;

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.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, May 27, 2003

0900

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.))

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

0905

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. Paul Salembier (Senior Counsel, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Paul Salembier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

0910

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

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

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Ms. Joann Garbig (Legislative Clerk)

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Ms. Joann Garbig

The Chair

0915

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

0920

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP)

0925

Mr. Warren Johnson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Lands and Trust Services, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

Mr. Joe Comartin

Mr. Warren Johnson

Mr. Joe Comartin

0930

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

0935

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West)

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

0940

The Chair

0945

Mr. Yvan Loubier

0950

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

0955

1000

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

1005

1010

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1020

The Chair

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière)

1025

1030

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

1040

The Chair

Mr. Joe Comartin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

1045

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

1050

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1055

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1100

1105

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

Mr. Robert Archambault (Senior Counsel, Legislation Section (Headquarters), Department of Justice)

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

M. Robert Archambault

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1110

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Terri Brown (As Individual)

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Ms. Cora Davis (As Individual)

Mr. Pat Martin

Ms. Cora Davis

Ms. Joyce Sky (As Individual)

1115

The Chair

Ms. Josephine Harris (As Individual)

1120

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Ms. Mary Sandy (As Individual)

The Chair

Ms. Terri Brown

The Chair

Terry Brown

The Chair

Chief Morris Shannacappo (Chairman, Rolling River First Nation, Treaty & Aboriginal Rights Research Centre of Manitoba Inc.)

1125

1130

The Chair

Chief Morris Shannacappo

The Chair

Chief Morris Shannacappo

The Chair

Chief Morris Shannacappo

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 078

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, May 27, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0900)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): We will continue our work on Bill C-7, An Act respecting leadership selection, administration, and accountability of Indian bands, and to make related amendments to other Acts.

(On clause 1--Short title)

The Chair: We are on amendment BQ-2, page 5.

Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment, so I won't take all the time allotted to me to explain it.

It's important to recognize that when we talk about the First Nations…

The Chair: Excuse me for interrupting, Mr. Loubier.

[English]

Could I have order in the room, please.

[Translation]

We'll start again.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: The amendment I am moving is a very simple one and is intended to correct something that we noted a number of times in our hearings on Bill C-7. There is a mistake in the French version of the Bill. In clause 1, lines 4 and 5, the words “premières nations” do not have capitals. In French, those two words should start with a capital. In any case, when referring to “nations”, the rule is the same as for “Quebeckers”, which takes a capital “Q”, and “Canadians”, which takes a capital “C”. This is totally inappropriate, because the French version should also have capitals. Many people saw that this was exactly the attitude behind the drafting of Bill C-7: the tendency was to diminish their status. I believe this amendment should be accepted, because it would restore a semblance of professionalism to Bill C-7.

I have no other comments to add, because generally usage demands that the words “premières nations” have a capital “P” and a capital “N”. I hope you will show some understanding, at least as far as this amendment is concerned. In my view, this is an obvious amendment to make.

The Chair: Mr. Loubier, I wanted to find a way to resolve this through unanimous consent, but it would seem that it was written this way because of a legal process. Perhaps you could ask them to explain.

¿ (0905)

Mr. Yvan Loubier: You mean to say that adding capital letters involves a legal process?

The Chair: Let's ask them to explain it.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes.

[English]

Mr. Paul Salembier (Senior Counsel, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): It's a drafting convention that “premières nations” is not capitalized. I think if you look in other statutes, you will see that the letters in “premières nations” are not capitalized.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Well, I think that is worth challenging. I even checked the way this is written in bills dealing with the First Nations in Quebec, and I found at least three examples where capital letters were used. That is the case for the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, signed with the Cree First Nation, with the “Peace of the Braves”, more recently, signed with the James Bay Cree First Nation and the Innu First Nations; in these cases, “premières nations” is written with a capital “p” and a capital “n”.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that this be checked again and that we come back to this amendment later. But as far as I'm concerned, the First Nations' citizens who told us that “Premières nations” should be written with a capital “p” and a capital “n” are right.

Would it be possible to deal with this amendment later?

[English]

The Chair: Could we at least agree to stand this and do the others?

[Translation]

If we stand this amendment, we can always come back to it after considering the others.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, absolutely.

[English]

The Chair: I have a motion to stand this amendment, and therefore this clause.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): On a point of order, not on this motion but on something else--

The Chair: No, I have to deal with this motion. We're going to vote on it.

(Clause 1 allowed to stand)

The Chair: Would someone verify this? It seems difficult to accept that improper French would be the way to go about writing legislation. If it's only tradition, then I would hope we'd find a way to accommodate.

But this clause has been allowed to stand. Do you need information to go and do your research?

Mr. Salembier.

Mr. Paul Salembier: Mr. Chair, I might direct the member to the First Nations Land Management Act.

[Translation]

In French, the title is “la Loi sur la gestion des terres des premières nations”.

[English]

You'll find that as a precedent, that “premières nations” is not capitalized.

The Chair: But the question we have is, if proper French is to have capital letters, what inconvenience would it cause to adopt this amendment? That's the question I have. If it's tradition, well....

Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I would also like to check this with the Office québécois de la langue française, just to see what the usage is, because they do a lot of research on the use of French. Just because the lower case has been used in the past doesn't mean that is necessarily the right thing to do now.

The Chair: Our researcher will also look into this with his advisor.

[English]

Mr. Hubbard, you have a point of order.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, and with the permission of the committee, we would like to propose that on line 15--

The Chair: What are you on?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: It's a proposal to bring in a slight amendment, without it having been recorded before.

The Chair: Do you want to introduce a new amendment?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Yes, with the consent of the committee.

The Chair: You need unanimous consent.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Yes.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Could I mention what it is first?

The Chair: Yes, mention where it fits in, but don't get into the debate.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: It fits in on line 15, to extend that line to read as follows, from line 14:

governance that can be adapted to their individual traditions and customs;

It's quite significant.

The Chair: What clause are you on?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: It's in the preamble, on page 1.

The Chair: We're going to the preamble now.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Yes, but I'm asking permission to put that amendment. Could I give it to you in writing?

¿ (0910)

The Chair: Yes. Do you have it written down?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Yes.

It's quite significant. I think all members would agree with it, and it would enable us to make that--

The Chair: Would you like to suspend for five minutes so you can explain it and see if they agree? Do you think you'll get that agreement?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I think we should, because it's something we heard from many first nations peoples.

[Translation]

The Chair: Do you agree? I want to know whether you agree with that position. That could resolve the problem.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: No. The problem is this: When Mr. Clark came before us and suggested that Mr. Martin should come before the Committee and table an amendment, you said that even if the Prime Minister came, you would not accept any amendment. Now a mere Parliamentary Secretary is moving an amendment, and you are prepared to accept it.

The Chair: I am not necessarily prepared to accept it. It's up to you to decide that. This has to be done by unanimous consent.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, I know, but yesterday afternoon, you were a lot more categorical, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: If there is unanimous consent…

Mr. Yvan Loubier: You said that even if the Prime Minister came forward to move an amendment, you would not accept it.

The Chair: Yes, but you are in a position to accept it.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, but I don't see why we would grant a privilege to Mr. Hubbard that we refused Mr. Clark.

[English]

The Chair: We'll deal with it when we get there.

Mr. Hubbard, you can ask for your unanimous consent.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Can I mention briefly again, Mr. Chair, what the line would read?

The Chair: You can mention where it fits and what it is, but no debate.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Okay. It would state in terms of line 14 and 15, very significantly:

require effective tools of governance that can be adapted to their individual traditions and customs;

The Chair: I'll ask the legislative clerk to read the amendment.

Everyone, pay attention. We will be seeking unanimous consent after that, and you will decide.

Ms. Joann Garbig (Legislative Clerk): The amendment is to line 15 in the preamble. Line 15 would read:

nance that can be adapted to their individual traditions and customs;

The Chair: Do I have unanimous consent?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Why are you asking for unanimous consent?

The Chair: To agree to deal with this.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: But why are we dealing with this? This is an amendment. Yesterday you refused to deal with any amendments tabled after the deadline.

The Chair: All you have to do is refuse to give unanimous consent.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: You didn't even ask us our opinion yesterday, when you answered Mr. Clark; not in the slightest.

[English]

The Chair: Do I have unanimous consent to accept the request of Mr. Hubbard?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I have a question before I give my consent, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Most of the experts that appeared before the Committee told us that the preamble didn't even have an interpretive value for the courts, since the intentions…

The Chair: We're getting into debate here. I didn't want Mr. Hubbard's amendment to give rise to debate.

[English]

I will ask for the last time, do we have unanimous consent to Mr. Hubbard's request? I'm asking you to say yes or no.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: What is the amendment again?

[English]

The Chair: Read it again.

Ms. Joann Garbig: The amendment is in line 15 of the preamble on page 1. Line 15 would read:

nance that can be adapted to their individual traditions and customs;

The Chair: Do I have unanimous consent?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

(On the preamble)

The Chair: You have just agreed that we will deal with it; you haven't amended it. So we will deal with that now, because that's before the others.

Mr. Hubbard's amendment will be called what, amendment G-00?

Mr. Hubbard.

¿ (0915)

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank the members also for receiving this amendment at almost the last part of our debate on the bill.

I think it's very significant, and we've heard from a great number of first nations peoples that their tradition, their customs, are very important in terms of governance. By putting that into the preamble, we certainly are pointing out very strongly that we as a government and as a committee are reporting back to the House that customs and traditions are very important in terms of the First Nations Governance Act.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

Does anyone else wish to comment? Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I'm not questioning the value of what has been added. In fact, I would be crazy to do that. It would be completely absurd to do that, since the First Nations demanded, in most of their representations, that their special characteristics be taken into account. I have no problem with the wording; quite the opposite, I really like the wording. In fact, this is the first time I have agreed with Mr. Hubbard and that I feel his amendments are of any value whatsoever. This is a substantive amendment.

The problem I see is that there is always an other side to the story--and by that I mean the value of the preamble. The value of the preamble has been questioned by eminent constitutional law professors at the University of Ottawa, in particular. They said that the preamble in Bill C-7 is not an interpretation clause. Why? Because when judges are called upon to rule on cases brought before them under the Bill, very few of them will even look at the preamble. With Bill C-7, the legislator's intent is so clear that a judge will have no need to refer to the preamble. That is what bothers me.

This is the first substantive amendment, the first solid amendment moved by the Parliamentary Secretary on behalf of the government, but unfortunately for us, it happens to deal with the preamble. That kind of bothers me.

Most of the time, when lawmakers introduce this kind of consideration, they do so out of a desire to protect their political image. They present the political facade of a government that recognizes the inherent right of self-government. The inherent right is laid out in the preamble, but as I said, the interpretive value of the preamble is debatable. Yet that is exactly what Mr. Hubbard has done. We have been saying from the very beginning that the preamble is not necessarily an interpretation clause, and that judges often won't even consider it. Unfortunately, as far as the inherent right of self-government and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are concerned, the government's position is only set out in the preamble.

You have just added another consideration, which is that we consider the customs and culture of the Aboriginal peoples.

I certainly cannot be against such an amendment, and I will therefore vote in favour of it. It would be silly of me to not vote in favour of this amendment, but at the same time, it seems to me that the government could have made an effort to introduce this amendment in the body of the legislation, rather than just rolling it in with political intentions that look good. There is no doubt that this looks good; it's like the Speech from the Throne. It looks good to make political statements, but what's important is that in actual fact--in the body of the legislation, in other words--we see this kind of consideration clearly laid out.

I will support it, but with the reservations I have already expressed, because as far as I'm concerned, the preamble really doesn't have much value.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

[English]

Does anyone else wish to comment? Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I have nothing further. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Do you need a recorded vote?

[Translation]

Do you want a recorded vote? No.

[English]

(Amendment agreed to)

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I am honoured to move the first amendment. Mr. Chairman, this amendment was intended to clarify the preamble, but given the discussion we have had and in light of the briefs presented by various experts, particularly constitutional experts from the University of Ottawa, representatives of the Canadian Bar Association, the Aboriginal Bar Association and the Quebec Bar Association, our opinion is that the preamble of Bill C-7 has very little interpretive value.

The amendment I wish to move is as follows: That Bill C-7, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 19 to 23, on page 1, with the following:

whereas the Government of Canada recognizes the inherent right of self-determination as an Aboriginal right and has provided for the negotiation of self-determination;

The idea here was to bolster the federal government's supposed desire to continue negotiating with the First Nations, which is the only possible and the only effective means of satisfying the First Nations. Throughout the debate on Bill C-7, in light of all the amendments and sub-amendments that we debated here with vigour and conviction, we had an opportunity to argue that the federal government had not expressed in clear enough terms, through the various clauses of Bill C-7, its desire to expedite the process of negotiating self-government.

At this time, 80 separate negotiations are underway. We do not yet know--in fact, our experts were at a loss to answer this question--when these 80 different negotiations on self-government will actually be finalized. There are still several dozen additional negotiations that have not even begun, in addition to the negotiations on land claims. Five hundred separate negotiations are currently outstanding because we are still considering Bill C-7.

When we moved amendments along those lines, I did not have the sense, either from what I heard from the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs or saw in the body of the legislation, that there is any desire to expedite self-government negotiations with the First Nations. I sensed even less of a desire to invest additional resources with a view to getting to the real meat and potatoes quickly, and putting a third order of government in place that would be run by the First Nations, who would choose their own system of governance, pass their own laws, and exercise the powers that go hand in hand with the inherent right of self-government, thereby acting on the many court rulings in this area and the terms of Aboriginal treaties, as well as the inherent right recognized in the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, by creating a true third order of government.

My amendment is proposed with that in mind. As for the preamble, I pointed out earlier to Mr. Hubbard, the Parliamentary Secretary, that its interpretive value is debatable, but initially, when I moved my first amendment, my thinking was that it should be an introduction to the Bill in a sense, and inform the drafting of all the clauses, clauses that we have already examined and tried to amend and sub-amend, without much success most of the time.

So that is the purpose of my amendment. I hope that as they were with the Parliamentary Secretary's amendment, my colleagues will be open to this change.

¿ (0920)

[English]

The Chair: Merci, monsieur Loubier.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin (Windsor—St. Clair, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a question to the officials. Where the preamble reads “Whereas the Government of Canada has adopted a policy”, I was wondering, is there a specific policy and date when that policy was adopted that the paragraph is referring to? I'm not aware of what that would be.

¿ (0925)

Mr. Warren Johnson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Lands and Trust Services, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): That would be the inherent right policy. I would have to verify the date. The Government of Canada did recognize the inherent right, the existing right within the Constitution, and the protection of existing aboriginal and treaty rights, and it issued a formal statement and publication on that policy some years ago. I'd have to verify the exact date for the member if it were required.

Mr. Joe Comartin: But your understanding is that's the policy that's being referred to in this section.

Mr. Warren Johnson: Yes, it's referring exactly to that policy and the negotiations that are now ongoing under it--the 80 tables the member referred to a minute ago.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Chair, I suppose the concern we have and the reason we're in support of the Bloc's proposed amendment is this. Although I recognize, Mr. Chair, the preamble is--I suppose, from my law school days--at best an interpretive device and not binding on either the government or the group that may be subject to the legislation, it very much communicates, I think, in this bill and probably more generally in most bills, the intention of the government with regard to the passage of the legislation. I believe amendment BQ-1, proposed by the Bloc, much more accurately reflects what the intent of the government should be in their approach and attitude toward this legislation, which is to bluntly state--not talk about policy, but bluntly state--that they recognize the inherent right.

The present wording, not of the amendment but of the preamble, suggests--at least I think this is an objective analysis that's fair--the Government of Canada has reached down and granted new powers, new rights, to the first nations when in fact, as you've heard periodically through this debate, the clause-by-clause, that is not the reality. It's not what the Supreme Court of Canada has said--repeatedly. This isn't something being granted to the first nations. They are inherent rights. They are ensconced in many respects in the Constitution and in past practice.

So the reflection and the intent and attitudes in the two paragraphs we have before us--the one that's proposed by the government and now the proposed amendment by the Bloc--I think fairly clearly set out the differences in the approach that the Bloc, NDP, and Conservative Party have taken as to how this legislation should develop and be ultimately implemented. This is opposed to the approach of the government, which has been to extend the paternalistic approach under the Indian Act, which formed the bulwark of the Indian Act when it was first passed, as opposed to dealing with the relationship between the Government of Canada and the first nations in a meaningful way, one that would be acceptable to the first nations and be reflective of those inherent rights, the basic policy and understanding being that we're dealing nation to nation rather than by one superior government stooping down and granting--out of the goodness of their heart, I suppose, as they see it--some rights to the first nations.

The blunt statement in amendment BQ-1 more accurately reflects the reality. And I'm not quite sure how the practice developed, Mr. Chair, but the reality of doing the preamble at the end is one that has always perplexed me to some degree, because you want to set the stage for the rest of the legislation. Obviously that's what the preamble's designed to do. In a case like this, where we come back to it at the end to finalize the bill, we miss an essential point, that of the intellectual, attitudinal, and philosophical underpinnings of the legislation.

I think when you look at a paragraph like this, especially when you look at the two approaches--one the opposition would much prefer to take, and one the government has taken--it's obvious why we've been here as long as we have and why the first nations have opposed this legislation so vigorously. It's because of that essential difference in approach, one where we say, we recognize we're not giving you anything; we're recognizing your inherent rights. That's the position the opposition parties have taken, with the exception of the Alliance. The government, on the other hand, is somehow thinking they can continue in this day and age with the same types of philosophical underpinnings that are in the Indian Act--albeit 100-plus years old--thinking somehow they can extend that.

¿ (0930)

Mr. Chair, it's quite obvious from everything that's gone on over the last hundreds of hours of debate on this, including all the testimony that was taken, that first nations are not prepared to accept that. What is encompassed in amendment BQ-1 is where they want to start from, which is insisting on that recognition by the Government of Canada of their inherent right to self-determination.

I'm very much in support of this. I think the Bloc are to be commended for having advanced this particular amendment, and obviously we will be supporting it fully.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Is there anyone else?

[Translation]

Mr. Loubier, do you have any closing remarks?

Mr. Yvan Loubier: We were discussing the controversy regarding whether we needed a capital “P” and “N” or a lower case “p” and lower case “n” or indeed a capital “P” and lower case “n”. I will come back to this later. It seems to be a lot more complicated than we thought, but I'm sure we can find a solution.

Mr. Comartin essentially completed my presentation. I am very pleased that he is supporting my amendment, because I tried with this amendment to draft something that would make the preamble a lot clearer and more forceful than what we had in the original version, in terms of the Canadian government's desire to recognize the inherent right of self-determination, to recognize that this is an Aboriginal right, and to provide for negotiations--indeed, intensive negotiations--on Aboriginal self-government.

I don't really know what else I can add, except that I would have liked that throughout… As you may recall, a month and a half ago now, when we began clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, all the amendments that I moved and that Mr. Martin or Mr. Comartin moved, when they were here, were along the same lines, because that is the only possible outcome. If you say you want to enhance relations with the First Nations, then the first thing to do is recognize the inherent right of self-determination. The second is to expedite the process whereby this right is realized through the creation of an autonomous government empowered to pass laws in areas that would come within its jurisdiction as a third order of government. I am pleased with that support and hope that government members will vote in favour of this amendment.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

[English]

Do you want a recorded vote?

Some hon. members: No.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: We're now on amendment NDP-1, on page 2.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This deals with the same paragraph as amendment BQ-1.

¿ (0935)

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West): I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

It would seem to me the words in amendment NDP-1 are virtually the same as the words in BQ-1.

It seems to me we've basically dealt with it.

The Chair: I was advised there was enough difference, but let's look at it again.

One has “provided”, and the other one is “committed to”. I have to accept it.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: I assume I still have my 10 minutes running?

The Chair: You were at 9 seconds when we interrupted, but you're now at 15.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps it's appropriate that the intervention by Mr. Godfrey allows me to point out the essential difference between the current wording in the bill and the proposed amendment contained in NDP-1. I suppose it also is an opportunity to reflect again on the essential difference of my party vis-à-vis how the relationship between the first nations and first nations communities would be developed, as opposed to what is contained in the proposed legislation.

The current wording is simply that they will provide. Again, it's that concept of the government being the superior power--we're deeming it, in our whimsical fashion, our right to say to you as first nations, as a community of nations, what we're going to allow, as opposed to taking the relationship seriously and making the commitment. That's the difference between the two.

One is a throw-away...yes, we'll do it our way. The other one, the proposed amendment moved by the NDP, is to say on behalf of the government to the first nations and the aboriginal community generally, we're committed to the concept of self-government. It's not something we're going to give you; we're going to negotiate what that relationship is going to be. But we recognize it, and we're committed to the development of self-government, not on the terms of it being dictated by the federal government to the first nations, but on the basis of negotiations between two equal parties. We recognize the first nations and the aboriginal community generally are going to bring forward their own concepts of how they wish to govern themselves and their societies, and not having to do it--as we have seen through so much of this bill--by way of very specific terms that have been dictated by the government.

You know, it was interesting the number of times we heard--to go back through the evidence of the various witnesses--this really very intrinsic concept: we're coming with our own ideas; we have very clear principles and values that we've lived by and governed ourselves by; we understand that we're dealing here in a situation with another government, and we are prepared to carry on negotiations.

Those were the kinds of comments we heard, with the insistence at every turn that respect be granted to those inherent rights and that the ultimate government structure almost certainly would have significant differences from how the Government of Canada would govern its society. So as opposed to having this traditional, European-based set of values, we would have our government--this is the first nations--based on the values that over the centuries we've developed as a people.

Mr. Chair, we can pass this legislation, and it's obvious the government is absolutely determined to shove this through, but unless this commitment is there--we want it ensconced in the preamble, according to this wording--the reality is that the whole set of negotiations that would flow will probably not go anywhere. When you've heard all those witnesses from the first nations, the aboriginal community generally, express very clearly where they were starting from, unless we follow through on that, unless we make that commitment, the bill will get passed, it'll become a law, but it's not going to be implemented.

Of course, for other reasons it may not be implemented, depending on who the next prime minister is, but the reality is, even if there's an attempt by the next administration to implement this, there's going to be nobody on the other side of the table to carry on those negotiations, based on this legislation, both in terms of its philosophical underpinnings and the process it has gone through here.

Essentially, Mr. Chair, we have not recognized that first nations do have those inherent rights, and we've not made the commitment, on a nation-to-nation basis, that we will negotiate in good faith, recognizing the values we respectively have--the diversity between the European approach and that of the first nations. And as in all negotiations carried on in good faith, we'd be able to come to an ultimate resolution that would be satisfactory to the first nations and allow them to set up their own governments in accordance with the methods and values they cherish and require to preserve themselves as an independent people.

I'm very much urging the rest of the committee to support this particular amendment. It is one we've heard repeatedly. It has the support of the first nations. It's the underpinning we need for the balance of the legislation, and certainly, it's the attitude that will have to be pervasive if any negotiations are going to be successful in terms of reaching the self-government agreements this particular part of the preamble contemplates.

¿ (0940)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Anyone else? Monsieur Loubier.

¿ (0945)

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I cannot do anything other than support the amendment moved by Mr. Comartin of the NDP. In fact, when we examined the Bill clause-by-clause and--especially Pat Martin and myself--moved amendments to clauses in the body of the legislation, all those amendments had the same basic objective as the proposal that Mr. Comartin has brought forward here. There has to be a firm commitment on the part of the government to negotiate self-government agreements. I have to say that I am skeptical, based on what I've seen thus far.

We have invested a lot of resources, money, time and our intelligence in examining a bill which is far from having unanimous support. The only thing on which everyone is unanimous is their opposition to the Bill. Everyone disagrees wit the wording of this Bill. Everyone is still wondering--because the government has been saying for months now that it's been working on this and we have also been asked to get involved--why there is such a determination to pass a bill which, in actual fact, does not provide for the mandatory conclusion of self-government agreements.

Indeed, if we have to have this part in here, I really wonder what the logic behind that is. If after taking a close look at the preamble and we saw that the preamble truly reflected what we have in the Bill, then I'd said, sure, this is a real improvement over what we have now. But between the preamble and the content of the actual Bill, there are major differences--differences in terms of the approach, for example. Throughout our consideration of this bill, we drew attention to the differences between governance, First Nation administration and micro-management, and I believe there are vast differences.

When we talk about governance, we're talking about putting in place all the mechanisms needed to make the inherent right of self-government a reality. In other words, the First Nations are the ones to decide on what type of third order of government they want to set up, and what powers they will exercise in order to serve their people.

That is what is known as true governance. It has nothing to do with municipal administration. I have nothing against municipalities or municipal managers, mayors or councillors. But what we have here in Bill C-7 is not governance. The powers being offered the First Nations here are more like municipal powers. This talks about the day-to-day management of matters that normally come within the purview of municipalities.

What is worse, Mr. Chairman, is that with this Bill, we have had to fight against a tendency on the part of the government to engage in micro-management. This kind of micro-management means that we may even want to decide on the colour of the chairs the band council purchases for its Long House. We have to stay away from that kind of thing.

With this Bill, we are practically taking the First Nations by the hand and telling them that they should do this or that, look after this or the other thing, that they have two months, or six months, or two or three years to do this, that or the other thing. Why take this kind of prescriptive, normative approach? Why not respect the First Nations for what they are and what they aspire to be?

The best way of ensuring that kind of respect is to tackle the agenda the Erasmus-Dussault Commission invited us to undertake several years ago. We were told the process of negotiating self-government had to be expedited; Mr. Comartin's amendment has that very goal in mind. That is the only way forward. Don't try to deviate from the course that has been laid out or add anything new; we already have the Penner Report, which I had in front of me this morning, and which does not try to reinvent the wheel. Thank you, Mr. Comartin; that's the book I was looking for.

The Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples laid the foundations some time ago. Its first recommendation was in fact to sit down and discuss these issues with the First Nations, to respect what they want to build--and re-build, in most cases--and to consider their needs. We shouldn't be imposing anything on them.

I'm proud to see that the NDP has once again proposed an amendment that moves in that very direction. In fact, from the very beginning, the Bloc québécois and the NDP have been unsuccessfully moving amendments that are precisely in keeping with the commitment made by the federal government to expedite the conclusion of self-government agreements.

These were not very well received by government members, even though we worked very hard. Ms. Scherrer wasn't there when we had these debates. The fact remains, however, that we worked like the devil to prepare all these amendments. We had less than two days in which to do that; despite that, we were able to move 75 or 80 amendments. All the amendments we proposed were consistent with the many briefs that were presented to the Committee throughout our consideration of Bill C-7.

I am pleased to see that this concern is still there, but I would have been so much happier to reflect those concerns in the Bill itself, in each of the different chapters. In fact, as a constitutional expert, Mr. Comartin, you yourself mentioned earlier that the interpretive value of the preamble would be entirely up to the discretion of the judge. Some judges could decide that the lawmaker's intent in the Bill was not clear enough, and thereby refer to the preamble. But Bill C-7 has such a focus on micro-management, and is so intent on laying out, practically down to the last minor detail, exactly what powers the First Nations will exercise, that a judge won't have to consult the preamble to understand the lawmaker's intent once there are a whole series of court cases underway before the courts. And in that respect, let's not kid ourselves: most of the witnesses we heard from who have legal expertise, be it the Canadian Bar Association, the Quebec Bar Association or eminent professors with the University of Saskatchewan or the University of Ottawa, told us that Bill C-7 would cause problems because it would be superimposed on the Indian Act, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and even the Constitution. So, there will be court cases. However, my view is that the judges will base themselves on what they see in the body of the legislation, rather than the preamble.

¿ (0950)

But we will certainly support this amendment to the preamble, because it is perfectly in keeping with the approach we have been defending for several months now. On the other hand, we would very much have hoped to see the Liberal majority pass the amendments we moved to the actual clauses of this Bill. Unfortunately, that did not happen. That gives us an idea of how far the process of reflection has progressed among our Liberal colleagues.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

[English]

Mr. Comartin, closing remarks.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker...or Mr. Chair, I'm sorry. I keep on promoting you.

I want to look very closely at this part. We're not suggesting, and I don't think the government is either, that this law we ultimately want to pass to replace the Indian Act would deal in a perfect way with the issue of transition. We're not suggesting that. We do see it as proper legislation, as a tool to assist in the transition to self-government, but I don't think any legislation could be drafted perfectly enough to say, once it's done, yes, we have the perfect tool here.

The minister has I think made it clear in his public statements that this law, assuming the bill gets passed into law, is not going to be temporary or transitional. And recognizing that we can't look far enough ahead to be able to say that in fact this bill will be transitional and temporary, and will achieve this end of self-government for all first nations communities, and then will die a natural death over, say, a ten-year period....

We can't do that, Mr. Chair, and there was no suggestion, I think, from any of the witnesses we heard that in fact the ultimate legislation drafted would be capable of accomplishing that end. But the reality is that at some point self-government will be in place, and this legislation and the Indian Act will no longer be required.

So if you start from that approach, that this is what you want to accomplish--and I think the minister has made the statement that this bill will assist in the transition to self-government, although I'm not sure how clearly he actually thought that through--and then you look at the amendment we're proposing, you can see it's even more important to make very clear the government's stated intentions to translate those stated intentions into actual wording.

The use of the terminology we have now, of “providing for”, and all the insensitive consequences that flow from that type of wording, doesn't meet that stated intent of working toward the transition process to ultimate self-government and the self-government agreements. If you use the term “committed”, it achieves that. It does express, in writing, in the bill and ultimately in the law, what the minister has said is at least part of the reason for going through this process.

Mr. Chair, we just need look at the various testimonies we had from a number of the members of the AFN. One of them in particular, from the office of the B.C. vice-chief of the AFN, spoke on this point very eloquently. Some of the other briefs we saw flowed out of that kind of thinking, about the need to have this type of wording in the legislation. This is not a situation where we can simply use.... I don't know how to describe the terminology in here. It's not satisfactory. It doesn't carry the intent forward. It doesn't express, to anywhere near the satisfaction of the first nations communities, the type of commitment they're asking for and insisting on from the Government of Canada.

¿ (0955)

Unless we follow through on that endeavour and say to them, yes, we do understand what you're saying to us, and we appreciate the importance of this type of terminology because of what it should then commit us to do, then I suppose someone could say, much as we've seen in any type of legislation in this country and elsewhere, that we make commitments, put them into wording, and don't follow through.

I always think of some of the other constitutions that have been passed, with charters of rights like ours, and of how on the ground in those societies there are no civil rights and no civil liberties. Their respective governments had no intention of following through. So you can say to me, “Fine, we'll do this, we'll change the wording”, but are we going to carry through?

I suppose the reality, Mr. Chair, is that no one can give us those assurances, but if we don't even start by making the commitment, if we use a very neutral type of terminology that suggests again this superior-inferior relationship, then we won't even get to first base. And if we don't say we're going to make this commitment, then why would there be any expectation on the part of first nations that the commitment is there and will be carried through in negotiations, in good faith, over the next number of years?

In my concluding comments I'd like to pick up on a point Mr. Loubier made. Look at the history of the negotiations--how drawn out they've been, how often they've been stalled, how often they've been set aside, how often first nations have had to go to court, all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, to say to the government, yes, what we're saying about our inherent rights is true. When you come from the perspective of first nations, looking at the history and putting it in that context, then you can see how they would say, with this type of wording, well, it's just going to continue the way it has gone in the past. With negotiations around land claims alone, at the rate we're going, according to the estimates we've had, it could take another 100 to 200 years to finish them all. So they need to hear clearly from this government, the Government of Canada, that we are committed.

As I said, if we put the words in there, hopefully this government and subsequent governments would realize that commitment, and say, yes, we made the commitment, we put it in writing, it's right there in the preamble, and in fact we're going to follow through on it.

As I said in my opening statement, I recognize that the preamble is at best an interpretive device for the courts, but at some point we may have a judge who looks at this section and says, listen, you told them that you had this commitment, and I'm going to hold you to it now. So this would give the first nations some reassurance that if we hit a government, or a minister, say, who is not fully committed, then at some point a judge may say to them, you made it this way back in 2003, when you passed this law, and I'm going to hold you to it.

So this is something they may be able to rely on for some additional reassurance that the past practices of drawing out these negotiations ad infinitum would cease. You would get at it, and get at it in a meaningful, efficient way, always respecting the rights of both parties to carry on full negotiations, even heated negotiations, if they have to be. But they would be fruitful negotiations. Too often we have to wonder, at some of these negotiations, if they're just here for the purposes of delay, if they're just drawing this out.

À (1000)

Mr. Chair, I'm very much urging the committee to take a look at the existing wording to see how lacking it is in terms of the commitment we're being asked to make as a government to the first nations communities. Replacing it with the wording that's in NDP-1 would be a significant improvement. Then I urge that we send the message to this government and all future governments that we have to carry on these negotiations in a meaningful way.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Are you ready for the question on NDP-1?

(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])

The Chair: We're on page 3, amendment NDP-2.

Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The provision I'm addressing in NDP-2 is what's contained in lines 24 through to 28 inclusive on the first page of the bill. Perhaps I'll start off with just two points and then expand on that base.

I don't think we heard from any of the witnesses from the first nations that the bill and the subsequent law to replace the Indian Act either in whole or in part was intended—and I'm quoting from the existing section—“to define the nature and scope of any right of self-government or to prejudge the outcome of any self-government negotiation”. That's the first point: we didn't hear from them that they expected that.

The second point is that what we did hear from them is that the bill—in, I suppose, the preamble, or vocally reflecting this in some way—would assist in the transition to self-government and would not, and I think this is the important point, build a straitjacket or build rigidities to such a degree that the first nation, whether from the east coast, the west coast, or any place in between, would be forced into a mould they all had to fix themselves into.

The reason for this preamble wording—and obviously the proposal in the amendment is to take it out completely—is that when you actually look at what's in the bill, the second point I made is in fact what the bill ended up doing. As it is now, after all of this review, over these 126 or 127 hours of review and counting, the reality is that's what we built: we built a straitjacket. We built a very rigid structure within which we're forcing, if this bill goes through and becomes law and is implemented.... I suppose that's the only question mark here—whether it's going to be implemented—because it's pretty obvious this government is going to force it through. We built this infrastructure that, as I say, accurately is described as a straitjacket. Every single one of the 600-plus nations within the AFN, and certainly a number more beyond that, will now have to fold, manipulate, amputate—whatever; they're going to have to fix themselves into this structure.

In spite of what this says, that the act is not “intended to define the nature and scope of any right of self-government”, we've created such a rigid infrastructure, that's exactly what we've done. It's the height of hypocrisy to pass this bill with that wording in it. Just the opposite of what we say we're going to do, in lines 24 to 28 inclusive, we've done here.

We've said to the first nations, you have to have these bylaws; you have to have this accounting process, and on and on ad infinitum and ad nauseam, in the sense that when you look at the specific details, we're saying, as some kind of superior structure in government, we're telling you that you have to live within these. You have to pass these laws; you have to pass these bylaws; you have to live within them; you have to have these enforcement mechanisms—and the list goes on and on. We have in fact, Mr. Chair—I'm quoting again—as opposed to what we're saying here, defined “the nature and scope of any right of self-government”.

À (1005)

We've told the first nations, this is the way self-government is going to function in this country. We know—and again we're on to the second part of this, concerning prejudging the outcome of any self-government negotiations—where the government is planning to be when those negotiations are entered into on every single occasion. It's going to be saying to the first nation sitting across the table from the Government of Canada, this is the model. There's only one model; this is the model. You live to that, and if you want to negotiate outside the parameters of that model, we're not going to talk to you. That's what's going to happen. We very much are prejudging the outcome of the negotiations.

So, Mr. Chair, if we in fact have any integrity collectively here, and if the government really does believe in the way they've drafted and now forced clause-by-clause through these clauses of the bill, they have to be honest with themselves and take this wording out, because it's not what we've done. We haven't carried through at all on this intention as set out here; we've done just the opposite at every turn, I think.

I could pull out just about any clause in this bill and it will say, yes, in fact this is intended to define the nature and scope of this part of self-government. When we look at clauses 5, 6, and 7, or if we look at clauses 16 and 17, it's all there, and we know what it's going to be like at those negotiations.

It boggles my mind to think, putting my lawyer's hat on, that if I'm sitting there representing or assisting one of the first nations in the negotiations.... It makes me think of the kind of negotiations the labour movement would end up carrying on before they'd built a structure that protected their rights. You'd go into negotiations with absolutely no ability to influence the other side, because there was a rigid formula for what management rights were, if I can use that as an example. That's what you had to live with.

Before we had the right of check-off for union dues, we knew we couldn't even talk about that at the table. That's what the first nations are going to be faced with in these negotiations. Every single time, Mr. Chair, this bill—this law, if it becomes that—is going to be held up in their faces, and they'll be told, that's the structure; if you want to nickel and dime a couple of things, we may be able to talk about that. But there will be no purpose to carry on negotiations. They either succumb and submit to the structure that's in this bill, or we have delay and no negotiations of any meaningful nature.

Where does that take us? Absolutely nowhere, from where we are now. It does not advance their ability to govern themselves according to the principles and values they have. Ultimately, when we look ahead to where the implementation stage should be kicking in—one would hope in an efficient, rapid fashion, so that as people they can move ahead with developing their societies according to their norms—none of that is going to happen. We're going to be as stalled in those negotiations as we have been on the land claims—maybe even more so. The reaction from within the first nations is saying, right across the country, as we've seen in the marches and the rallies and the briefs we've had before the committee, that they're not going to put up with this process. We're going to be faced with the reality of not being able to deal in a negotiated way with them in any meaningful way at all.

À (1010)

So, Mr. Chair, I would very much urge the committee to look at this, and having been through the whole process—actually, looking across the table, I'm not sure how many people have been here through the whole process or understand the bill at all, but to those who do—I would say if you really want to maintain the integrity and be honest, these five lines have to come out.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Comartin.

Is there anyone else? Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I can only support the amendment moved by Mr. Comartin. He is right in saying that it is incorrect to claim that the Bill, in both the preamble and clauses 29 to 33, does not define the nature and scope of any right of self-government or prejudge the outcome of any self-government negotiation.

One has only to look at the clauses of this Bill, particularly as regards defining the nature and scope of any right of self-government, to see just what clauses 16 and 17 provide for in terms of defining the power of band councils. When you define powers in a bill like Bill C-7, you necessarily establish certain parameters for First Nations self-government.

In other words, if you define powers and include a list that, rather than presenting examples, is an exhaustive list of the powers of band councils, you are necessarily defining the nature and scope of any right of self-government. Mr. Comartin is absolutely right. By deleting this paragraph, as proposed by his amendment, he is making the preamble a lot more realistic in relation to what we see in the Bill itself.

The problem with this Bill is that parameters have been established in relation to self-government, not only by defining the very specific powers that band councils will be able to exercise, but by providing for very limited powers, because ultimately, if the laws or regulations passed by a band council are not consistent with federal laws or regulations, then the federal laws and regulations will prevail.

So, not only are we setting parameters for self-government by giving very specific, minor powers to First Nations, but in addition to that, under sub-clause 16(2) or 17(2), the government is saying that it can intervene through the Governor in Council. And who is the Governor in Council? Well, it's the Cabinet. The Governor in Council can intervene and counter any decision, law or regulation made by a band council. In the current Indian Act, it says that the Minister is the one to decide if a law or regulation passed by a band council or a specific action is inconsistent with government legislation or with its wishes.

So, what has changed here? We have simply transposed some of the discretionary powers of the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs to Bill C-7. We have simply changed the prerogatives and discretionary powers of the Minister of Indian Affairs into powers for the Governor in Council. What's the difference? If, around the Cabinet table, a minister claims that a regulation or a law passed by a band council is inconsistent with his wishes, all he has to do is have that regulation changed by the Governor in Council; that's all there is to it. Even if the First Nations have very well defined powers, in a sense, the Minister has the power to disallow the First Nation's law-making powers through the discretionary power given the Governor in Council pursuant to sub-clauses 16(2) and 17(2).

Mr. Comartin is absolutely right to say that this paragraph should be deleted, because it just isn't true that this does not define the nature and scope of the band council's powers. I don't understand how people can continue to make that assertion. All you have to do is look at page 10 of the Bill, where it talks about the band council's law-making powers and prevention:

À (1020)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière): Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to have an opportunity this morning to speak to the NDP amendment. I think everyone sitting at this table should read the NDP's proposal, which is to delete lines 24 to 28 on page 1 of the Bill.

Finally, we see the true picture through this amendment. We are removing the make-up this Bill has applied to everything currently taking place with respect to negotiations with the First Nations. That make-up is so expertly applied that everything looks just great, except that the essential parts are missing.

And the essential parts are the clauses in Bill C-7, clauses that do not move in the direction of self-government or truly equal relations between the First Nations, which should be considered a third order of government, and the federal government. There have to be true negotiations.

As my colleague has said, we have spent dozens of hours discussing this Bill.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: One hundred and twenty-six hours.

Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold: Yes, 126 hours, to be exact. What emerged from these discussions was that this Bill had been rejected right from the outset by all the First Nations and set aside by a number of Canadian and Quebec legal experts and university professors. They came before this Committee to say that we had an Indian Act that treated the First Nations like children and that we should re-open a true dialogue with the First Nations, something that this Bill does not do. It continues to convey the message to First Nations that they are minors who need to be told what to do. That is micro-management, as my colleague has been saying over and over. This is not true negotiation where people are prepared to sit down, discuss the issues and make mutual concessions.

This Bill is very specific; its clauses are very specific. This Bill is the concrete manifestation of the government's dishonest approach with respect to the First Nations.

We cannot allow ourselves to be part of this method of treatment of the First Nations. I am proud of the fact that my colleague, Yvan Loubier, said that we would never go along with this approach of masking the truth, or with this kind of treatment of people we consider to be equals. Never!

I also see the First Nations' people are open. Who put them on the reserves in the First Place? The federal government. It has never allowed them to be autonomous.

The First Nations are seen as nothing more than municipalities. Municipalities report to a higher level of government in terms of the laws they pass. I believe the First Nations represent a level of government that should be recognized in its own right, and this amendment moved by the NDP confirms what we have denounced throughout the discussions that have taken place over 126 hours of debate. It confirms that what we see here is a façade. That is why we will never agree to the inclusion in this Bill of clauses that reflect the exact opposite of reality.

À (1025)

Mr. Chairman, I want to commend my NDP colleagues for moving this amendment. I think the Government majority should read this Bill before saying yes or no, or voting according to the instructions of the Parliamentary Secretary.

It's important that they read this before we complete consideration of this Bill. At some point, you will have to read the Bill. Our colleague has read the Bill and has talked about some of its irritants.

Personally, I demand that there be room for women in politics, because there are never enough women in politics. Never will I allow someone to treat a nation in that way or to put the kind of things in a bill that we have in fact roundly criticized. Never!

You can talk when you have the floor, Ms. Scherrer.

We are living in the year 2003, not 1900. At that time, maybe it was necessary to take people in hand to help them move forward. But the people in these communities have the maturity to go it alone. They are on an equal footing with our communities. It is totally unacceptable not to allow them to exercise their independence or to refuse to negotiate a comprehensive agreement with them. After all, these people are supposed to be our partners.

By deleting this paragraph of the Bill, we are confirming what the Indian Act did previously. This Bill simply continues the regime forced on the First Nations by the Indian Act. That kind of approach just isn't acceptable now.

Reports have been issued in the past and more recently stating that the First Nations must be recognized as nations. As Mr. Comartin was saying, when this Bill comes before the courts, judges will have to interpret its provisions. They won't base their judgment on what people might have been thinking or what they should have done. They will base their interpretation on what is written in black and white in the Bill. They won't just invent something. Judges are not inventive people. They are people whose role it is to interpret laws, and to rule on specific laws and specific sections of a law.

No one sitting at this table can claim that this Bill gives the First Nations the independence they're seeking. Never! And when it is challenged, we will never be able to accuse the judges of not doing their job, because this Bill doesn't give them the necessary framework for ensuring harmony between the First Nations and non-Aboriginal people.

I want to thank the NDP Member for bringing forward this amendment. I also want to thank him for the excellent work he has done with my colleague, Yvan Loubier, with the aim of ensuring that people, and particularly the government, would open their eyes and ears. It's the government's turn to do what we did earlier, when we accepted a last minute amendment from the government dealing with self-determination for the Aboriginal peoples. It's the government's turn to show its open mindedness to wake up and agree to consider the Aboriginal nations as equal nations.

But that is not what the government is doing. That is a real shame; it's sad. My sense is that all of this work will have been for naught, and that everything that has happened in the past will continue. This façade will become a permanent façade, and the mask the government is hiding behind will stay in place. The Aboriginal nations will never, ever be winners with a Bill like this.

Mr. Chairman, serious thinking is in order. That is an absolute must. Now is the time to recognize the value of the First Nations in this Bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

À (1030)

The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Girard-Bujold.

Mr. Comartin.

[English]

Mr. Joe Comartin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, during the time Monsieur Loubier and Madame Girard-Bujold were speaking I stepped out to do my Canada Day message to my riding. In that, I made reference to the common values that Canadians, I believe, share. And I made specific reference to equality and social justice, because I believe that Canadians believe in equality and social justice as absolutely fundamental values. Not that we've achieved them, and certainly the first nations could be the first to point to where we haven't, but we still strive for those. And that was the message I was trying to send in my July 1 message to my riding and my constituents.

When I come back here, Mr. Chair, and again I look at this bill and the process we've gone through, I recognize that on this occasion we have failed to achieve those values. I'm not speaking of any failure on the part of the first nations--

The Chair: I'm going to suspend right now until the gentleman puts away his camera. He's been told before.

À (1034)

À (1036)

The Chair: Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: This is not a failure on the part of the first nations. They've, oftentimes very eloquently, expressed their values, what they want to see in legislation that would do away with the Indian Act and bring the relationship between ourselves as the Government of Canada and the first nations into the 21st century.

Mr. Chair, when I look at this section, it really is highly hypocritical on our part to continue to put this in.

I would like to pick up on Madame Girard-Bujold's point of the judge or the decision-maker on a tribunal looking at this legislation with this still in it. One of two things is going to happen. One, he or she may never get to this. They may be faced with that structure that's built now in here. They may say, well, I don't need to interpret. It's obvious that the Government of Canada has told me this is the model, and I have to look beyond that.

So this may never be looked at, because there's no need to. But if he or she does look at this, they will say, well, that's not what they did; they in fact built this model, this straitjacket for the first nations. And if he or she feels bound by the balance of the bill, they're simply going to say, well, that may not be what they intended to do, but that in fact...I'm sorry, let me change that.

I don't think anybody reading the bill and this section of the preamble would think other than this. They would look at the entire bill, they would study it, and they would say they in fact did define the nature and scope of any right of self-government, and they did prejudge the outcome of any self-government negotiations. That's what they did.

So I'm going to pretend I'm the member of that tribunal or commission or I'm that judge. So I'm looking at this and I'm saying the whole of the bill is totally inconsistent with this part of the preamble. We did not approach this in good faith, as a Government of Canada. We simply said, here's the way we want self-government--that has to be a really loose term to describe what this is, self-government--this is the way we, the Government of Canada, believe self-government should function. We believe this is the way the self-government negotiations and agreements should go.

I want to make one other point, Mr. Chair, before I run out of time. This part of the preamble starts off, in line 24, as follows:

Whereas neither the Indian Act nor this Act is intended

and it goes on to the rest of it.

One of two things is very clear. The Indian Act was in fact, when passed, a very clear legislative structure to control and limit the role of the leadership of the first nations as to what they could do in terms of developing their society and their community. It was very clearly intended to do that. So again, this wording is just wrong. It's inaccurate; it's incorrect.

Then if you look, secondly, beyond the intention of the Indian Act, as to how it was carried out, Mr. Chair, it was very clearly used to limit, to almost eliminate the ability of first nations communities to govern themselves. That was the effect of it.

I would argue very strenuously that at the very beginning it was intended to do that and in fact, then, in consequence, it did do that. What the first nations have been saying, I suppose since that bill was passed, what Canada has been hearing finally, I think.... I heard Mr. Ménard last night talk of some of this history in the last several decades, where the first nations, I believe, have finally put their message across to the bulk of Canadians in this country, and the Canadian populace has accepted that. We're at a period of time when in fact we are prepared, as a population, to deal with it.

The problem we have is that we have a government right now, this government, which is so clearly reflected in this bill, refusing to accept what has transpired. It's almost like the last three decades haven't occurred. It's like saying to them, the intent was in the original Indian Act 130-odd years ago; we're just going to continue it on. We haven't learned anything from that process. Mr. Chair, it is very clear that the first nations aboriginal community from coast to coast is no longer prepared to accept that.

Again, I will summarize what I said in my opening statement. If this committee has any shred of integrity, if they want to be honest with what they're doing, they have to take these five lines out.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

À (1040)

The Chair: We will vote on amendment NDP-2 on page 3.

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: On amendment NDP-3 on page 4, Mr. Comartin.

Mr. Joe Comartin: Mr. Martin is going to speak to this.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): It's like a pilot and a copilot; you have Martin and Comartin. That's how we do it here.

Mr. Chairman, it's my great honour to speak to NDP-3, which will be actually the last amendment the NDP moves in this huge body of amendments that we sought to achieve regarding this bill.

This will be my last opportunity to speak to one of our amendments after what has been a long, exhaustive process of 48 days. For 48 days since the time the chair predicted this bill would be in the House, we have been debating this bill.

Oh, I'm wrong, Mr. Chairman; it's 55 days that we have kept this bill at the committee in order to make the point that there is overwhelming opposition to this bill right across the country.

I'm very proud to have been the messenger for that image. I'm especially proud today to be joined, Mr. Chairman, by representatives from first nations across the country who have gone to great effort and expense to themselves—literally driving all night, some of them—to be here to view these proceedings and to make it clear to the Liberal government that it's not just the Assembly of First Nations that opposes this bill; it's ordinary first nation aboriginal men, women, children, elders, mothers, and grandmothers who oppose this bill for fundamental and basic reasons.

I'm honoured today. I'd like to introduce and recognize some of the guests we have with us today, if they could be recognized: Melba Thomas, representing the Six Nations of the Grand River Territory; Josephine Harris, the Cayuga Nation; Mary Sandy, the Confederacy Clan Mother of the Oneida Nation; Joyce Sky, Cayuga, who is standing in for her mother as the Keeper of the Fire for her community, the Cayuga people; Mina Keye, the Clan Mother of the Lower Cayuga—welcome to Mina—and Cora Davis, Clan Mother for the Upper Cayuga. Also--although I'm sorry I don't have all the names of the people with you--Terri Brown, the president of the legitimate Native Women's Association of Canada and the legitimate spokesperson for native women in this country, has joined us at the table today.

Mr. Chairman, I'm glad you've offered us some latitude to allow these women to as least sit at the table for this brief ten-minute presentation, because the real travesty of this entire exercise, we've maintained, is that it has been people like me sitting around the table debating the future of first nations men, women, children, mothers, and there has been no opportunity, no voice for people like this to join us at the table and share their views in this lengthy debate through the 55 days since the consultation period closed and the clause-by-clause analysis of this bill began.

Mr. Chairman, I move this amendment, NDP-3, with great pride. Ironically, it's one of the first amendments we moved and the very last one we will deal with. I'm proud to introduce this particular amendment, and I'm proud that the subject matter is in fact the preamble of the bill, which should introduce and set the tone of the bill and set the stage for what a bill about aboriginal governance should be.

We suggest and move, with all due respect, that we add after line 28, on page 1, the following language in the preamble:

Whereas the Government of Canada recognizes that first nations have their own values in relation to governance that are reflected in the customs, traditions and practices of each first nation and that all first nations desire to protect and preserve;

À (1045)

That is the language I seek to introduce as part of the preamble to this bill; it would benefit this bill, in my view, and assist those reading it in future generations who may be looking to it for guidance. It would set the tone and the stage, Mr. Chairman, because I believe what the preamble in the bill is lacking is recognition and acknowledgement that first nations have other values than those that are dealt with in western European models of democratic structures, or corporate or even governing structures.

The other values I'm speaking of, and the reason this preamble is lacking, is that the preamble does not mention such first nations values as consensus decision-making, or the participation of women and children in the decision-making process, or the special role of elders in the decision-making process.

That's why it's particularly fitting that we have with us today clan mothers, who have a role—a very special role—in their communities in regard to the decision-making process. Nowhere in western European governance models will you find a role for people like elders and clan mothers in the governance process of their communities. This bill would be lacking if it failed to reflect the actual practices in first nations communities, such as the role of elders.

This committee, we believe, must adopt the recommendations made by many of the presenters who came before us, and must amend the preamble to recognize, and to give value and true recognition, to the role women like those who are around me today play in the lives of their communities.

Again, Mr. Chairman, it's my great honour to be here. I'm absolutely thrilled that we could be joined by these strong women who, at great personal expense and sacrifice, made the effort to come to join us today to witness what's transpiring in this bill. I gain strength from them and I'm trying to give voice to their concerns in speaking from the heart. I hope I've done justice to the concerns they bring to Ottawa today.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: This lady is speaking.

A voice: [A lady speaks in her native language]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Bravo!

Mr. Chairman, I would gladly have given my speaking time to the Aboriginal leaders who are sitting at this table with us. This is the first time this has happened since we began examining this Bill, and I am especially proud. I am very pleased that these worthy representatives of the First Nations are seated at the table with us.

However, I would have preferred, not only that they be here, but that they be able to participate in our debates on this Bill, because there is no doubt in my mind that as honourable members of First Nations, these ladies would have been able to enlighten us with their advice.

I fully support the amendment moved by Mr. Martin. We have been trying for 55 days now to get the Government of Canada to accept the idea that the First Nations have to be recognized…

[English]

The Chair: Excusez-moi, Monsieur Loubier.

Madame, you're interfering with Monsieur Loubier, who is trying to make his point.

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: Madame, you are disrupting Monsieur Loubier, who has the floor.

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: It doesn't matter. Monsieur Loubier has the floor. Do you wish to disturb Monsieur Loubier?

Debate.

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor] ...and every time we come in here, all we see is disrespect from those people, yet you call it disrespect when we say something over here. But they sit there not listening or doing anything. That's being very disrespectful to people who are talking. That's something we were never taught when we were children. When we were children, we were told to show respect for the person who is talking.

If they can't show respect and pay attention to what is going on, it's because they already have their minds made up about how they're going to vote anyway, regardless of what he's been saying.

An hon. member: True. It's the sad truth.

A voice: That's one of the things I reported back to my mother, and she was very upset. She says we have never taught our native children anything like the way they act. She says, that's white people for you. They don't listen; all they do is think about one way.

À (1050)

The Chair: Mr. Martin, Monsieur Loubier, I think I've been fair, more than normally in these meetings. Could you ask them to allow you to speak, please? Could you do that for us?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I'm sorry, but it looks as though some people really don't understand what this debate has been about since the very beginning. The Aboriginal peoples are sovereign and the First Nations' people represent their nations, in the meaning of the United Nations Organization. You are asking me to interfere in the decisions of First Nations' representatives and to ask them to leave! But by what right could I tell them what to do? I don't intend to adopt the same habits as the government, and I have no intention of telling the First Nations what to do. They are mature enough and adults enough to know what they need to do to defend the interests of their peoples. Don't ask me to intervene, as though I had some power over these people! Come on now!

I don't claim to have any power over other peoples. I will never make such a claim. Ottawa knows best! I really don't get that, and I will never have that kind of colonialist attitude! Asking the worthy representatives of the First Nations to withdraw is not my responsibility. It's up to you to maintain order. So far you have made a complete mess of things in this Committee and shown a total lack of respect towards the First Nations, like other Liberal Members, I might add. Now that we finally have worthy representatives of First Nations at this table, you ask me to intervene, when for the last 55 days and 125 hours of debate, I have been fighting to ensure that these people will be able to defend their own rights! Now you ask me to intervene, as a non-Aboriginal, to tell the Aboriginal peoples what to do!

That is some kind of logic. It's just unbelievable! It's your problem, you figure it out! You've made a mess of this, and now it's up to you to restore order, if that is what you really want to do. Finally we have First Nations representatives here. What is happening today is perfectly appropriate. I can see that they're very proud to be at the table. They should be given the right to speak and discuss the Bill and the remaining amendments. This is their Bill because it directly affects them. We are not directly affected by this Bill, Pat and I. We were given a mission. We were asked to represent the First Nations. The fact is, we are only emissaries, spokespersons. The First Nations are at the table. Put questions to them; involve them in the debate. It would be a good idea to do that, for once. Stop acting like a colonialist power, or followers of apartheid before the emancipation of South Africans. Don't ask me to intervene. They will do as they see fit--just as any sovereign people would. That's all I can say.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Martin, closing remarks.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'd like you to call the question, please.

À (1055)

The Chair: Are we ready for the question on NDP-3?

(Amendment negatived)

The Chair: In theory you won, but in practice you lost, I guess.

(Preamble as amended agreed to on division)

(On clause 1--Short title)

The Chair: We have amendment BQ-2, page 5.

Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: There is no doubt in my mind, even though there is some controversy with respect to the spelling of the expression “premières nations”. But there is no doubt in my mind, when I see the worthy representatives of the First Nations sitting with us here. As far as I'm concerned, “Premières nations” should be written with a capital “p” and a capital “n”, just as would be the case for any nation that is recognized as such, within the meaning of the United Nations.

I checked three different sources--the same ones, or just about, as those cited by the researcher. The Government of Quebec and Ontario Government both consistently spell it with a capital “p” and a capital “n”. And, in the “Peace of the Braves” agreement, “premières nations” is written with a capital “p” and a capital “n”. In the draft agreement with the Innu, “premières nations” is also written with a capital “p” and a capital “n”.

However, in non-legislative documents issued by the federal government, they use a capital “p” and a lower case “n”. The researcher was telling me that in legislation, the practice thus far has been to use a lower case “p” and a lower case “n”. In the legislation dealing with the Nisga'a, for example, they used a capital “p”, a lower case “n”, and a lower case “n” for “Nisga'a”, which members of the Nisga'a First Nation found insulting.

I would strongly suggest that the amendment before us now, that provides for “premières nations” to be written with a capital “p” and a capital “n” apply in future to all legislation where reference is made to the First Nations. The expression “Premières nations” should be written in such a way as not to offend them. A number of people told us during our hearings that they found it insulting that “premières nations” had not been written with a capital “p” and a capital “n”.

I hope you will vote in favour of this amendment. It involves, first and foremost, a matter of respect. Do we want to treat the First Nations as though they were nobodies here in Canada? Do we want to continue to ignore their rights? Do we want to continue to pass bills such as Bill C-7, that given them absolutely nothing, that do not in any way improve the socio-economic status of the First Nations, and which don't expedite the process whereby their plans for self-government will be realized?

Quite the contrary; all the money and energy devoted to getting Bill C-7 passed are nothing more than wasted money, energy and resources that will not serve to advance the cause of the First Nations, or to expedite the process of realizing their plans for self-government.

There are also the specific land claims. At the present time, some 500 claims are outstanding and are no longer under discussion, because the federal government has been putting all its energy and intelligence into passing a piece of garbage like Bill C-7.

Even with improvements in terms of the respect shown for First Nations--by writing these words with a capital “p” and a capital “n”, this Bill is fundamentally unacceptable, as far as everyone is concerned. No one wants this Bill. none of the First Nations want it. We have discussed it, because we have met regularly. No one at this table wants this Bill. Only the Minister of Indian Affairs and the Prime Minister want this Bill to pass. The Prime Minister probably wants to leave a legacy, but what a poisoned legacy he will be leaving Canada when he leaves!

This Bill should be torn up. We should stop talking about it. We need to stop exacerbating the tensions between First Nations and the federal government. That is what we're doing now. We are creating unnecessary tensions, because this Bill will be history in a few months. This Bill will be set aside. The fact is that nothing is preventing the First Nations from not complying with it. No sanction is provided for if Bill C-7 is not enforced, even if the Bill passes at third reading and becomes law after ratification by the Senate.

I think we have to face the facts here. The presence of these First Nations' representatives seated at the table with us should not be purely symbolic. This is something that has deep roots among First Nations communities. Once again, Bill C-7 violates their rights. Under the guise of modernity, we are just reproducing the hated Indian Act. We are destroying all the hopes nourished in the 1980s by the Penner Report, and in 1997, by the Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples--the Erasmus-Dussault Report.

Á (1100)

It's time to wake up and stop trying to force this Bill down the throats of the First Nations; they don't want it. And we're not talking only about Assembly of First Nations' leaders; the people don't want either. They don't believe it addresses the many problems afflicting a lot of their communities. And there is a long list of problems.

Of course, it looks good, in the Speech from the Throne, to talk about Aboriginal issues and the fact that the federal government is concerned about those issues. But in what specific areas has there been any concrete action taken? Let's look at specific examples: bringing down the unemployment rate in Aboriginal communities; reducing the incidence of a number of serious illnesses; giving back to the First Nations some of the economic growth associated with the development of natural resources. We took their lands from them, and now, for the rest of their lives, we will be taking their natural resources, their royalties, and any profits they might make from developing soil, sub-soil and other resources that belonged to them before the Europeans arrived.

Let's also take the example of what's happening to the Nisga'a. We are now at the 10th anniversary of the Prime Minister's promise to deal with their land claims. In addition to that, compensation was supposed to be provided; that promise was made 10 years ago, and yet there has not been one iota of progress since. On the contrary, excessive logging and clear-cuts have been allowed, this First Nation has been chased off its own land, and gas companies have been given permission to process corrosive gases there, right next to where First Nations families are living. Some children are now sick and the pregnancies of many women who are members of that First Nation are now in question.

I think it is absolutely scandalous that the government has been behaving this way for 130 years, and has offered nothing in the way of reparation. The fact is that it is urgent to make reparation for the harm caused the First Nations. Hopes have been dashed on the rock of indifference we see in the Liberal government. The hopes nourished by the agenda the Erasmus-Dussault Commission laid out, which said 20 years ago that we needed to rebuild the First Nations, in cooperation with them, and that we should quickly negotiate the conditions for self-government and the exercise of the inherent right of self-government.

But rather than that, we are presented with this kind of nonsense--in this case, Bill C-7, and First Nations' people are prevented from dealing as equals with federal government representatives, in order to negotiate self-government agreements. Equality among peoples is a fundamental value defended by the United Nations and laid out in the International Bill of Human Rights. This is a fundamental value defended throughout the world and respected in most countries.

Our hope is that here in Canada, the International Bill of Human Rights is considered to be a valid reference. And yet our first examination of Bill C-7 showed that it contained eight separate violations of various provisions of the International Bill of Human Rights. Are you not ashamed to continue to defend a bill that contains eight violations of the International Bill of Human Rights? That is pretty incredible!

Are you not ashamed to ignore the challenges of the First Nations, who are the ones most directly affected by Bill C-7, and to demonstrate your cynicism by reading the newspaper while we discuss a bill as fundamental as this? It's absolutely sickening and disgraceful! We are debating fundamental issues, and yet over here we have someone reading the newspaper! In fact, I would not be the least bit surprised if he is reading the comics.

We have worthy representatives here, leaders sitting at the table with us, and the Liberal Member opposite is reading his newspaper. Here we are discussing fundamental values and respect for the First Nations, and yet the Liberal Member is reading his paper. Another Liberal Member over there is also reading his newspaper. The Parliamentary Secretary is reading Quorum, a summary of the lead newspaper items for the day. This is the kind of consideration given the First Nations. As far as I'm concerned, it is high time for a regime change.

Á (1105)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: Mr. Chairman, I would like to put a few questions to our expert witnesses on the amendment now before us.

I see that in English, the words “First Nations” have capitals, and I would like to know why the same has not been done in French, whether that is for conventional or legislative reasons, or because that is proper French. I see that Mr. Robert Archambault from the Legislation Section is with us; perhaps he could provide an explanation in that regard.

Mr. Robert Archambault (Senior Counsel, Legislation Section (Headquarters), Department of Justice): As regards the title of the Act, common practice in English is that every word begin with a capital letter; in French, only the first word in the title begins with a capital letter.

In the fifth paragraph of the preamble, you will notice that in both languages we use the terms “first nations” and “premières nations” without capital letters. The reason why we have been doing the same thing in both languages for the last ten years or so in legislation dealing with Aboriginal matters is simply that “premières nations” has become a generic term, so that if we use capitals, that conflicts with the name of a specific association.

If we name a specific association or Indian band that uses the words “première nation” or “First Nation” in its name, then we use capitals in both languages, because that is a proper name. But when we refer to first nations as a whole, we are using a generic term, and in that case, we use the lower case. Those are the basic rules that, in that respect, are the same in both languages, except where titles are concerned.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: I'm sorry; perhaps I'm a little confused. Are you saying that there is one rule for titles in French and another for general texts?

M. Robert Archambault: No. In French, there is no difference. In English, however, for a title, whether the term is generic or otherwise, every word is capitalized. That is a longstanding practice.

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think all of us are intent to use the proper French or proper English, for that matter, and we have to abide, I believe, by the advice that we get from the experts in terms of writing legislation. So from our point of view I think the mover of the amendment would also want to agree to use the proper language usage. And with that, I can only leave it up to his decision as to whether or not he wants to continue his debate on this when he has heard from the experts in terms of writing legislation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

Anyone else? Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, in the few minutes we have on this virtually last, if not second to last, amendment that we'll be dealing with in this whole volume before us, I would like to seek unanimous consent to grant my ten minutes for the women with me to share one minute each of their observations before they have to leave and before we conclude in this final day of clause-by-clause analysis.

Á (1110)

The Chair: Mr. Martin, I would urge my colleagues to agree with you.

Can I have unanimous consent to allow our guests to have one minute each? I have unanimous consent. Do I? Do I have unanimous consent? Yes.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, on the basis of it being 10 minutes, not 25 minutes.

The Chair: You have ten minutes. The clock will be run.

Mr. Pat Martin: On the understanding that it's a total of ten minutes, no greater than the ten minutes I would have taken. That means one and a half minutes or however you want to divide it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: We'll start right now.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thanks for your consideration.

Terri, would you like to start?

Ms. Terri Brown (As Individual): Thank you.

I want to begin by thanking Yvan and Pat for all the rigorous work they've been doing around this table. We did come here today knowing that it was the final moments of this process and we are honoured to be allowed to share. I'm very humbled to be able to speak in front of our clan mothers today.

As we approached the table and looked around at the disrespect that was displayed towards our clan mothers, it was very sad. I'm very saddened by that. And I want to say that when I came here and looked around I thought, what a different Canada it would be if we were included as first people of this land. What a much richer country, what a much fairer country it would be if we had our place in this country known as Canada.

Our clan mothers represent an ancient way of living on Mother Earth, of being on Mother Earth, and I want to say that it's wonderful that they're here today. They're from the Six Nations, but I'm from the Tahltan people of northern British Columbia. We have the same system--a matriarchal, matrilineal system that includes women, does not disrespect women, does not disrespect the poor. But what a different Canada it would be if we could be included in the process.

We're moving towards a waste of resources, through 55 days of debating something that is a non-starter, that is more oppressive to the first people of this land, something that not a day of debate should have been spent on. It's very embarrassing that the minister of aboriginal affairs has trampled on the rights of aboriginal women, created a new organization that he paid off. We are not here to be paid off or bought off. Money is nothing to us.

The Chair: Ms. Brown, after you, there are others.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, could I make another suggestion? Perhaps you could stop the clock for two seconds. I have ten minutes to make concluding remarks. I would like to add those 10 minutes to the time…

The Chair: Please continue. Five minutes.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I am asking for unanimous consent to give the 10 minutes I am entitled to for my concluding remarks to the Aboriginal women sitting at the table with us here.

The Chair: You are using Mr. Martin's time. When it is up, you can ask for consent, if you like.

[English]

Could we hear from another guest, please?

Ms. Cora Davis (As Individual): [Witness speaks in her native language]

Mr. Pat Martin: Would anyone else like to say a few words?

Ms. Cora Davis: I'd like to say thank you very much for hearing me. I speak good English and I also speak my own language, which I'm very proud to have.

Thank you very much.

Ms. Joyce Sky (As Individual): Our government system is almost as old as this country. We've had this government system that we abide by ever since the beginning of time.

We thank Mother Earth for all her gifts that she has given us, and we do ceremonies at different times of the year to celebrate all of these different things we have that have been given to us, that we use, natural things in our surroundings. We give thanks to the earth, the sky, the moon, the sun. When the white man first came here, he thought we had idols. We don't have idols. We thank everything that is in our surroundings and we don't ask for things.

Then a few years before European contact, there was a man we called the peacemaker who came here and gave us what we call our government system in the English language. I would say it in Indian, but you wouldn't know what I am talking about. He gave us that way of life that we should follow, so that all nations come together in peace and harmony and have power with each other, where you stand united.

That's not what we're doing nowadays. We're not standing united.

When our brothers came, we invited them here. We gave them things. We helped them to survive. When the United States and Canada started to fight, the people were separated, and one fought for what we now call the Canadian government and the other fought for the American government. If we had not fought for this side, where we are now standing would have been U.S.A., not Canada.

There is so much history you people don't know about. Some people come and say they know everything about the Indian way of life, but they don't. They don't know what we have lived. It's a way of life. We don't have what they call a religion; it's a way of life. Every day we live that. We give thanks in the morning that we have survived the night, that we still can see Mother Nature around us. But sometimes we can't give thanks, because our waters are so polluted. Mother Earth has been raped, and now he wants to rape some more.

What little bit of land we have left.... they don't realize that more than 80% of our people live off the reservation. They have houses in the towns, and cities, and countryside that they pay taxes on. But now he wants that little wee piece of land we have left, that we call Mother Earth. Even that land isn't any good. Our wealth on our reserves isn't any good any more, because the land has been polluted all around us.

All we're fighting for is our children, our seventh generation down the road; that's what we're fighting for. We need to preserve this place for them, and it's all we're asking. Leave us alone. Let us govern ourselves. We're not stupid, we're not dumb. We have people in there now who can run our reservations.

All this money...the treaties that were given to us, or were made with the non-native people, those treaties are not being upheld. This Canadian government owes us so much money that if this goes through it's going to be all wiped off. That's what they're talking about. That's why he wants to get this thing through, because they already owe us $97 billion that we probably will never see.

I was a teacher and I taught native history to non-native children. I know a lot about the treaties. I know what has happened. On May 1 Nault went to Washington to meet with the Indian agent over there. Now they're going to Washington, the people over there, to fight for the same thing we're fighting for.

We're fighting for our children, and that's all I ask. If you have any humanity among you people, you will know that our children are what is important. They are our future leaders.

Á (1115)

The Chair: Madame, there may be others who want to speak. Thank you.

Does anyone else wish to speak?

Ms. Josephine Harris (As Individual): I'd like to begin by saying that most first nations are very disgusted, disappointed, and distressed concerning the legislation you are attempting to impose on first nations people.

I don't agree that you have Indian Affairs experts sitting here and advising you. They haven't been successful so far in regard to the success rate of our people. We're well aware of the traumas that have been imposed on our people concerning the residential centres. You have treated us like citizens of third world countries, which has resulted in suicides and severe health conditions, and that continue in first nations to this day. Is that success? You're continuing to impose legislation that makes decisions for our people. You've called us savages in the past and allowed our first nations people to lose who we are as people, our way of life.

Could I come into any one of your homes and take over and say, this is the way you should bring your children up, this is the church you should go to, this is the school you should send your children to? That is exactly what you people sitting around this table are attempting to do to us. We're telling you, as first nations people, that you will not be successful.

Voices: No!

Ms. Josephine Harris: You will not. We will make our own roads. You make your roads and we'll make ours.

Is there anyone who doesn't understand that we will make our own decisions in our communities, that we will bring our children up in the way we would like to, without interference? Is there anyone here who does not understand that?

You are allowed to speak. You have been speaking.

Á (1120)

The Chair: Mr. Martin, your time is up.

Mr. Loubier, closing remarks.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I am asking for unanimous consent, because other First Nations' representatives would like to speak. In my opinion, what we have learned here was very instructive, and we should have invited them to take part earlier. I am therefore asking members for unanimous consent to give my 10 minutes to them. In any case, I don't really know what I could do with that time.

[English]

The Chair: Do I have consent for Mr. Loubier to donate also his 10 minutes?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I have consent. Thank you.

Ms. Mary Sandy (As Individual): I have been listening here and I'm sick of everything I hear.

At the time I was four years old, you buggers grabbed me and threw me into an institution. What did you do to me? All of you are sitting there looking at me like I am nuts. Well, I have put up with your bullshit right from the time I was a child, and it stops now, because I'm over 60 and I'm damned well sick of this bullshit. No more.If you guys want a fight, you've got it, Pontiac--all over the damned place. That's what I learned from the white man.

The Chair: Is there anyone else?

Ms. Terri Brown: Yes, I was cut off earlier and I wasn't finished.

I would like to know the bottom line, how much was spent on this process, because I'm sure it's a huge amount of money. For our people who are dying in poverty, that money could have been invested more wisely.

The Chair: That information is available through your MPs.

Terry Brown: It is important for all the Canadian people to know what was spent here, because our children are still killing themselves on reserves. And it's not because of what we're doing; it's about colonialism, a process that still exists in this room and in all the rooms across Canada. It is destroying our people and creating hopeless situations, so that our young people end up killing themselves and our women live in poverty trying to raise children who will never get through the school system because it's so racist and it's so discriminatory. That is all across the country.

As we sit here, some of our elders are crying, because it's a very sad situation. We're not here today because we're asking you for money or handouts. We're here to present and say no to the FNGA. It's not a process that should be continued, and sadly enough, the minister is still supporting it against our will. Ninety-five per cent of the presenters have said no to the FNGA, and you decide to proceed. I even question whether your Liberal members support this process, because of what's been in the news with Paul Martin.

It's a lost cause. Stop it now.

The Chair: Does anyone else wish to comment?

Chief Morris Shannacappo (Chairman, Rolling River First Nation, Treaty & Aboriginal Rights Research Centre of Manitoba Inc.): [Witness speaks in his native language]

Perhaps if things were done appropriately when the meetings of minds came together, we might have been using my language here to confer.

I welcome you all, but first I welcome myself, because nobody welcomed me here. But I want to thank Grand Chief Carol McBride for an open invitation to her traditional territory.

I come from a Treaty No. 4 territory that is right in the heart of Treaty No. 2 in Manitoba, where traditional lifestyles were negotiated. I consider myself a traditional person. I have 217 horses today that I use as vehicles to around. Nobody knew that today we'd be travelling around in jet planes, or whatever.

These archaic treaties that you talk about gave you the exact wealth that you are enjoying here today, so they are not archaic; they are still alive and well. We still use them.

Could I have your attention, please. When you're talking, I promise I won't talk; I will listen to you. I am here for the sake of open ears, so please listen to what these elderly ladies are saying, my grandmothers and my aunties. You are not listening to these people. If your wife or your grandmother were to speak and I turned around and quickly started talking to Mr. Martin, I'm sure you would object and say, please listen.

This is what happens here in Canada. Check your $20 bill and look at that round library that you use. In the mid-1800s, when the buildings burned here, the one that was put there for our people as a third order of government, to help write the legislation for this country, is the only one that survived. That tells you something.

The lady who spoke so eloquently reminded you that every morning we give thanks to the Creator for giving us another day to celebrate our victories. And there are victories: just walking as one in harmony, walking as one with the Creator, and not doing it in the name of reaping or raping or pillaging our Mother for her natural resources.

When I arrived in my community, I wanted to talk to Ms. Neville, on the other side, but she was enjoying her grandchild and her daughter. What a lovely thing. I hope I can do that someday too, but I have to be here. I have to be all over the place fighting for the rights of my people, and I can't enjoy staying home to be with the people who have offered me their leadership.

Within my leadership we have come up with a 10-year plan. We sat all our people in one building and asked them what they wanted. We said, give this chief and council a mandate. We came up with a wish list, and it's going to take 20 years to implement that 10-year plan. Our Liberal hopeful here didn't seem to want to hear about it, but there are other governments that are willing to hear.

I talked about the wind in my community, how powerful it is. When I went to my sacred ceremonies, it was asked at the ceremonies, is it okay for us as a native people to harness our Grandfather so that we may accumulate some wealth in our community, to be able to put a windmill for wind power? Is it okay with our Grandfather to do this? Is it okay with the Creator to do this? My answer was yes, do it, by all means--right to the point where they told us where the windmill has to be, right to the point of how much it will generate.

There is another government that's listening on the other side of the line--your line, a line that your people made, not us--the 49th parallel. I have people there who are working in casinos, I have people there who are making all kinds of money, and I've asked them, why don't you allow us to sell power to you? I can't seem to sell it to my government; they don't want to come onside; they don't want to hear me; they don't want to listen to what I have to say; they don't want to hear the determination of my community to get out of this whole bloody system and finally contribute to this whole mainstream of society.

I'd rather be shut out and told, no, I want to toe the party line. Well, I'm going to toe my party line too. I'm toeing my aboriginal party line, my first nation party line--and I'm not going to create a party called the First Nation Party just to get a job or a pension here.

Á (1125)

I've been chief in my community for six years, and my people are still going to have me. You can ask anyone in my community, is your chief a bully; are you scared to talk to your chief? They will tell you, it is because of him that our community is moving. It is because of our chief's big mouth that we are finally getting somewhere and finally getting things done. It's not because I yell; it's because we act on things. We put things together. We put it on paper, and then we move it, much like this process here.

But we don't shut out the people who are giving us direction. Those are the most important people, because they know where the ice is thin. The locals in our community know exactly where we want to take ourselves. They know their determination, just like these ladies who are present here. They've seen all that in their community. They've seen how high the rates of suicide are. They've seen unemployment rates.

Anita Neville, I ask you, do you know the employment rate in my community? Do you know? You can answer here. You can speak too.

You are from Manitoba, but you don't know any of these answers, do you? Do you know how much land is under the possession of first nations people in Manitoba? Do you know how much land across Canada is in the possession of my people? It's 0.04%, not even half a percent in Manitoba, and that's right across Canada--0.04%.

I don't know if you did your math. I don't know if you did your homework, but we sure did.

The youth I brought to this very building one month ago sat here and looked at me and said, Chief, can we get up to speak? I said, today you are all chiefs. I brought two vans of them to sit here, 12 of my disciples--forgive the line--who sat with me, who believe in treaty, who believe in their rights, who believe Ray Bonin should shut up when he's being spoken to and listen.

Á (1130)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Chief Morris Shannacappo: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: Now it's time for the vote. We will have a recorded vote on amendment BQ-2.

Chief Morris Shannacappo: [Inaudible—Editor] Are you going to throw me out?

The Chair: No, that's what you want. I won't do that.

Chief Morris Shannacappo: Because I will lie right by your feet and you can... [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: Okay, I had called the vote, but I will give you your recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)

(Clause 1 agreed to on division)

The Chair: Shall the title carry?

You want to debate the title? Okay, we'll have a recorded vote on the title.

(Title agreed to: yeas 8; nays 3)

The Chair: Shall the bill carry? We will have a recorded vote.

(Bill C-7 agreed to: yeas 8 ; nays 3)

The Chair: Shall I report the bill as amended to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

An hon. member: On division.

The Chair: Shall the committee order a reprint for use at report stage?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you very much, everyone.

The meeting is adjourned.