to create a healthy and positive relationship reflecting true cooperation. Instead, with this bill, we will continue to have complex and complicated legislation drafted by whites, and which will have to be interpreted by extremely specialized lawyers. The process will surely involve an army of lawyers, who will be very pleased at the amount of work the bill will generate, though ultimately the amendments will not lead to the spirit of change we are looking for.
The Bloc Québécois will vote against this amendment, Mr. Chairman.
¾ (0810)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Crête.
Mr. Martin.
[English]
Mr. Pat Martin: I think we should point out again for the record that it is not just the Assembly of First Nations that rejects the First Nations Governance Act. This is from the National Post:
| Mainstream churches, academics, law professors, bar associations, even a former minister of Indian affairs protested that Bill C-7 infringes upon constitutionally recognized aboriginal and treaty rights, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and international conventions. They are reasonably and legitimately concerned about changing the legal status of First Nations so that they resemble municipalities, about enhancing the Minister's discretionary authority, about imposing codes of governance as a supposed step towards self-governance, and about the offensive notion that any of this should proceed without the full participation and consent of those who are affected. |
That's good language. Never mind what the details are that the parliamentary secretary is yammering on about now, at this ungodly hour of the morning. What's offensive is the very notion that any of this should proceed without the full participation and consent of first nations. That's what our observers today agree and concur with as well.
Many objective observers suspect that Bill C-7 may have much to do with the government's interest in reducing its fiduciary responsibilities and liability in court cases, and very little to do with accountability and transparency. That's a point I've made myself around this very table a number of times.
The article goes on to say:
| Surely accountability is a red herring given that 96% of Canada's 633 First Nations meet all auditing requirements every year without incident |
That's familiar language, which I've used myself as well.
The article also says:
| The Auditor General herself described First Nations as “over-audited,” having to file on average 168 accounting and financial statements annually. |
Now, if you do the mathematics, if you have 168 accounting statements annually and there are 52 weeks in a year, that's over three accounting financial statements per week that have to be submitted to Ottawa, where they gather dust. They're not used for any purpose; that's just forcing first nations to jump through hoops. If they trip up on any one of those financial statements and accounting auditing statements, they run the risk of interrupting the flow of revenue stream from the four or five different funding agencies that provide resources to first nations.
This National Post piece goes on to say:
| The Indian Act is outdated, paternalistic and unworthy of any modern democracy. It was and is an instrument of oppression responsible for 130 years of social tragedy. That it desperately needs to be replaced is not in dispute. |
I will go further than the National Post and say that the Indian Act is an evil document that has been responsible for personal and human tragedy for 130 years. It's an evil document of oppression unworthy of any modern democracy. It should be abolished. Our time, our energy, and our resources would be better placed if we set out to abolish the Indian Act, not accentuate it, augment it, and give it new life for another generation. That's what we're doing around this table, Mr. Chairman. The fact that it desperately needs to be replaced is not in dispute.
¾ (0815)
This article also says:
| Now that the provisional government of Paul Martin has indicated a lack of support for the FNGA, perhaps we can regroup and start over in an atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding rather than hostility and contempt. |
Wouldn't that be a welcome change, Mr. Chairman?
If the Minister of Indian Affairs stood up and announced that he was interested in undertaking a new relationship with first nations based on mutual respect and understanding, I think all of us would buy into that. I think we'd all like to participate in that exercise. It would be gratifying to spend what time we have here in Ottawa as members of Parliament in a worthy exercise of that nature.
This article goes on to say:
| Experience shows that successful economic development among First Nations is directly linked with real decision-making authority or “practical sovereignty”. |
They must have been reading the same articles we're reading, for this is clearly from Professor Stephen Cornell and the Harvard study on practical sovereignty.
| First Nations from coast to coast have told this steering committee in no uncertain terms that the First Nations Governance Act is a giant step backwards. It would be the height of colonial-style arrogance to proceed with any of these changes without their full participation and consent. |
That sums up in many respects our objections to the First Nations Governance Act.
Let me also add for the record an ecumenical statement by church leaders on aboriginal rights, from March 19, 2003. I mentioned that the leaders of all the mainstream Christian churches were opposed to Bill C-7, and I'll list the signatories to this particular document: the general secretary of the Anglican Church of Canada; the moderator of the National Presbyterian Church of Canada; the general secretary of the Lutheran World Federation; the former moderator of the United Church of Canada; the national bishop of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada; and the Catholic bishop of Sault Ste-Marie, Monsignor Jean-Louis Plouffe.
I could give you the names. Archdeacon Jim Boyles is the general secretary of the Anglican Church. They all signed this letter, and I'll read the resolution from their meetings. They introduced this by saying:
| Church leaders met with representatives of the Assembly of First Nations and the Department of Indian Affairs to discuss the proposed federal First Nations legislation that is currently before the House of Commons, including Bill C-7.... |
They went on to say:
| We have serious concerns with the First Nations Governance Act. We believe it threatens First Nations' inherent and treaty rights, and perpetuates a discriminatory federal policy, which the 1996 Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples concluded was responsible for the social and economic problems currently facing First Nations. We are also concerned that the legislation is being unilaterally imposed on First Nations, without their consent. As a result, in a reaffirmation of our solidarity with First Nations, we are calling for: |
| (a) a moratorium on all related federal legislation until the support of First Nations is secured; |
In other words, these church leaders are directing this committee to stop what we're doing--just stop it. They're also calling for
| a non-partisan approach by all parties to the issues and concerns of First Nations, which we believe is essential to help bring about a new relationship with Aboriginal peoples; |
Third, these church leaders call for
| an approach to realizing genuine First Nations governance and self-determination which builds on the report and the recommendations of the 1983 Special Parliamentary Committee on Indian Self-Government, |
--that's the Penner report that we've referred to frequently--
| the 1996 Final Report and Recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, and the 2000 Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples. |
¾ (0820)
They go on to say:
| The rights of Aboriginal peoples are recognized in international law and the historic documents of this country. More importantly, they are also a moral issue that touches the heart and soul of Canada. The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples called for a new relationship with Aboriginal peoples based on-- |
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Mr. Hubbard, closing remarks.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
We've had a good number of speeches, but not much on the amendments. I'm ready to ask that the question be put to a vote.
The Chair: We will have a recorded vote on amendment G-17.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8; nays 1 )
The Chair: We are now on page 236, amendment G-18 on clause 44.
Mr. Hubbard.
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, this is another technical amendment to clause 44. This replaces lines 2 to 4 on page 22 with the following:
| following provisions is deemed to include a reference to any person whose name is entered in a Band List or who is entitled to |
This corrects an error in section 4.1 of the Indian Act. It was carried over inadvertently into the First Nations Governance Act. It certainly clarifies that section and makes it more relevant to anyone reading the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.
Monsieur Loubier.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Hubbard never has much to say when he presents a government amendment. I would like Mr. Salembier or Mr. Johnson—good morning, Mr. Johnson, to tell me in what way G-18, a government amendment, changes Bill C-7. What will its impact be? It proposes that Bill C-7, in clause 44, be amended by replacing lines ?12 to14 on page 22 with the following:
| The following provision is deemed to include a reference to any person whose name is entered in a band list or who is entitled to. |
What does this add to the evidence?
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: The purpose of this amendment is essentially to change the word “and” to the word “or” in the reference to a provision in the Indian Act that is definitional in nature. It deems a person to be an Indian if their name is entered on a band list or if they are entitled to have it entered on a band list. In fact, what this is doing is picking up a slight error in the Indian Act that's been there since 1985. That provision has always been administered as though the word “and” was the word “or”, and it was simply in reviewing the changes made in this statute that we recognized that an inadvertent error had been made.
In 1985, when Bill C-31 came in, it changed the regime for band membership. Prior to that time band membership and Indian status were determined solely within the department. So at that time, before 1985, if you were registered on the department's band list, then you were automatically considered as being status.
After 1985 the amendments in Bill C-31 gave first nations the power to administer their own band lists. Therefore, after that time, not only were they entitled to add non-members to their band lists, but there were a number of persons who basically regained Indian status by virtue of Bill C-31.
But there was no guarantee, because band lists were now under the control of each individual band. There was no guarantee these persons would automatically be entered onto the band list of that particular band for first nations who had taken over control of their own band list.
Therefore, in referring to who was and who wasn't an Indian, this section 4.1 was added to state that you would be considered to be an Indian for the purposes of the Indian Act, what had been called “status Indians” before that time. Now you would be considered to have Indian status if you were either on a band list or if you were entitled to be on a band list but for some reason or another weren't on a band list.
Entitlement to be on band lists is dealt with in the earlier sections, section 6, etc., of the Indian Act, but that's essentially what the purpose of section 4.1 is. Inadvertently, they put in the word “and”, which meant that you had to be both entitled and on the band list, and that would have the effect of excluding anyone who really was entitled to have Indian status but for one reason or another was not on a band list.
¾ (0825)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: So it would eventually allow those who have a right to do so do add their names to the band list. Is that correct?
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: In fact, as I say, this provision had been administered as though it read “or” all along, ever since 1985, so there certainly won't be any change in practice within the department.
As to entitlement, the Indian Act refers to someone being entitled to have their name entered onto a list. Because certain first nations have complete control over their own membership lists, the government doesn't force them to actually add these persons to a band list, but they might fall under a category of those who are entitled to.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: But how do you explain, Mr. Salembier, that some first nations have control over their list, whereas others don't, or better yet, some have a mixed control? Is that the result of historical circumstances or is it because different systems have been established and left up to the first nations? The bottom line is what is the standard? With respect to the last point, what else does the amendment bring?
I would like you to clarify that for me. In fact, a number of people have asked me what the definition of indian status is. I myself received three different answers from three different first nations. So I was a little confused and didn't know what to respond to the person asking this question. I would like you to tell me how indian status is defined.
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: To answer your first question, I can say that the determination of whether a first nation controls its own membership list or not is historical only in the sense that 1985 might be considered history. It was in 1985 that the Indian Act was amended to give first nations the opportunity to assume control of their membership, and that was done under section 10 of the Indian Act.
If they do not choose to assume control, then section 11 of the Indian Act governs, and that basically carries forward the pre-existing regime, where the department will maintain the band list for those bands that do not choose to assume control of their own membership.
I think, as to your second question about what determines whether someone is an Indian or not an Indian, that would be section 6 of the Indian Act, which sets out the criteria.
¾ (0830)
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: What are in a nutshell the criteria for indian status?
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: First, it's historically based, and then for the basic population there are a variety of very complicated rules regarding marriage and whether you obtained status by way of reinstatement or otherwise. Someone could easily write a master's thesis on all of the intricacies of section 6, and I wouldn't want to pretend to you that I can explain all of the ins and outs of section 6 to you. I think went through it for the purposes of other analyses at some point in the past, but I wouldn't want to pretend I can accurately convey to you all of the different mechanisms by which status is governed under that section.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: I can understand that. I will check section 6. During our trip, we met—if memory serves me well, it was in northern Alberta—a female member of a first nation who told us that she and two of her brothers had gained indian status, but that two other brothers had not. How come within the same family, in the same region, some members get their status while others don't? Are there any special circumstances?
[English]
Mr. Paul Salembier: I can certainly tell you, not that I know of, but I'm not sure how much comfort that would give you, given the fact that I'm not an expert on this particular section.
However, I could point out that it's possible that you could have, for different members of the same family, some being registered as status Indians and others not, because an Indian person is not required to register with the department or with their own band to be added to their band list. It's possible in this case that the woman's brothers had never in fact applied to be registered. But I'm speculating, and I think you'd have to look into the particular facts of that case.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Martin.
Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate Mr. Loubier's line of questioning, because it shines a light on a very disturbing fact. The fact is that most of us around this table are not familiar with the rules surrounding membership, but there are experts; there are authorities on this issue in this room. Some of them are our legal advisers and counsel. The others are those people observing these proceedings today who are legitimate authorities on the subject of who is a member and who is not a member of a band because they live it every day. Unfortunately, they have no participation in this process. They're not invited to the table as witnesses.
One woman just showed me her card. I had never seen a status card quite in that format, and this is the problem of the naivety--and I'm not saying this to be rude in any way--the relative naivety of those of us around this table who are the lawmakers, as compared to the people who are affected by the legislation we're putting forward today.
Now, my mind is boggled by section 6 of the Indian Act. Frankly, it's incredibly complex; Mr. Salembier is absolutely correct. It warrants detailed study by this committee, not just a cursory overview because of an omission of the word “or” in 1985.
I read what it takes to be eligible for registration under the Indian Act, and it's not only based on who your parents are or who you might be adopted by. Paragraph 6(1)(a) means a person may be registered under the Indian Act if they were entitled to be registered prior to April 17, 1985.
Paragraph 6(1)(b) talks about members who are members of groups declared to be new bands by the Governor in Council.
Paragraph 6(1)(c) relates to women who lost their status by marrying non-Indian men, which was a major aspect of Bill C-31. Paragraph 6(1)(c), again, relates to persons enfranchised because their mother married a non-Indian prior to April 17, 1985. Paragraph 6(1)(c), again, covers someone who was omitted or removed from the Indian register because their father was a non-Indian. Paragraph 6(1)(c), again, refers to a person “omitted or deleted from the Indian Register” because their mother and their father's mother were non-Indian women who gained Indian status through marriage. Does anybody here understand that? If you do, you're a better or smarter person than I am.
Paragraph 6(1)(d) relates to people voluntarily enfranchised through application.
Paragraph 6(1)(e) relates to people automatically removed from band membership before 1951 because of continuous residence outside Canada for five years without written consent of the superintendent general of Indian Affairs. Paragraph 6(1)(e) also concerns people automatically enfranchised before 1920 because they acquired university degrees.
Ah, you'd lose your status because you acquired a university degree or became qualified to practise a profession such as law, medicine, or religion.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Are you kidding?
Mr. Pat Martin: No. It's bizarre.
According to paragraph 6(1)(f), both of a person's parents being registered or entitled to be registered under any part of section 6 is a way to be eligible.
Subsection 6(2) refers to persons who have one parent who is registered or entitled to be registered under any part of subsection 6(1). What a tangled web we weave!
Just as important as section 6, though, is section 7, which describes persons who are not entitled to registration. Paragraph 7(1)(a)--get this--relates to a non-Indian woman who gained status on marriage to an Indian man under paragraph 11(1)(f) of the 1951 act or a similar provision under any earlier acts and later lost her status by marriage to a non-Indian. Now, that's pretty clear.
Paragraph 7(1)(b) relates to a child whose mother gained status through marriage and whose father is not an Indian.
I mean, talk about micromanagement. When you say that under section 10 a band can be in control of their own membership list, currently only 235 first nations control their own membership list under section 10--out of 633, I presume.
¾ (0835)
It's a complex procedure under section 10 of the act to assume control of the band list, all of it of course subject to the minister being satisfied that these conditions have been met. The conditions are long and ponderous and I won't bore you with them here.
I only cite these things to share with you the complexity, the incredible complexity. Before April 17, 1985, the Indian Act stated that persons who took scrip--which entitled you to 160 acres, a mule, and $5, I believe--and their descendants were not entitled to Indian status under the act. In other words, if you wanted to farm and you took the offer of scrip, you lost your status; that was the trade-off.
It was part of the assimilation policy of the federal government, to try to reduce the number of status Indians out there and to eventually exterminate them. That was the termination policy of the government. Their goal, their objective, was to eventually terminate and extinguish aboriginal treaty rights. It was a conscious plan; it was a strategy.
This is where before 1985, if a person took scrip, they and their descendants would never be entitled to Indian status under the act no matter who their parents were, no matter what their lineage was. This provision no longer appears in the act, and it's now possible to register descendants of scrip-takers.
What an enormously complex body of legislation this is.
We should look at the facts and figures about who is applying and under what category; that's of interest too. Paragraph 6(1)(c) relates to women who married non-Indians and to their children, who were omitted or removed. Well, 17% of new registrants are under that category; if the woman married a non-Indian, the child was then omitted.
This is where under Bill C-31 children are now coming forward and adding to and expanding band membership lists but without any commensurate transfer of resources to accommodate the basic needs of those individuals. This is what's leading to a lot of the complaints stemming from individuals who regained their status under Bill C-31. Now they're part of this band membership list and now they want access to housing resources and all the things the band is supposed to provide, but the band doesn't have the money.
This where we should have witnesses like the grand chief of the Nishnawbe Aski Nation in northwestern Ontario. Grand Chief Stan Beardy is one of those who flew in specifically to observe these hearings. It would be interesting to have him sit in my chair at this table and have him give his input about amendments to the Indian Act. That would be a useful exercise for all of us. Instead of me trying to figure out an interpretation of this bill, we could hear from the people in the room who are legitimate, elected leaders from around the country who have given up their time and resources to be here to witness this.
As of September 1998, a total of 609 bands were listed in the Indian register. Of these, 250 first nations controlled their own membership lists, of which 16 of them, 3%, were outside the Indian Act and came under negotiated self-government legislation like the Cree-Naskapi, the Sechelt, the Yukon people, and now the Nisga'a; 234 were under section 10 of the Indian Act.
The department administered membership entitlement for 359 bands. For fully 59% of all the bands the membership is still administered by the department under section 11 of the act, where a separate membership code has not been developed for those as of yet.
I think that's enlightening. It's useful for all of us, I think, to hear about some of the complexity of the body of legislation surrounding membership and citizenship. It's a huge issue because benefits flow from that membership and citizenship. Proving that membership and citizenship is key and paramount to getting the benefits that flow from being an aboriginal person in this country.
We're dealing with it in a very cursory way here. In particular, we're not paying attention to the issues or the complications surrounding the growth of membership lists because of Bill C-31.
¾ (0840)
The commitment was made by the Mulroney government in 1985 that no first nation would suffer financial inconvenience because of Bill--
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.
Could we have your closing remarks, Mr. Hubbard?
Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you Mr. Chair.
I felt somewhat good about the member's latest statements here in terms of that subamendment; it's one of the first times he's stuck to the issue.
It is a complicated matter, and I know the chiefs and councils of all the bands try to be fair with their people. The minister of course has certain responsibilities in terms of a program across the country. But with that, as we said, this is merely a correction of an error in the Indian Act that goes back to the 1980s. I'm sure we want our presentation to the House as we go back for report stage to be as correct as possible, and I'm sure all members want to vote for that amendment, government G-18.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.
(Amendment agreed to: yeas 7; nays 1)
(Clause 44 as amended agreed to on division)
¾ (0845)
The Chair: We are adjourned and we are starting another meeting at nine o'clock in the room next door.