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, April 8, 2003

1615

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

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

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1620

1625

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1630

1635

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance)

1640

The Chair

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance)

1645

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1650

1655

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1700

1705

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

1710

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.)

1715

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1720

1725

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. David Chatters

1730

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1735

1740

Grand Chief Margaret Swan (Southern Chiefs' Organization)

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

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

The Chair

1745

Grand Chief Margaret Swan

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1750

1755

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Warren Johnson

Mr. Andrew Beynon (General Counsel, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)

1800

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

1810

The Chair

Mr. Alan Tonks

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

1815

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1820

1825

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1830

1835

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

1840

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. David Chatters

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1845

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1855

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1900

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1905

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

1910

Mr. Andrew Beynon

Mr. John Godfrey

Mr. Warren Johnson

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

1915

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. John Godfrey

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

Mr. Warren Johnson

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

1920

Mr. Pat Martin

1925

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1930

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1935

1940

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1945

1950

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1955

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

Mr. Pat Martin

2000

The Chair

Mr. Warren Johnson

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

2005

Mr. Yvan Loubier

2010

2015

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

2020

2025

The Chair

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

2030

The Chair

Mr. Warren Johnson

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

2035

2040

Le président

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

2045

2050

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 061

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, April 8, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

º (1615)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Good afternoon, everyone. I call the meeting to order to start clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-7, an act respecting leadership selection, administration and accountability of Indian bands, and to make related amendments to other acts.

[Translation]

I'd ask you to please not interrupt the chairman while he is making his comments.

On a point of order?

[English]

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Loubier?

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Yes, I'd like the committee to be advised of the following motion: That this committee report to the House of Commons...

[English]

The Chair: That's not a point of order. It's out of order. We'll proceed now to clause-by-clause.

Monsieur Loubier, it's not time to give notices of motion. Your microphone is off. We will proceed to clause-by-clause.

You have a point of order, Mr. Martin. I will hear your point of order.

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): I have what I believe is a legitimate point of order. Now that we are in the process of clause-by-clause, there was a request made for the production of any legal opinions regarding the bill and whether it infringes--

The Chair: That's not a point of order. It was voted upon.

Mr. Pat Martin: The point of order I wish to raise, Mr. Chair, as I'd like to explain, is that yesterday the Speaker of the House ruled that we are masters of our own...etc.

The Chair: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Pat Martin: Could I conclude my thought, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: Would you give me your point of order, please?

Mr. Pat Martin: The point is specifically that we dealt with the motion to release those papers after the fact, after a motion deemed to be out of order by you and upheld by the Speaker. I'm asking for the cooperation of the committee, as a point of order, that this be deemed to be in order to deal with the release of the legal opinions the government says it has that this does not have any constitutional implications.

Mr. Hubbard's point of--

The Chair: You have stated your point of order. I am ruling that it is not a point of order. This committee has voted, and if I remember, it was on a recorded vote requested by the opposition. That has been dealt with.

Mr. Pat Martin: Everything after Mr. Hubbard's out-of-order motion should be null and void, you see, because he was out of order to interrupt my filibuster. The Speaker has ruled that the chair has the right--

The Chair: Cut the microphone.

We will proceed with the clause-by-clause, which is why we are united today. The first step will be to ask the committee members to vote on articles that have no amendments, and if there's a desire to debate them, you just need to indicate to the chair that you wish to have it polled and we won't deal with it today.

I understand that some committee members want all twelve of them polled, so the process I just proposed won't work. I've been advised that we should start at clause 3 with amendment BQ-5.

Could we not let the member from the Bloc make his presentation on his amendment?

Mr. Pat Martin: The question is the order of the amendments we're dealing with.

The Chair: Do you have a problem starting with amendment BQ-5, clause 3?

Mr. Pat Martin: I am wondering why we're starting with clause 3 when there were amendments made to the preamble.

The Chair: I've been advised by our experts that we should skip those. They should be done at the end because they may change due to decisions we might make.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's very good, thank you.

The Chair: It's not my decision. You have no problems with it.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you.

The Chair: Our first amendment then is on page 14--Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): That's what I wanted to know.

The Chair: It's BQ-5 on page 14.

Mr. Loubier.

(On clause 3--Purposes)

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, the object of this amendment is to ascertain that the provision on the needs of aboriginal nations in the area of governance be adopted in the following spirit. The aboriginal nations are real nations and have legitimate aspirations to self-government. Their aspirations in the matter of governance go much further than what the federal government would be kind enough to allow them to do, as they have an inherent right to self-government. Their inherent right to self-government was given to them by the Creator, as they say so well, and it's not up to us to decide how they will express it, nor with what intensity, nor through which traditional native law -- or any other tool -- they may use to express it.

This amendment would also protect the freedom aboriginal nations have to set up, based on their own history, their own culture and what they are themselves, those institutions that correspond best to the choices they and their members will make in the future.

Without this amendment to Bill C-7, as many witnesses if not the great majority of witnesses have said, this bill will be seen as a sort of a carbuncle added on to the Indian Act, with a sort of additional modernism dictated by the fact that this is the new millennium; but, fundamentally, when you dig deep enough, the spirit that is going to feed the relations between our nations will be essentially the same one that has existed since the Indian Act was passed.

Mr. Chairman, there is a kind of dichotomy between what the minister and his senior officials are saying and what we actually find in the bill. You can't say that you're showing respect for the inherent right to self-government while the contents of the bill, especially clause 3, don't recognize that the aboriginal nations have the natural, inherent right to dispose of themselves; on the contrary, it tries to define and negotiate with them what that inherent right is. At the very outset, that is incongruous. You can't recognize an inherent right and spell out in Bill C-7 that you want to negotiate that inherent right with the aboriginal nations. This inherent right applies on its own, quite naturally. It is given to the native nations not by the federal government, but by the Creator. Thus, it is we who have to adjust to and deal with this right the native nations have. It is not up to us to limit in any way this inherent right, and we should see to it that the native nations can apply and practice it, including those rights that are linked to the numerous treaties signed scores of years ago. They must be able to implement those rights and those treaties based on their needs and on the hope that those treaties and this new governance may bring during the coming years, in the interest of their members.

Mr. Chairman, when we travelled, and when we heard witnesses here, it was clear at the outset that we had not consulted the aboriginal nations sufficiently, because alleging a consultation with 10,000 representatives of the first nations, the Minister of Indian Affairs told us that this bill fit aboriginal realities like a glove. On the other hand, we heard a great deal that was quite contrary to that affirmation. We met aboriginal persons and their leaders, not to present them with the contents of a bill like this one, but to hear what they had to say. Their point of view is clearly expressed and mainly stemmed from the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, commonly known as the Erasmus-Dussault report.

º (1620)

The aboriginal nations believed so firmly in the work done by that royal commission and all its analyses, and in its clear establishment of the problems that the aboriginal nations had, not to mention the solutions proposed, that they were sure the government would put into the bill the main conclusions of that Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. However, after having invested so much in the work of that commission, after having believed in its main conclusions, and after having raised hopes and wishes that these proposals would become reality for the members of the first nations, here we are with a bill like this one which is the modern version of the Indian Act; it infantilizes them in the same way as the original Indian Act, and it is just as humiliating.

I can't believe, Mr. Chairman, that in the year 2003 we're winding up with the same considerations. Of course, all this is covered up and given a modern framework that looks like fair play and political correctness, but I can't believe that we're still winding up with a bill reducing the aboriginal nations to the status of children, that does not allow them to develop as real nations and especially does not consider them as equal nations. You can't go around saying that your are recognizing those nations while, in fact, you don't recognize them in any way.

Actually, the object of my amendment is to lead us to respect the state of mind that must govern us. We must consider the aboriginal nations as adult nations, sovereign nations who—over those territories we will be negotiating with some of them, where there have been no territorial negotiations— will be able to exercise full jurisdiction based on what they decide for themselves, based on those institutions that have links to their traditional law, their culture and their history.

Before the arrival of the Europeans—and we saw that during the work of the committee and this was one of the main findings of the Erasmus-Dussault report—the aboriginal nations had their own code of governance, their own way of governing themselves, their own way of deciding what was good for them. Today, while recognizing that freedom and those rights, why do we have before us such a nasty bill, one that shows no respect for what the aboriginal nations actually are, what they want and what they aspire to? Mr. Chairman, that is the very essence of amendment 5 from the Bloc Québécois, clause 3, when you replace lines 10 to 24 with the text you have before you.

Mr. Chairman, there is another fact, and you are going to find this throughout the amendments we will be moving. Through those amendments— and Mr. Martin may have done the same thing in the amendments he's proposed—we have tried to put Humpty Dumpty back together again. In our opinion, the bill is fundamentally rotten and is worth nothing in view of what we were expecting as a bill on self-government for native nations. Faced with something that we consider to be worth less than nothing, we tried to put the pieces back together again until the real negotiations on self-government and the real rights of Canada's aborigonal nations get underway.

However, such a fundamentally bad bill cannot be improved quite to the stage we'd like through amendments, no matter how good they may be, like the ones I'm introducing here, among others that we will have the opportunity of introducing during this clause-by-clause examination of Bill C-7.

In my opinion, Mr. Chairman—and I think that many will share my observations in this respect—we should start the whole exercise all over again. We should take this bill, tear it up or even symbolically burn it so that it can never be put back together again, and start the whole exercise over again based on the conclusions of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples. That consensus was reached. It is hard to believe that something our nations reached a consensus on cannot be put into a bill, a bill that can be satisfactory to everyone.

º (1625)

And if all this had been dealt with by intelligent people, it would have been so simple and so opportune to come up with a bill that would have made everybody happy. Even the opposition would have been satisfied had some consensus emerged from consultations with the first nations, who are the ones most directly affected.

Therefore I would ask you to support my amendment.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

The chair recognizes Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I too would like to speak in favour of Bloc amendment BQ-5 for the simple reason that it addresses clause 3, the title of which is “Purposes of Act”. The amendment put forward by Mr. Loubier speaks to the very heart of the issue here, in a sense, that we seek to define and make clear what is really the purpose of the act. This amendment, known as BQ-5, I believe, helps to shape what we would approve of as a purpose of an amendment to the Indian Act.

I point out that the purpose as stated by the bill is a misnomer. The bill purports to be about accountability and transparency and self-governance, and in our study of the bill, we find that it's anything but a bill about self-governance. In fact it has very little to do with the basic principles of accountability and transparency. Frankly, those are two principles that no one who made a presentation to this committee has any problem with. They would be happy to stipulate themselves rules that speak to accountability and transparency. That's the Trojan Horse.

This bill needs to be amended under “Purposes of Act” because the real intentions, we fear--and we have reason to fear it, and frankly, first nations across the country are apprehensive--the real purpose of this act is to undermine and diminish and derogate from the constitutionally recognized inherent aboriginal and treaty rights. That's the fear expressed clearly by virtually every presenter who presented to this committee. They have reason to believe, and in fact their research shows, that Bill C-7 will infringe upon constitutionally recognized rights.

Now, when we've asked the government if this is true, they say, surely not. When we ask the government for their research to prove to us or show us what leads them to believe this doesn't infringe upon constitutionally recognized rights, they refuse to produce those papers.

In a motion that this meeting just passed, a properly tabled motion I produced for the government to present any legal opinions they've either produced or commissioned that say this bill doesn't infringe on constitutional rights...and they refused to produce them. They refused to even say if they exist.

So, Mr. Chairman, it's not paranoid to assume there's something going on here that goes well beyond the stated purposes of the act. In fact, it's been pointed out to us by numerous presentations that the First Nations Governance Act undermines the very idea of self-governance. It's a misnomer. That's why it's important, and I'm glad Mr. Loubier has put forward an amendment to clarify what the purposes of this act really are.

I hope later on under clause 3 we also talk about a non-derogation clause to be included. If the government is making the statement that this bill doesn't derogate from aboriginal and treaty rights, then why don't they say so? In the absence of any statement to the contrary, it's not crazy to assume that maybe it does. In the absence of the government's own lawyers to say that it doesn't, we might as well admit that this bill does seek to undermine constitutionally recognized rights--and get out from under the fiduciary responsibility the government has towards aboriginal people.

We heard the minister today in the House of Commons, when questioned on aboriginal housing, say “Well, what do you expect us to do, build a house for every one of them?”, as if that were absurd. When questioned on what proposals we should be undertaking instead of this bill, we had the chair of this committee ask a witness “What do you expect us to do, implement the changes of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples?”, as if that were an absurd idea that was out of the question.

So it's easy to see why we're seeking amendments to this bill. But I should state at the outset that most of us believe this bill is so fundamentally flawed and so offensive to the sensibilities of thinking people across the country that it's irretrievable by amendments. It can't be amended to make it satisfactory. And again, a motion should be put forward that it be reported back to the House that this bill is not ready and doesn't meet the needs of people. That should have been the report.

º (1630)

We are at a stage where we have no alternative but to seek to minimize and mitigate the most damaging aspects of the bill. So I point out that in this particular amendment, my colleague with the Bloc Québécois removes the following words in paragraph 3(c):

while providing rules for those bands that do not choose to do so.

In other words, if this bill proposes to enable bands to design and implement their own regimes with respect to leadership selection, administration of government, and financial management and accountability, it would eliminate the clause making reference to, in this clause at least, the default mechanism of those bands who cannot or will not introduce the vision of the world the federal government wants to impose on them.

So now, under this proposed amendment of Mr. Loubier, it would add a paragraph that says that the purposes of the bill would be as well, and I quote:

to protect the freedom of bands to choose their own means of achieving transparency, accountability and good governance in accordance with their traditions and cultures.

That actually capsulizes quite well what we heard on the road in our four weeks of touring. If you are intent on imposing this bill and ramming it through in these unreasonable timeframes, then at least state the purposes of the bill so as not to offend every first nation out there in the country.

I want to thank the honourable member, Mr. Loubier, from the Bloc Québécois for capsulizing it so well, for taking all that we heard and rendering it down into a manageable concept that we can appreciate. I think even members on the government side surely would be able to support it. We don't see any way of stopping the government from imposing this bill on the Canadian people.

We were told, at the onset, that this bill was coming to this committee at first reading for the express purpose of being able to see it substantially amended, based on what we heard in the field. That was the commitment and the promise made to us by the minister when it came to us at first reading.

Now the first amendment that we have to deal with, I believe, is in keeping with the spirit of, as I say, not only what we heard but what we were promised. So if we intend to defuse some of the damage done by the faulty process, by the lack of consultation, and by this entirely unrealistic timeframe.... This timeframe, I argue, Mr. Chair, offends the principles of natural justice because I haven't been given the time to do justice to these 199 amendments. I received this book of amendments at 9:30 a.m. today. And many of these amendments I've never seen before, other than those I wrote myself.

So how in God's name can we do the most comprehensive and sweeping changes to the Indian Act in 50 years, how can we do justice to an issue of such seriousness when I've had not even six hours to deal with it? Frankly, I've been in the House of Commons for question period and for votes for almost half of that time.

So I protest in the strongest possible terms about the unreasonable timeframes. And I question the intent of the government if it is at all to elevate the living standards of aboriginal people in this country. There is no justification that has been presented to us in any way as to why this bill has to be dealt with in such a tight timeframe. What harm would it do to give it six weeks, to give it a couple of months, to allow this information to percolate through aboriginal communities so that there's a broader understanding of what's going to happen? It's going to change the way they do business forever.

By the time people even realize what's going on here, it's going to be too late. The bill will be passed and there won't even be opportunities for amendments. In the absence of some relief in the timeframe, at least we can make meaningful changes to the bill during this clause-by-clause analysis now.

I'd like to point out that because our committee researcher and her staff did such an incredible job of analyzing the hundreds and hundreds of presentations that we had brought before us, I would--

º (1635)

The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm not finished.

The Chair: Yes, you are. Your 10 minutes is up.

Anyone else on the amendment?

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): I haven't had the time that I would like to carefully scrutinize it, but on the surface, I think this is supportable from my point of view. I don't see any major problem. In fact, there are certain things that we would quite agree with and that would be reflected in some of our other amendments.

There's a more succinct amendment coming that we will support, which we've thrown in on this particular clause, Mr. Chair.

I have expressed this to the parliamentary secretary. I'm a little troubled by the process that took place here.

I try to be conscientious and diligent as a member of this committee in doing my job in terms of amendments and so on, and, frankly, it's been at a fairly breakneck speed. Frankly, I haven't had the opportunity to look over and compare the government amendments with amendments we've brought forward with the original bill or to even have some discussions with the NDP, the BQ, and so on to understand what in fact they meant by some of these things.

Perhaps their interpretation and mine might differ, and it's sometimes good to get that background and understanding of what's intended, or even some legal comment in terms of what would the sense of it be if this were ever in a courtroom situation.

I want to have on the record here that I am disturbed by the breakneck speed and the intent to have it through and reported to the House.

As I look here at these amended paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) in clause 3, I think that all around, how can you differ with the fact of providing bands with more effective tools of governance on an interim basis, pending the completion of self-government arrangements?

We as a party, and certainly most members around the House, are desirous of getting beyond the Indian Act, of getting to the point of self-government arrangements in our country. I think that's where we're headed.

So I would agree with paragraph 3(c), which says:

to facilitate the fulfillment by the Government of Canada of its commitment to negotiate and implement self-government arrangements;

Anything that facilitates that, that makes that transition possible, I think we can certainly agree with those words.

I think, again, it makes a lot of sense, and I quote:

to enable bands to respond more effectively to their particular governance needs and aspirations, including the ability to collaborate for certain purposes;

It has to come from within. The Harvard study and others make the claim that there has to be this kind of ownership. And who could disagree with that?

Then it goes on to say, and I quote:

to enable bands to design and implement their own regimes in respect of leadership selection, administration of government and financial management and accountability;

Of course, in fact, that, as I understand it, is what Bill C-7 is about, Mr. Chair, to enable bands to do those things. Again, how could one differ when in fact that's the intent of the particular bill that's before us?

And further, it says:

to protect the freedom of bands to choose their own means of achieving transparency,

We want that as members around the House. I would have to believe, at least as they've expressed that to me, that first nations would want that leadership for their own protection and for the benefit of their bands. Their nations want that, and I quote:

accountability and good governance in accordance with their traditions and cultures.

On those particular points, I, for my part, am in support of this as best as I understand it here. Again, my only sense of dismay is that we don't have more time to have the interactions with other members around the table and even off to the side, in conversations informally, to see where these dovetail and where these synchronize with one another.

So I for one will be voting in support of Mr. Loubier's amendment at this particular point in the bill.

º (1640)

The Chair: Anyone else?

Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This clause addresses the purposes of the act.

This is the first discussion we've had on Bill C-7 that's on the public record. There certainly have been some interesting discussions in camera, but this is the first chance we've had to speak on the record.

I want to dispel the accusation out there that the Canadian Alliance somehow supports this bill in some kind of covert agreement with the government. That's certainly not the case. At this point in time our party is not supporting the bill. On the other hand, we're not prepared to filibuster this bill in an effort to scrap it, as other parties have. We think, as my colleague said, that there is some merit in some parts of this bill, which would move the lives of aboriginal people forward. While we don't agree with the entire bill, at this point in time I have to take the minister's word that he's open to improvements to the bill. I'll take his word until we hear something different.

One of the reasons we would not support this bill at this time is the lack of commitment on the part of the minister and the government to provide the resources to implement this bill. The issues dealt with in this bill will be very expensive to initiate. I cannot fault aboriginal governments for being concerned about that issue when you look at the history, particularly of Bill C-31, and the willingness of the government of the day to pass a bill imposing huge costs on bands across the country and not accompanying that with the resources to implement that particular bill of the government. I think it would have gone a long way toward garnering support for this bill if there had been some kind of commitment to accompany the bill with the resources to implement it.

We plan to put forward a number of amendments that I think will make this clause better and will provide some effective changes to the bill.

Along with my colleague, I see no particular reason we couldn't support this amendment to clause 3 of the bill.

We're approaching this with some concern and trepidation about the government's intent. I want it fully understood that this is a government bill. If this bill goes forward in anything like the form we see it in today, we will not be supporting it. The government has to bear full responsibility for the outcome of this process.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

º (1645)

The Chair: Thank you.

Does anyone else wish to comment?

Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I am very happy to see that my colleagues of the NDP and the Canadian Alliance support my amendment. Furthermore, I deplore, as do they, the fact we feel rushed while studying a bill of such considerable scope. The Indian Act has existed for 130 years and the bill which, according to the minister, would replace this legislation, will be adopted in a few short weeks. This will allow very little time for debate, and will it seems be based on questionable analyses carried out by the committee.

I would like to come back to what Mr. Chatters was saying earlier. It is not a matter of sabotaging the legislation, but of making certain things clear by adopting the amendments we are proposing, such as the first amendment suggested by the Bloc Québécois, amendment BQ-5 to clause 3.

This, among other things, would highlight how this bill, in its very introduction, does not correspond to this new type of discussion and relationship that we claim to want to have with the first nations.

You can see that as far as Quebec is concerned—more specifically with regard to the Paix des braves (Peace of the Brave) agreement with the Cree of James Bay, and the agreement with four Innu communities, for example— the discussions surrounding those agreements were not initiated in the same manner as those concerning Bill c-7. The discussions concerning the aformentioned agreements were launched in a climate of trust and mutual respect. That is not what seems to surround this bill.

Those other agreements were drawn up in a spirit of respect for who we are and who the first nations are, as well as respect for what we call the inherent right to self-government. Furthermore, the first part of my amendment aims to counter an unfortunate, all-too-frequent perception with regard to the first nations, namely that the idea that the right to self-government is to be negotiated. And that is the perception that we find in the legislation.

With my amendment I remove that aspect, but here is what is written in the legislation:

3. The purposes of this act are:

a) to provide bands with more effective tools of governance on an interim basis pending the negotiation and implementation of the inherent right of self-government;

The sovereignty of nations is not subject to negotiation. It is a right that they hold. Are we ever going to understand that? Will the bureaucrats ever understand that if you want to start anew, the recommendations of the Erasmus-Dussault Commission are the ones that we will have to use? And from this, there stem a certain number of premises that are logical, modern, and respect the need for mutual trust and understanding between nations, as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And this last element would ensure that international organizations such as the United Nations could stop pointing the finger at Canada and asserting that our relations with the first nations here contravene rights and freedoms.

Could we not have set off on a new footing, not by negotiating an inherent right but by recognizing it, thus confirming the numerous decisions made by the Supreme Court? Here we are dealing with handing over powers to the first nations, thus responding to their wish to govern themselves in areas such as the environment, employment, housing, education and health.

We should assist first nations rather than tell them what to do, rather than to them a code of governance or tell them what they must do with their inherent right to self-government and their rights stemming from treaties which they have signed in the past. All we have to do is support them and try to repair the damage caused by the Indian Act over 130 years.

As opposed to what my colleagues said earlier, Bill C-7 does not replace the Indian Act, it superimposes itself upon it. Many legal minds, among them the Quebec Bar and the Indigenous Bar Association, feel that there will be major interpretation difficulties as to the application of Bill C-7 and its relationship to the Indian Act and many other pieces of federal legislation, among them the Canada Labour Code. Those are examples that have been brought to our attention.

º (1650)

The second thing that this amendment would do—and I am happy that Mr. Chatters said that this is what the bill requires— is to ensure that first nations are able to find their own methods of building transparent systems, accountability, but based on their own customs and their owns desires.

I want to remind my colleague that in the bill proper, and that is what I am changing with my amendment, it is stated in paragraph (c), in reference to first nations:

(c) to enable bands to design and implement their own regimes in respect of leadership selection, administration of government and financial management and accountability...

It is okay up to there, but it then continues:

... while providing rules for those bands that do not choose to do so.

By what authority can our nation impose upon other sovereign nations, which have an inherent right to self-government, codes or regulations which they must apply, while stating at the same time that they have an inherent right to self-government that should be negotiated nation to nation? That doesn't work, you have to walk the talk.

So I come back to what my colleague Pat Martin was saying earlier. The minister, during question period, made a rather cynical response when he answered a question dealing with the housing of first nations; he said that he understood that people wanted him to implement all of the recommendations of the Erasmus-Dussault Commission. Of course, that is what we want and that is what everyone wants. The Erasmus-Dussault Commission is not a joke. It is a royal commission that came to conclusions which were generally recognized by all, even by some very capable jurists who heard many cases, who condemned the federal government in its relation with first nations, and who confirmed, ruling after ruling, at the Supreme Court level, that there was an inherent right to self-government and that these rights stem from treaties signed a long time ago.

This type of attitude is very difficult to understand. People who had been working for years with the first nations felt that the royal commission report was an incredible offering made by a standing committee composed of first nations representatives and non-aboriginal representatives, an incredible lifeline tendered to allow us to climb out of a historical quagmire and start again in an environment of mutual respect and harmonious relations. Why did we not seize that unique opportunity? Why is all that being set aside? Why, when we have harmonious, respectful and mutually beneficial relations, do we not use this opportunity to produce a piece of legislation that builds on this philosophy, and respects who we are, and the first nations and their aspirations?

Secondly, the representatives of the first nations have to deal day after day with the difficulties inherent in applying the current Indian Act, with an unprecedented monopoly held by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and even with the daily intimidation of department staff. Why can't we just admit that we made a mistake, that we were wrong and that we will start again? This new start could ensure that we will no longer be blamed, not even by the Human Rights Commission or the United Nations, that it can no longer be said that Canada does not respect is fiduciary responsibilities and does not recognize the first nations, that no one will ever have to live with this type of situation in the future. But no. The decision was made to introduce a bill which, it is unanimously felt, will create more legal challenges that we have ever seen before. One which, instead of ensuring that first nations can benefit from their human and financial resources to develop themselves, will force them to use these human and financial resources to fight yet another battle. First nations will have to do battle with the federal government in court and the situation will evolve just at it has over the past several decades.

º (1655)

I don't think that makes any sense. That is the spirit that I wanted to see in this legislation by way of my amendments. I hope that the members of the committee will be able to accede to my request.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

A voice: Hear, hear!

The Chair: Someone will have to tell that young lady that that is not acceptable in a committee room and urge that she not do that again, please.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I would like a recorded vote, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: We have a request for a recorded vote.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Speaking of unacceptable behaviour, you should perhaps correct your own sometimes. That might be a good idea.

[English]

(Motion negatived: nays ?; yeas ?)

The Chair: The motion is defeated.

Amendment NDP-5, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: I would have hoped this amendment wouldn't be debated now, because had Mr. Loubier's amendment passed, which was more sweeping and comprehensive, we wouldn't have found it necessary to have this line debated.

This amendment seeks to amend paragraph 3(a) by changing lines 12 to 14 with the following: deleting the words “pending the negotiation and implementation of the inherent right of self-government” and replacing those words with “pending the conclusion of self-government agreements”.

This is a significant difference in the approach towards the language and the purpose of the act. Because of the nature of this particular clause, clause 3 being the stated purpose and goal of the act, it was necessary, we believe, on behalf of first nations across the country, to be abundantly clear that the government is bound by the obligation to conclude self-governance agreements individually. If this bill is to become law, then, in the interim there will be enabling measures regarding accountability, etc., but nothing should stand in the way of the very clear, stated objective that these interim measures will be in place pending the conclusion of self-governance agreements.

It was necessary, we felt, to include that language in order to give some satisfaction to the many, many presenters across the country who made it abundantly clear that Bill C-7 offends on every level; that the very people that Bill C-7 will most profoundly affect did not have the opportunity to have significant input into what would be included in this bill. To make up for that shortfall in genuine consultation, the government very clearly stated that at least at the committee stage we'll be able to entertain lots of amendments. Whatever you don't see in the bill now or whatever you failed to get across to the government in this sham that was the consultations, your opportunity will be at the committee stage to make meaningful amendments.

The minister promised this. The minister made it clear across the country that there would be the opportunity. Now we find it necessary to bring forward significant amendments because we can't find anybody across the country who wants this bill in its current form. To be accurate, a few individuals out of the many hundreds of presenters said they were in favour of this bill. They were speaking as individuals, not as elected representatives of any band council, tribal council, or plenary group such as the Assembly of First Nations.

The current attempt to even further stifle the debate on these bills, by moving closure and time allocation, adds insult to injury. It compounds the offence that is Bill C-7 when you not only, it looks like, are going to not allow any relevant amendments, but you're not even going to allow adequate time to do justice to many of the issues we're dealing with here today.

As Mr. Loubier pointed out, we're dealing with a weighty subject matter here. We're dealing with the transfer of jurisdictional authority from nation to nation. This is not something you do lightly or in a cavalier fashion by presenting us with 199 amendments at 9:30 in the morning today and asking us to make our presentation regarding the merits of those amendments at 3:30 in the afternoon of the same day. You could have a bunkhouse full of lawyers busy on this for weeks trying to translate what this really means to the lives of the people whose lives we are messing around with here today.

A voice: Hear, hear!

Mr. Pat Martin: This is exactly what we're doing. We're affecting the lives of ordinary people in small communities and first nations communities around the country. We trivialize their issues by this trivial amount of time that we have to deal with this bill.

Yes, I know you're mad at me because I filibustered, Mr. Chair. And every time I raise the fact that we don't have enough time, you say, well, you wasted all those hours filibustering. That's not the point. I'm not talking about a few hours here and there; I'm talking about months.

» (1700)

This bill should be given the fullness of time over the summer, so that leadership can consult in a genuine way with their membership to say, “Here's what the government is proposing to do to us; do you understand it?” and so that they may have an exchange, because consultation without accommodation is meaningless. You're just telling people what you're going to do to them if you don't accommodate some of the things they say back to you. But there's been none of that exchange.

In the most paternalistic way possible, and I'm not using that term lightly, we're going to impose these changes on people without even, I suspect, the MPs across the way understanding what these clauses mean. They can't, and I don't say that to be critical or mean-spirited. You can't possibly understand what all these amendments are because you haven't had time to study them either. Some of the Liberal Party members didn't even get their amendments yesterday.

I appeal to the members of the committee in the interests of basic fairness and again of natural justice. These issues require more attention than we can give them by working through the evening tonight, and all night if the chair gets it in his bonnet that we have to sit all night. How can we possibly tamper with the lives of ordinary Canadians or with the first nations people in such a cavalier way? I just can't believe it.

The committee is flying in the face of comments made even by the minister on April 1 of this year. Answering a question, he said, “We did send the bill to committee before second reading to give the committee members plenty of time to look at it in detail.” And then the government--the parliamentary secretary or former parliamentary secretary--moves a motion to limit dealing with the issue.

On the one side the minister is telling the general public that we're so concerned about this bill we're giving it to the committee at first reading--a rare move--so that the committee will have ample time to amend it, to craft it, and to hear witnesses.

But we heard all those witnesses and they all said they don't want it, they don't like it, it doesn't meet their needs, it insults them, it offends them, it compounds the historic imbalance in the relationship between the federal government and aboriginal people. In every sense they condemned it, from one clause to the end.

» (1705)

The Chair: Could I ask you to speak to your amendment, please?

Mr. Pat Martin: That's exactly why I'm urging colleagues to vote for this amendment, for all the reasons I'm citing. Here we're dealing with one aspect of a simple clause still really at the introduction stage of this bill. We need to revisit the language in the purposes of the act to address some of the legitimate concerns brought forward by presenters on our four-week cross-country tour, all of whom--and I say all, knowing full well there was an exception of one or two individuals who supported the bill--objected to the tone, the content, and the process dealing with Bill C-7.

I doubt there's ever been such a universal condemnation of any piece of legislation in the history of Canada. I doubt there's ever been such unanimity in the scorn and derision we heard about this piece of legislation. I don't know of any other bill that has met with such animosity and such unanimity in the condemnation.

I'm sure the members across will say, oh, it was a conspiracy, just as they always say with labour leaders--big, bad, labour leaders are hog-troughing and trying to protect.... Well, they have the same attitude about big Indian leadership--it's not the grassroots, it's leadership trying to protect their positions of corruption or something. That's what this bill implies, that there's such widespread graft and corruption out there it's necessary to throw everything to the wind in terms of common decency and consultation and to impose this heavy-handed legislation, when we know the empirical evidence is in fact the inverse. Everything we've heard from the experts says that 96% of first nations already are in full compliance with any provisions about accountability and transparency, and of those remaining 4%, those who get into difficulty usually get into difficulty because they're charged with the impossible task of trying to meet the basic needs of their constituents with inadequate resources.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, I'm not finished speaking.

The Chair: Your ten minutes are up.

Before I go to Mr. Hubbard and then Mr. Tonks, I'm not mad at anybody. What was done was done legally, and I'm not going to get mad at people for doing things legally.

Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'll try to be brief. We have a lot of amendments, and with these I think we have to look at them very seriously. From what I can gather from the tone of the interventions to date, there are those around our table who simply want to see the bill not proceed and there are others who want to see a good bill being created. With this, of course, we as members are going to have to judge the amendments that are before us, whether they are good amendments or whether or not they are nuisance amendments simply to take up the time of the committee.

With that, I think it's important for all of us as members to stick to the amendment and to outline to other members around the table the purpose of the amendment and not some great philosophical debate on labour and Indian chiefs and so forth, which are really outside the amendment that's being addressed by our committee.

Mr. Martin, I've dealt with labour for a long time and we've--

The Chair: Your comments through the chair, please.

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

But in terms of clause 3, it deals with the purpose of the act. In terms of the amendment that's before the committee at present, it seems to change lines 12 to 14. At present the bill reads:

pending the negotiation and implementation of the inherent right of self-government;

The change that's being asked is to delete those words and add “pending the conclusion of self-government agreements”. I'm not sure that's of great significance. I guess in terms of the rules that this committee has established, Mr. Chair, the presenter of the amendment has time at the end to conclude his presentation and to indicate to us around the table what's significant. I haven't heard that yet.

Our drafters have paid very careful attention to the law as it exists. It's my opinion that they've done a good job with it, and I certainly, as parliamentary secretary, am not convinced by the argument Mr. Martin has put forward. It would indicate that his few words have a greater significance than the ones that say “pending the negotiation”, which in many cases is under advisement at present, and “implementation” of what most first nations think as their “inherent right of self-government”. I think the government's presentation is quite clear, and I'm sure most members will support what is written.

I'd like to emphasize, Mr. Chair, the purpose of the act in terms of anything that would happen in the future. I think some members have indicated that there could be further interventions by higher authorities than ours. We want to make sure, at least in the purpose of the act, that it's very clear and it meets the minimum standards that our legal people would need in terms of any discussions they might have with the future of the bill. In terms of myself, and I think most members on this side of the table, we want to make sure clause 3 is very clear and is not subject to interpretation by others.

» (1710)

The Chair: Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks (York South—Weston, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, my comments are to the amendment, and I hope they're relevant to the continuation of many of the amendments and to the spirit of the amendments.

At the outset, in terms of the process, it has been said by the honourable member opposite that the spirit of this process violates the notion of natural justice. I would just like to say that my understanding of natural justice is, in terms of process, what amounts to fair and just hearing. Fair and just hearing in terms of natural justice means you listen to both sides and then you take action with respect to what you have listened to.

You do not do that in a vacuum. You do not do that without hearing from the various protagonists to the piece. But it doesn't suggest at any point that you're not going to have to make decisions.

Mr. Chairman, I count roughly 35 amendments that the government is moving to this piece of legislation, which suggests to me that in terms of natural justice, the process is a dynamic one of listening and then making a judgment. The suggestion that this has been done in aberration to that process is unfounded, based on what I know through my experience to be the process of natural justice and due process under a procedural architecture or regimen.

The second thing I'd like to say is that I disagree with my colleague on this side that the wording that is being suggested is one of little significance. Again--and I'm not a legalist in terms of what these words mean--it seems to me when you talk about what the government is putting forward in terms of the inherent right of self-government, this is taking a leaf out of the framers of the American constitution--and in fact our own constitution--and the concepts of John Locke, which talk about holding certain truths to be self-evident. The truths that are self-evident in terms of inherent rights are extremely significant in this preamble to the act--extremely significant.

I would suggest that those who wish to change that...and I say this with great respect. Along the lines of the suggested amendment, if I were a first nations representative, I would be very, very concerned with respect to taking out “pending the negotiation of...self-government”, and taking out “pending the negotiation and implementation of the inherent right of self-government”. What the government is doing is not only broadcasting a process that is very dynamic, but it is attributing values that have been well tried and tested in legislative law and have been constitutionally challenged.

So on behalf of first nations, I would argue very strongly against anything that would diminish the notion that is entrenched in the preamble to this legislation, because it is something that first nations, in association with their constitutional presence, have argued for many, many decades.

I would urge any of those who are moving amendments along those lines not to advocate something that is in fact taking a step backwards in terms of us meeting in a manner of equality and equity with first nations through this piece of legislation, at least the preamble at this point, because what is being suggested is much, much stronger.

» (1715)

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: What we find is wrong with the bill is precisely the fact that in the preamble ideas that we respect and cherish are invoked, ideas that contain, as you have just indicated, the values that we defend, and yet there is nothing at the heart of the legislation which directly upholds anything set out in the preamble. And that is where there is a contradiction.

When we refer to natural justice, when we say that we must listen to what is said on both sides of an issue and then come to a decision, I agree, but here, we seem to have listened only to one side, namely that of Ottawa and those in Minister Robert Nault's office. We have not listened to the first nations' side. If we want to really take into account a certain form of natural justice, we would have to admit that from the first nations' side, there is almost unanimous opposition to this bill. That is what we heard, and it is not simply rhetorical to wonder why right at the beginning of the core of the bill, ideas such as “pending the negotiation... of the the inherent right of self-government” are to be found.

Of course, that is the underlying philosophy, but it reflects the philosophy that guides the governement and allows it to present such legislative measures, which do not at all reflect what should appear in this bill. Self-government is clearly not a negotiable idea. The fact that the government has introduced 35 amendments does not mean that through the concept of natural justice, it has somehow listened to the first nations. Most of the government amendments —i suspect that very few people here have even read them—do not respond to the concerns of the first nations. They are amendments which would leave the least possible margin for error in the application of the bill and would maintain the nebulous aspect of the sections it contained initially.

I think that the values set forward in the preamble are not being respected when the bill refers to the negotiation of the inherent right to self-government. It's quite the opposite. If the preamble is concerned with this fundamental right to self-government, then in the body of the bill there should be no reference to negotiating an inherent right. That is nonsensical, an absurdity.

If there is to be found in the preamble of the bill, a spirit akin to that of the Erasmus-Dussault commission as to the right of first nations to govern themselves and to choose how to do so, then in the body of the bill there should be no clauses stating that things will be imposed upon aboriginal nations if they don't make up their minds quickly enough concerning what is good for them.

The principles of mutual respect and the values that the bill could have espoused are not to be found in the clauses which count when comes time to provide a legal interpretation. The amendments that we are proposing, the amendment of Mr. Martin among them, which I support, would recognize in the body of the bill, the need for self-government and the right to self-government.

Earlier, we tried to make more substantial changes, which would even have changed section 3, concerning the negotiation of inherent rights. You voted against those. I believe that Mr. Martin, with his amendment, is at the very least trying to preserve the right to self-government, and we cannot do otherwise but support his amendment.

Compared to the preamble, the body of the bill is a clear step backward. When one reads the preamble, one is almost satisfied. One looks at it, and it makes sense. But the body of the bill is nonsensical. I think that someone who would have to give a summary of the bill based solely on the preamble would have a very distorted view of its content, of the scope and the spirit of the bill, because the bill does not live up to its preamble.

We want to be constructive in order to present a bill which is acceptable to the first nations and we are attempting, in each section, as I did with section 3 and as my colleague Pat Martin is attempting to do with lines 13 through 15 of section 3, to ensure that the worthwhile sentiments of the preamble are truly expressed in the body of the bill.

» (1720)

I believe it is our duty to do so and we must demonstrate a very fine understanding of our responsibilities when we consider a bill such as this one and when we study it clause-by-clause. As Mr. Martin indicated earlier, we did ask for legal opinions on the scope of these sections, but we have yet to receive them.

We have been able to see what types of problems could be caused by certain parts of Bill C-7 as compared to the current Indian Act and other federal legislation. But no exhaustive study of each of the clauses was done, nor of the complications which could stem from adopting a clause which could conceivably be in contradiction with federal legislation on the environment or federal labour legislation, for example. How can we be satisfied with an inadequate job which does not allow us to understand the true scope of section 3 or of the other sections contained in this bill? As far as I'm concerned, I'm not used to working this way.

Since my election to the House of Commons, bills on public financing, for example, have been very closely scrutinized. We proposed amendments which, in most cases, were acceptable to your colleagues. Here, it would seem impossible to make any improvement at all. As soon as the opposition suggests something, whether it pertains to the inherent right to self-government and to the upholding of this right, whether it be self-government itself, as soon as we remove all the irritants which came to light during meetings with our witnesses, we are told that that is anti-governmental. It is not anti-governmental, but rather pro-governmental. We are trying to find ways to improve a bill so that the government will be in a better position, and have more harmonious relations with the first nations. Then, over the following decades, it could develop less acrimonious relations than those which have prevailed over the past 60 years.

Many people told us that instead of reducing the difficulties, acrimonious relationships would be tripled. And we have to believe those people. They are the ones who will have to apply the various sections of Bill C-7 if it is adopted by the House of Commons. If they're expressing fears and criticisms about this bill, it is not without foundation. One of the harshest criticisms dealt with clause 3, where it is spelled out that an inherent right is negotiable. An inherent right is not negotiable. It also states that if first nations do not choose the codes they shall apply in terms of government transparency, these codes will be imposed upon them.

And the worst of it all—and I will demonstrate to you, my dear colleague, to what extent this is a botched job—is that we asked the officials of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether they had any idea at all about the codes or the rules that would be imposed upon first nations. The answer was no; these codes and regulations have yet to be drafted.

We don't know yet what we're going to impose upon them, but we are going to impose something upon them since it is stated in the legislation. How, therefore, are we to evaluate the nature of the bill and of a provision such as this one if we cannot provide first nations with an example of the code which would be imposed by default if they don't come up with their own code, dealing with how leaders are to be chosen or how funds are to be managed, among other things?

Of course, we are scrutinizing section 3 very closely because it is the starting point of the legislation. As a basic premise, it is a very bad idea to talk about negotiation and the inherent right to self-government while trying to impose conditions upon first nations, nations whom we consider sovereign just as we are, by using the pretext that they were not able to provide themselves with administrative or democratic codes within a given timeframe. I find that it's a very bad way of going about things.

The bill does not constitute a part of some of the good things that could be done in concert with the first nations. What would be useful for them would be to negotiate the framework for self-government and the lands upon which this self-government would be exercised. It would also be a good idea to deal with compensation for damages, because in the past, first nations have been damaged. And we have many examples of this.

Many of them have been chased off their land. They were made to move as soon as major underground oil resources were discovered. Or they were removed and placed into reservations when we discovered that the lands that they occupied constituted incredibly valuable forest land.

» (1725)

Forestry companies arrived and clear-cut the land, thus depriving them of their traditional hunting, fishing and trapping areas. If those are not damages... We developed natural resources...

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to get a better understanding of what this particular amendment is meant to do. I share the view of Mr. Tonks that it might in fact undercut the interests of first nations to make it almost vague or more general here. I think it's pretty precise, and rather helpfully so, where it says “to provide bands with more effective tools of governance on an interim basis”. I think we're agreed on that in either case here. It then says “pending the negotiation and implementation of the inherent right of self-government”. I would have thought that would be more helpful language that would protect the interests of first nations. Maybe Mr. Martin in his wrap-up comments would assist us in trying to better understand how this is an improvement. I think that having wording in respect of the inherent right of self-government is a beneficial thing from the point of view of first nations. Perhaps Mr. Martin would define what the difference is here. It's something that I'm not understanding at this point. I would hope that Mr. Martin would expand on what the intent of that is.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Vellacott.

Does anyone else wish to comment?

Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters: I have just a few brief comments, Mr. Chairman. I think this clause goes to the very heart of my and my party's desire to turn this bill into something we can support and that will help aboriginal people. That very phrase we're looking at, “pending the negotiation and implementation of the inherent right of self-government”, is, in my view, an admission by the minister that those negotiations are essentially going nowhere. We've been working at them for ten years. We're not going to reach any agreement soon because of a huge difference between the aboriginal leaders' and the minister's definition of what self-government is. This is an admission that we're not going to get there for a very long time unless somebody is willing to change their position on the definition of inherent right and self-government.

With this bill being, as it states here, an interim measure until we do that, it may be what we have to guide us in band governance for many years to come. That's what makes it so important that we get this bill right, so that it does provide that guidance until somewhere down the road we actually come to a common understanding of the definition of self-government. I think that's what makes this bill so important and this definition of the purpose of the act equally important. I think that, as my colleague said, reference to the inherent right has to be preferable to first nations people than simply negotiated self-government. So I think it's very important.

» (1730)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We'll now go to Mr. Martin for his closing remarks.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would ask that after I have made my closing comments and have answered some of these points, the technical people also be asked their opinion of the impact of the language I'm proposing compared to the language that's in the bill. Would that be appropriate?

The Chair: No. It would have been appropriate to ask their opinion before, because you won't be able to respond or question. I certainly would encourage members to ask their opinion, but not after no one is allowed to speak because then you won't be able to pursue the explanation. Maybe for this time we can ask them if they have comments, but there won't be any debate on their comments. You're the last speaker.

Mr. Pat Martin: That wasn't clear at the outset, but I'm happy to do that.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I have a point of order. You raise a good issue. I want to have a good understanding of how we should proceed in terms of questions to them. After the amendment has been spoken to by the mover, is that the time to do the questions and--

The Chair: Make your presentations. If you have questions of witnesses, you ask them. If it needs a long explanation, I will stop the time. That's the way to proceed.

At the end, having been asked questions, I have no problem in giving the floor--and I will give him the floor after. But on this one amendment, we have all spoken. The last speaker has the floor, and now we say “Now can we ask questions?” We're going to be here until Easter. I'm not going to help you stall just for the sake of stalling.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: If I understand this, Mr. Chairman, you are suggesting that if I were the mover of a particular motion, if I initially made my comments in the first ten minutes, that would be the point to do my query to the specialists and guests we have here, and then in the last--

The Chair: I find it difficult that you would explain your position if you have questions you need clarified. The first thing I would do is ask for clarification, and then make my statement. The explanation may alter the position you have. Why get an opinion after you've stated yours and put it on record? They're here to help us. Certainly, for getting information from our witnesses, I will be easier with time than I would be with members.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: That's fair. So if I'm not the mover of the amendment and I want to ask questions of them, I can do that within my ten-minute block.

The Chair: When you have the floor, it's yours, and I will cooperate to try to get as much information from our witnesses as we can. But I find it difficult to ask for information at the end of the speeches.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Right.

The Chair: I would invite the observers to stay at the other end, please. Members' assistants will be able to sit behind the members.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think I understand you to say that in this case at least...frankly, I wasn't clear on what the order would be to make use of our technical advisers--

The Chair: If you will permit, I will not allow a debate to engage. If you have questions, ask them as you leave. They will give their explanation, and we'll go to the vote.

Mr. Pat Martin: I understand.

I think I agree, in part, at least, with Mr. Tonks, as the first speaker from the government side on this particular motion. The language I'm putting forward has greater weight than what's in the current bill, and that's the very reason why we moved to this change in language.

As Mr. Loubier pointed out, the first and most obvious reason, on the face of it, would be that you don't negotiate inherent rights. And to even use the term “pending the negotiation of the inherent right to self-government” offends virtually every presentation that we heard across the country.

I didn't invent this particular amendment. I'm taking guidance from, and I thank again, Mary Hurley, our researcher, and her staff for this compilation of some of the briefs we heard.

This language was recommended by Satsan Herb George, B.C. regional vice-chief, in collaboration with the First Nations Summit Chiefs-in-Assembly, the United Native Nations, and the Shuswap Tribal Council. So they collectively, in all of their presentations, had the same recommendation for this particular bill, and I'll read it through in both ways to be abundantly clear. The current language in Bill C-7 says, and I quote:

The purposes of this Act are

(a) to provide bands with more effective tools of governance on an interim basis pending the negotiation and implementation of the inherent right of self-government;

The language that is proposed by Vice-Chief Satsan Herb George, as well as the Kwakiutl District Council says that:

The purposes of this Act are

(a) to provide bands with more effective tools of governance onan interim basis pending the completion of self-government arrangements;

They believe it has more weight, it has more teeth. And the enforceable portions of the bill must contain language giving specific direction to and contemplating the conclusion of self-governance agreements.

That's some of the rationale they cite. They also cite that the measures set out in the bill extend beyond the purposes so expressed and they raise concerns that the purposes expressed in the preamble are not found within the enforceable part of the text.

So they, in their interest, seek to have that reference to the conclusion of self-governance agreements in the body of the bill, not in the flowery, romantic language of the preamble where you and I know all kinds of expansive statements can be made that are less enforceable.

Again, this isn't something we pulled out of our hat. It's not a frivolous amendment and it's not an amendment simply designed to stall and delay. I know the Liberal members suspect that we're only bringing forth these amendments in some way to undermine or to sabotage the workings of this committee. That's not true. We bring these amendments forward because we don't believe that first nations people have had the opportunity to have their opinions known at this committee table.

I can't help but think how flawed a process it is to have us sitting around this table making decisions on behalf of the first nations people when early on in this process I moved a motion at this committee to expand the representation and the membership of the committee to include three extra individuals, one person from the Assembly of First Nations, one person from the Congress of Aboriginal People, and one person from the Native Women's Association of Canada. We would be in fact hearing, in their own voice, the opinions, the hopes, and the aspirations of representatives of first nations at this table, instead of having them sit in the visitors' gallery and sneak notes to us to have their opinions known. It defies anybody's sensibilities to think this is right, that anything about this process is right.

» (1735)

I'm hoping Liberal members will see that this is something that has broad consensus by very thoughtful people who gave a great deal of time and attention to this particular act, what time they had, and knocked themselves out, frankly, in preparing very thoughtful and passionate briefs that we heard. I don't think anybody here could say they weren't touched by the very emotional presentations we heard. Many, many first nations people appealed to us in just those terms--to listen to them, to hear them, because this is what they're saying, this is what they want.

Although it has a substantial impact, it doesn't in a substantial way change the government's intentions or plans. It simply modifies the way we view the government's purposes, which they state in clause 3. So the enforceable aspects of the bill should be within the body of the text of the bill, and the very concept that you ever have to enter into negotiations to discuss or to win the inherent right to self-government is fundamentally wrong. It's 180 degrees opposite from everything we heard across the country. So we ask that--

» (1740)

Grand Chief Margaret Swan (Southern Chiefs' Organization): Mr. Chair, your committee is out of line. They're not listening.

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, I would appreciate people listening to the points I'm making because I'm not going to get this opportunity for very long. We're limited to ten minutes to craft the presentation surrounding an issue that speaks to the very idea of the transfer of jurisdictional authority from one government to a new form of government, a third level of government that the government will be creating.

When we had the constitutional debates around Charlottetown or around Meech Lake, no one put ten-minute time limits on presentations and nobody shut out one of the parties to those constitutional debates. These debates we're having around this table are just as important and just as weighty as those matters we were dealing with then, but here we have ten minutes to make our case on these clauses that will have a lasting and profound effect on the way 633 first nations govern themselves in the future.

I appeal to members of this committee to accept this logic and to accept the recommendations--not from me because I know there's bad blood apparently from across the table here--but listen to what the Penner-Jamieson report recommended, listen to what the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples recommended in terms of self-governance, and try to use that as our guidance in terms of how we conduct ourselves here today.

We won't reinvent things in an image we've never actually seen before and we won't be guided blindly, because even the regulations that will flow from these subsequent clauses here we've never seen yet because the regulations haven't been written. All the more reason why the very people who are affected want some comfort that they will understand fully that nothing happening here will derogate from or diminish their inherent rights. And if we're going to put into the text of the body of the act here the very concept that you have to negotiate the implementation of inherent rights, we're on a flawed premise.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin. We now go directly to the question.

Ready for the vote? Those in favour?

Mr. Pat Martin: Recorded vote.

The Chair: I would urge you to ask it--I allow enough time. I go slowly enough. I would urge members to ask for a recorded vote before I call the question and say “Ready for the question?” I allow time, so in the future, if a recorded vote is not asked before I say “Those in favour?” it will not be a recorded vote. For this time it will be a recorded vote.

Mr. Pat Martin: A separate point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: It's not a point of order.

Mr. Pat Martin: A separate point of order.

The Chair: A recorded vote on this motion at this time.

Mr. Pat Martin: I have a point of order that doesn't deal with the recorded vote.

The Chair: I called the question.

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, the point of order is that we want to hear from our technical advisers regarding what they believe the difference is between my language and the language that's in the act. That's why they're here.

The Chair: Granted--

Mr. Pat Martin: You agree.

The Chair: --and I apologize.

Mr. Warren Johnson (Assistant Deputy Minister, Lands and Trust Services, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): We believe there's no substantial legal effect one way or the other with the two versions, or a different language, here. The difference, as has been pointed out, is that this amendment would remove reference to the inherent right and would substitute the word “conclusion” for “negotiation and implementation”.

The one caveat on that response is that negotiating and then dealing with the implementation issues on the inherent right is in fact what is done today. It's what's done in all the agreements, so that is a statement of that process. This bill legally is turned off when a self-government agreement is implemented.

“Concluded” is not defined in the current process. If the word “conclusion” creates a misinterpretation, that's the only caveat that we would put on it because the operable reference later in the bill is the reference to self-government agreements, which are excluded. The application of this bill is excluded from self-government agreements and that's at the point of implementation. That may be seen to be a small point, but that's the one caveat.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now a recorded vote.

» (1745)

Grand Chief Margaret Swan: Who do you work for, and who pays you?

The Chair: Someone will ask that lady not to do that again. We will ask her to be removed from this room.

(Amendment negatived: nays 10; yeas 2)

The Chair: I would ask the clerk if we should not start a recorded vote with the side where the mover of the motion is, as in the House, this being an extension of the House.

The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Elizabeth Kingston): Sure.

The Chair: Amendment BQ-6, Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Amendment 6, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chair: Page 16.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Amendment No. 6 yet again tries to repair that which seems irreparable, because even high level bureaucrats of the department cannot seem to agree on the interpretation of the bill and on the contradiction between the body of the bill per se and its preamble.

Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill C-7 be amended in clause 3 by substituting lines 13 through 15 by the following:

more efficient while awaiting the implementation of the existing rights of the first nations to self-determination

And that would replace the term "the negotiation of the inherent right of self-government" which is non-negotiable. I think that we expressed that point clearly enough.

And furthermore, I move that clause 3 be amended by the following:

(b) to reduce the frequency and the nature of the involvement of government departments in the governance and administrative decisions of first nations

And that is my amendment.

Why present this amendment which, and I'm repeating myself, ensures that we blunt down the contradictions without eliminating them? I would like to refer you to the preamble of the bill. I think that you will understand why we, specifically we, of the Bloc Québécois but also the NDP, feel that there is a contradiction between the two. Let's look at the example of lines 12 to 15 and you will probably find the same thing in the English version. And I quote:

that no efficient model of government had been established by the Indian Act, since that legislation was not created for this purpose;

We could have added to it, to put us into the spirit of what should be guiding us in this bill, by stating that we did not want to repeat the mistake made by the Indian Act, which wanted to subject first nations to several things, such as placing them on reserves, assimilating them, removing their rights. Whenever we discovered natural resources or forestry resources in a given area, the native communities were moved elsewhere under the pretext that it was the large oil companies, both Canadian and American, and the large forestry companies, who had the right to those lands.

And I would like to draw your attention more specifically to a section of the preamble where it states:

whereas the Government of Canada has adopted a policy recognizing the inherent right of self-government as an aboriginal right and providing for the negotiation of self-government;

Why not have reproduced this section of the preamble in the body of the bill in its interpretation clauses, and in particular in clause 3, which is a clause singled out as very important to 14 of the witnesses who appeared before us, with whom we discussed this at great length? Why? Because here it is stated very clearly. It states:

whereas the Government of Canada has adopted a policy recognizing the inherent right of self-government as an aboriginal right...

That is what we hoped for in clause 3, but this is nowhere to be found. Read what it says in clause 3:

(a) to provide bands with more effective tools of governance on an interim basis pending the negotiation and implementation of the inherent right of self-government

But it is not a matter of negotiating an inherent right. That inherent right must be recognized, as it is in the preamble.

My amendment would clarify things. Where it states under 3(a) that we are dealing with the "implementation of the inherent right of self-government" that covers not only the right to self-government, but also the right for first nations to decide their own fate, the right of first nations to self-determination. Which leads us to an old concept that is found even within the Canadian population when we talk about nation-building. There are many first nations who must rebuild themselves. Why? Because history tore them apart.

» (1750)

Therefore, when we speak of self-determination, we have to decide what it was in the past, what it is today, and what aspirations there are for the future and what tools of governance must be decided upon. That is what self-determination is. It covers everything.

The other part of the amendment states that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has much too much power to decide what is good or what is bad for first nations. We have to break this old mentality, this Rhodesian reflex which is a remnant of the Apartheid era in South Africa. We have to get rid of this mind- set where we are right and they are wrong. I can't stand this type of wording. Since I have been responsible for the native affairs file, I have decried this attitude in all quarters—it makes me sick— this attitude against communities that are considered nations, that have an inherent right to self-government, have the right to determine who they are and who they should be; and yet we want to tell them what to do.

And furthermore we heard, not only on clause 3 but on the body of the legislation, a great deal of evidence along the same lines; we believe that the people who appeared before us were sincere, were telling the truth. We were told that bureaucrats had too much power over their community, that the co-managers who were hired had too much power over the budget allocated to their communities, that even where the band council decided on a direction to be followed to further development towards self-determination, the co-manager told them that they couldn't do it and did whatever he or she decided instead.

We heard too much evidence of this type to believe that there is no such thing as a disrespect for self-determination and the inherent right to self-government. Furthermore, it is clear even in this bill, more specifically in clause 3. We have heard many people share with us their heartfelt emotion at having to continue to live under as infamous and hateful a piece of legislation as the Indian Act, which does not respect them, which does not offer any type of future, especially for young people. I cannot believe that all these people who appeared before us were liars, dishonest individuals, people who didn't feel that they were being beaten down yet again by some bloody piece of legislation they don't want.

And if that's how you feel, say so. I have the feeling that no matter what we've heard, no matter the briefs that we've read, no matter what we will introduce, you will always fight against what we present, with interpretations as far-fetched as that of Mr. Johnson earlier, who told us about weakening the scope of the bill.

The scope of the bill is so minor when it's compared to the inherent right to self-government. It represents nothing in terms of advancing land claims or claims for damages. It is worth nothing when it comes to the true problems facing the first nations. Don't come here and say that we the opposition are reducing the scope of the bill by requesting clarification as to the fundamental scope of the bill and the fundamental right to self-government of first nations.

The amendment that I propose does not aim to weaken the bill but rather to reinforce the bill and ensure that from the outset there be a solid basis and that the body of the legislation respect what is stated in the preamble. Don't come and tell me that it's all the same thing. It is not at all the same thing. It is stated in the preamble that, and I quote:

"whereas the Government of Canada has adopted a policy recognizing the inherent right of self-government as an aboriginal right"

and then it continues:

"and providing for the negotiation of self-government".

That is not the same thing. In the body of the bill it is stated that we are to negotiate what is a natural right of first nations, and here it is recognized as a natural right. There's one heck of a difference between the two. We can't work this way.

Imagine that right at the outset, in the three first pages of a bill, there are two major contradictions which would lead the courts to decide one way or the other, but certainly not in favour of the first nations, because in the preamble, the wording is much stronger than the wording in the body of the legislation.

My amendment would reinforce the bill to favour those most directly concerned, the members of the first nations.

» (1755)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey (Don Valley West, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I would like to make one comment on this and then I would like to use my time to ask the officials about their reaction to both parts of the proposed amendment.

The difficulty we may be facing, Mr. Chair, is this. Because there are two different parts to this amendment, we may like one but not the other, which of course means that we're at a problem and we'll have to vote against the whole thing.

I would like to invite the officials to use my time to respond separately to both (a) and (b) and to tell us what the consequence of making these amendments would be in terms of the effectiveness of the legislation. Are there any advantages to doing it this way? Are there disadvantages? And then we can come to our own conclusions.

The Chair: Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Warren Johnson: On the first point, in terms of legislative effectiveness, the first one is replacing language relating to the inherent right with that relating to the right of self-determination. The question there may be that the inherent right policy has other references in the bill earlier. It is commonly used terminology in Canada, whereas self-determination may be less familiar terminology.

I'm not sure whether the intent is to use that as something substantively different from the inherent right. That's the question that it would raise. At least coming from the English version on self-determination, whether that would create some confusion...because that's not terminology that's used in most communications and legal musings, at least in Canada, I think.

I'll ask my colleague to comment on that if there's anything more specific.

On the second, similarly I'm not sure what the legal impact would be in terms of the use of that language. Clearly, as the minister states, the intent, which is stated, of enabling would hopefully result in the ability to reduce the amount of ministerial interventions in the affairs of first nations. Whether you call that a cause or an effect and whether this is the wording you'd like to use for that is a judgment, I think, for the committee.

In terms of the effectiveness of the bill, I'll ask Mr. Beynon to comment perhaps.

Mr. Andrew Beynon (General Counsel, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): I would offer two technical comments.

In paragraph (a), the language referring to “right of indigenous peoples to self-determination” is more typically the type of language used in international instruments. The existing language, focusing on “negotiation and implementation of the inherent right of self-government”, again, linked to the similar language in the preamble, is more typically what is used in terms of the federal policy on negotiation of self-government.

So I guess it's a question of whether or not you want to give it the character of saying this is to provide bands with more effective tools on an interim basis, pending the results of the international matters, or whether it's the domestic inherent right negotiations.

On the second point, there is a small technical comment from me. In the drafting, the suggestion is partly to reduce the frequency and nature of intrusions. A small technical point to consider is whether it would be to reduce the frequency and to reduce the nature. I think the verb “reduce” tends to modify “frequency” and “nature”.

¼ (1800)

The Chair: Mr. Tonks.

Mr. Alan Tonks: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I appreciate the concerns that have been raised. Again, just to set the stage for the nature of our process here, Mr. Chairman, the notion that was raised in regard to the constitution of this committee is interesting. If I can go back to a comment that was raised by my colleague opposite, there's a body of opinion saying that in terms of administrative law dealing with tribunals and boards of inquiry, natural justice is undermined by the quest for equal treatment or by the very nature of trying to get so many points of view represented through the members of a committee.

I sit on Mr. Godfrey's subcommittee on the needs of children, particularly aboriginal children, where we have been reminded of how many points of view there are among the various first nations, Métis, and so on. In the desire to have natural justice, it would be difficult to have them all represented equally. As I've pointed out, natural justice is a process that we are in fact embarked on right now.

In terms of Mr. Loubier's amendment to replace lines 12 to 14, I would think that the existing wording, “pending the negotiation and implementation”, refers to an active process leading to a conclusion. What is being suggested here is different from what was recommended in the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, RCAP, where they talked about inherent rights and said that there will be processes that will be reflected from time to time as we move to the target of self-government. So they characterized it as a dynamic and active process.

So my conclusion would be, Mr. Chairman, that—

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]

Mr. Alan Tonks: I didn't know that that member had been elected in any of the constituencies in.... I'd ask, Mr. Chairman, for you to please keep some order here.

My conclusion is that it is stronger—

A voice: [Inaudible—Editor]

The Chair: The proceedings are suspended.

¼ (1810)

The Chair: Mr. Tonks, you have the floor.

Mr. Alan Tonks: My reading is again that the suggested amendment in fact weakens the process, which is one of providing a framework and the tools, if you will, for first nations to have more effective tools of governance, so I would argue against the amendment. While I don't argue against the intention to improve the bill, I don't think it does from the perspective of first nations people.

The second thing is to take lines 15 to 18, which in their present form are linked to the first clause, which is the introductory paragraph 3(a), “to provide bands with more effective tools of governance on an interim basis”. It is on an interim basis because, as the royal commission pointed out, there will be different points along the ways of negotiation where it will be necessary for that give and take. What I would suggest is that the clause would be that the bands have those tools “to reduce the frequency and nature of departmental and ministerial intrusion”. That is ridiculous. That in no way connects with paragraph 3(b) as it's outlined now, which is a negotiable, developing framework “to enable bands to respond more effectively to their particular needs and aspirations”, etc. If you link the first part of paragraph 3(a) with paragraph 3(b), it should be self-evident that it is in keeping with a negotiation that is a dynamic process, as opposed to ends that have already been predetermined.

I would argue that the government's position in the preamble is one that is an instrument in keeping with the negotiation that is taking place. It is within the context of the inherent right of self-government.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott, and then Mr. Martin.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: With respect to paragraph (a) under this particular amending clause, I think it almost goes without saying that every time you sit around a table you are discussing and agreeing to something. Although I understand what I think is meant when it's not up for negotiation, I also think it's a given, and you belie that when you sit at a table. In the province of Saskatchewan we have “three different tables on three different subject areas” and some goodwill back and forth. FSIN, I think, is making headway and there are some good agreements coming about there. In effect, the discussion, the agreement, that takes place as a result of those tables are to the point--probably by the spring--of signing with respect to self-government, at least an in-principle agreement. From my point of view, it goes without saying that every time you sit at a table you are discussing and agreeing with something. I'm not so sure why we'd want to necessarily indicate otherwise.

On the second part, paragraph (b), “to reduce the frequency and nature of departmental and ministerial intrusion into the governance and administration decisions of First Nations”, I think that does follow out of paragraph (a), so I'm not sure why you'd replace lines 15 to 18, which is up a different line altogether. The wording, the concept, discussed there in lines 15 to 18 is really up a different alley, it seems to me.

I would suggest, if one would agree with something of the spirit and the intent of point (b) but not so as to delete anything, the amendment of my colleague, Mr. Chatters, which we will discuss next. It is simply an addition after line 14 in this particular clause. In effect it is just to amplify a bit and to make plain that we “enable bands to achieve independence in the management of their affairs, which entails independence from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and from other umbrella organizations such as tribal councils”. I would think that may be in some sense preferable. If one agrees with either particular paragraph here, it may be preferable to simply go with Mr. Chatters' amendment, which is an addition to line 14--an insertion--that talks about how obviously self-government means in effect to remove the involvement on a day-to-day basis and independence then comes with that.

Although I don't have a particular problem with the second part here, I think the amending paragraph (a) is pretty much an assumed or a given every time you sit at a table with a bunch of people around it, including first nations and government, tripartite--federal, provincial, and the first nations people--as we do in Saskatchewan. I think it is an assumption of discussion and an agreement to something at the end of the day.

¼ (1815)

The Chair: Thank you Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, without unnecessarily repeating myself from the last clause, to which many similar arguments apply, let me point out that the wording in the current act suggests that Canada views self-government rights as contingent, that it's necessary to have negotiations before they exist. That's the way it could be viewed, and has been viewed, by the people who are recommending this amendment.

I want to compliment the member from the Bloc, Mr. Loubier, for bringing forward this change or recognizing the problem here. By replacing the current language in lines 12 to 14 with “pending the implementation of the existing right of indigenous people to self-determination”, it hits and addresses key points that go within the text of the document.

The government's view, or what you can assume is the government's view based on the current language, that it requires negotiation before rights to self-government exist, is not what the courts have been saying. It's in direct contrast to what the courts have been saying. It's not what the Penner-Jamieson report said 20 years ago. It's not what the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples said, in contrast to what Mr. Tonks would have us believe, and it's not what the Senate committee said recently. It's not certainly what first nations people have been saying.

I remember the presentation by the woman we just threw out, who is actually the vice-chair of the Liberal Party's commission on aboriginal people, ironically. But she made that very same point. They shouldn't have to be starting from a premise that they have to negotiate their right to self-determination or self-government.

The reason I think it's appropriate to cite the term “self-determination” in the purpose of the act is that is the reference we see in international covenants and documents that Canada has stipulated itself to or ratified. When you hear of the right of indigenous people to self-determination, that's the common phrasing you hear in international agreements. I don't believe there's any risk to using that kind of language here in terms of meaning for subsequent courts ruling on interpretation. I think the meaning would be clear and self-evident.

With regard to the second paragraph, (b), if we're talking about the purposes of the act, one of the purposes of the act that first nations people seek to achieve and seek to have stated clearly is to reduce the ministerial authority, or the discretionary authority of the minister, to intervene in the lives and the functioning of first nations communities. It's been pointed out to us again and again that Bill C-7 actually has the reverse effect. It actually expands the discretionary authority of the minister to intervene. It augments the discretionary authority in a number of places.

Not in the preamble, but at this preliminary stage of the act, in the clause title, “Purposes of Act”, a significant number of people want it stated clearly that it's one of the stated intentions of this act to diminish and reduce the discretionary authority of the minister to have an impact.

It's one of the very tenets of self-governance that as self-governance is implemented, even if it is on this interim and temporary basis, one of these main irritants will be reduced, if not eliminated, and that irritant is having the minister having the ultimate say, whether it's in default or in direct application of any of the codes of governance that will be either developed or imposed upon them if that's to be the case here.

It's clear to me that both of these are very appropriate within the purposes of the act. I think it strengthens the bill and it accurately reflects what we heard. We need to be able to tell first nations people that we listened to what they told us in the consultation--the genuine consultation that took place by this committee. I don't give any legitimacy to the original consultation. The real consultation that took place was the nine weeks of hearings that this committee held, four of which were across the country.

¼ (1820)

If we're to take them seriously in any way, if you had an opportunity to affect this bill, these are two clear areas that they cited early on. As a preface to the substance of the bill under the definition of the “Purposes of Act”, they want it made clear that we don't ever have to negotiate inherent rights.

Those inherent rights exist. Therefore the language, “existing right”, in Mr. Loubier's interpretation is far better and accurately reflects their wishes. And it's a laudable goal “to reduce the frequency and the nature of departmental and ministerial intrusion into the governance and administrative decisions”.

I don't believe that any language in any bill is accidental. I believe the current language we see in the bill is loading up the bill with language that will be favourable to the government in subsequent court challenges.

It may even have an effect on existing, pending court challenges. That was one of the specific questions we asked. We said, “Do you have any legal opinions that say that Bill C-7 will have any bearing on the 200 outstanding existing court cases?” They not only refused to give us those documents, they refused to answer the question.

Rephrased, I said, “Do you believe that Bill C-7 will have any effect on outstanding court cases, on the body of 200 court cases?” And they said, “We can't give you that answer because it's privileged. We have an obligation to the government, not to you, as a member of the committee.” So getting answers like that you can understand why we're fearful and apprehensive that the language, as proposed in Bill C-7, is loaded up to have a favourable impact on the government side to existing court cases and subsequent court cases.

The language Mr. Loubier proposes gives more meaning and definition to the wishes that were brought forward to the committee. If anything, many of the representations on this subject were general in nature and many people simply stated how they wished the bill would look. It took the legislative drafting people whom we have access to, to put that into the appropriate form of language for a bill.

So, again, I cite some of the people who made these very points.

The Kwakiutl District Council when we were in Nanaimo, the Association of Aboriginal Friendship Centres, and the Tlowitsis First Nation made it very clear that this was the language they would like to see. Ultimately, on behalf of the plenary group of bands and tribal councils in British Columbia, the B.C. regional vice-chief, the First Nations Summit Chiefs-in-Assembly, the United Native Nations and the Shuswap Tribal Council were the ones who specifically asked that these changes be made.

By ignoring these proposals, you're not just dissing Mr. Loubier, if that's what you'd like to do, you're also showing disrespect to the stated wishes of a substantial number of first nations people. Those are just the British Columbia presentations I'm citing.

The same theme was raised right across the country.

The purposes of the act are there to give direction, and if there's any ambiguity later on, the judge or the arbitrator can look to this: What was the original intent of the people who signed this agreement? That's when they look to the purposes of the act. If they reach an impasse in asking, what does this clause mean, they go back to the purposes of the act and say, here's what they intended the language to say; therefore, it gives guidance to the arbitrator or the judge later.

Well, in this case we want it clarified that it's the intention of this bill to reduce the interference of the minister in their lives. I think that's in keeping with what the minister has told us. He wants the Department of Indian Affairs to get out of the lives of Indian people. In the interim, until such concrete self-government agreements can be signed, that's what they would like to see happen.

It would be contrary, I believe, to even the stated goals and objectives of the minister in introducing this bill not to pass Mr. Loubier's very thoughtful and practical amendments. So whether it's on the case of taking any reference to negotiating the implementation of inherent rights....

¼ (1825)

The Chair: Anyone else before I go to the mover?

Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I would certainly like to speak, Mr. Chairman, especially after what has happened here.

Since the beginning of deliberations on Bill C-7, we have been discussing the importance of recognizing things that are self-evident. We have looked at the evolution of our relationship with the first nations over the past several decades, more specifically since the Erasmus-Dussault report, as well as many rulings handed down by the Supreme Court. And I'm not repeating this for nothing. From what the first nations have told us, the inherent right to self-government is something which was granted to them by the Creator. And I believe it.

One should not be so surprised at Ms. Nahanni Fontaine's reaction. Put yourself in their shoes. When one has hope and when one sees this hope trampled by Bill C-7, when we hear fundamental issues discussed where there should be no discussion because these are inherent, as they come from many decisions made by the courts, whether it is the Supreme Court of Canada or international courts, one has the right to become angry. I think that I would be angry as well if I saw some other nation than mine decide in my stead what is good for me, and then start to talk of natural justice and of natural justice leaning this way or that, when what we have here is a totally unjust measure only the federal government is capable of.

Earlier, we were discussing the Erasmus-Dussault report and we were saying that that was not in the report and that the amendment might perhaps even contravene some of the main recommendations in that report.

I have before me the wording of the main recommendations of the Erasmus-Dussault report of the Royal Commission on First Nations. And it is quite impressive. And what the commission stated then still applies today. The commission stated in 1991:

We began our work during a very troubled and turbulent period. The leaders of our country were arguing about the place of the first nations within the Constitution. The first nations were closing roads and blocking railway crossings in Ontario and British Columbia. Inuit families were creating encampments to protest against military facilities in Labrador. A year earlier, the armed conflict between Aboriginal forces and non-aboriginal ones at Kanesatake (Oka) had tarnished Canada's reputation abroad and in the mind of its own citizens. [Translation]

And further on, the Erasmus-Dussault report stated:

It was an unfortunate line of conduct which was followed for over 150 years by colonial governments and then by subsequent Canadian governments.

Successive governments attempted—sometimes intentionally, sometimes through ignorance—to assimilate the first nations into Canadian society and to eliminate everything that made of them a distinct people. Over the years and over the decades, policies have undermined and almost annihilated aboriginal culture and identity.[Translation]

This is what the Royal Commission had to say in its report, and yet 10 years later, nothing much has changed from the time when those commissioners made those statements, namely that errors had been made in the past, that there was a colonial attitude, that assimilation was the preferred route, that we had not recognized treaty rights or the inherent right to self-government. Today, we are dealing here with a bill and we are suggesting that you recognize this inherent right to self-government and self-determination within the framework of the legislation, and we're here discussing these fundamental issues. I'm convinced that when we move to a vote, this amendment will be set aside, because in any case you feel you are the only ones who know the truth and you view the words of bureaucrats as gospel.

Self-determination is not a new concept. It's a concept that dates back to the emancipation of African nations. Self-determination can be found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations. The right to self- determination is a right which belongs to any people deserving of this title in our modern world. The right to self-determination is the right of a people to define itself, to govern itself, to make its own decisions, and not to allow other people or other nations to impose decisions upon them.

¼ (1830)

We can understand Ms. Nahanni's reaction. If I were in her shoes, my reaction would be much worse. If I were in her shoes, I would be much more aggressive. If you think that it is nothing but an isolated incident, well that is not the case. If you adopt this bill without any change as to the recognition in the body of the legislation of the inherent right to self-government, without recognizing that aboriginal peoples are sovereign peoples who can make their own decisions as to what is good for them, as to the institutions that they should put into place, as to the decisions they should make in order to ensure the well-being of their members, well, you're going to see many more cases such as this one.

All the witnesses that we have heard thus far have told us of their incredible frustration and have raised an alarm, cries of desperation because we were not looking at the true issue and they were just being presented with another series of stupidities like this Bill C-7, which does not meet their aspirations or their current needs. You should know. You should expect this type of reaction and much worse.

I've been looking at this since the very beginning of our discussion. The more I hear from the Liberal side, the more disappointed I am in what I hear, and I think that we're not alone. We have sat for two or three days in camera. We will never again sit in camera to hold discussions on the fundamental issues. Everything that we heard in camera was even worse than what we heard publicly. Of course I cannot repeat what we heard in camera, though we were told disgusting things about the first nations, unacceptable things, things that we should no longer hear in 2003, denigrating terms, if not insulting terms, about aboriginal people and even non-aboriginal people. My mother was in fact a victim of those types of comments.

I don't understand that we would refuse changes such as those we have proposed in the three first amendments, which all go along the same lines, namely to put into the body of C-7 this recognition of the inherent right to self-government and to ensure that there be a process: recognition of the inherent right to self-government, recognition of the right to self-determination based on instruments created by the first nations for the first nations, if they do not already exist, and recognition of the decisions that are solely of their purview on the territory for which they are responsible.

Several of them do not have negotiated land claims with the federal government. Instead of wasting all our energy studying Bill C-7, a bill that nobody wants, instead of refocusing our energies and our resources to deal with land claims and to accelerate these claims, we prefer to hold a massive debate on this draft project which isn't worth the paper and the ink that were used to print it; and we do nothing to address the real concerns of the first nations communities.

I know the first nations of Quebec better than I know those of the rest of Canada, but I'm becoming more and more familiar with those in the rest of Canada. I see that first nations are proud nations. They did not lose their pride even after 130 years under the Indian Act. Even if we tried to integrate or rather assimilate them, even when we tried to destroy them, they remained proud of who they were, are, and want to continue to be.

You cannot believe that what we are currently doing in refusing any and all amendments which could give this bill some form of respectability will not lead to consequences. You can't fool yourself into believing that when we visit communities throughout Canada, we will be received graciously after this mess we will have put together; you cannot think that what we will have negotiated will be well-received, if we reject amendments this bulldozer piece of legislation would have us deal with in a timeframe that has no relation to the extraordinary scope of the bill, in particular clause 3 on the non-recognition of the inherent right to self-government. We are not stating directly that we are working toward the self-determination of first nations, with all that that can represent in terms of tools and non-interference by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. That is also a part of my amendment.

¼ (1835)

I would invite my colleagues to adopt this amendment.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: And before I'm told I don't have the right to ask for it, I'm asking for a recorded vote.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)

The Chair: Now we go to CA-2 on page 17.

¼ (1840)

Mr. John Godfrey: On a point of order, Mr. Chair, I'm just curious to know what the plan is this evening in terms of how long we're here. I'm just curious to know when this is ending so we can make appropriate plans.

The Chair: There's no time of ending. If I lose quorum for 15 minutes, I suspend until some time tomorrow, I guess. And if I have a motion to adjourn and it passes, I'll follow the wishes of the committee.

Is that satisfactory?

Mr. John Godfrey: Well, I guess it's an answer of sorts.

The Chair: CA-2 on page 17.

What do you have, a point of order?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I would like to suggest to the mover of this that it certainly is an amendment that has merit. With the approval of the committee, especially the mover, I would suggest to the chair that we would like to deal with that amendment at a later date, preferably tomorrow.

The Chair: Are you asking that CA-2 be deferred until tomorrow?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: That's what I'm asking, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Are there any problems with that?

Mr. Pat Martin: I'd like to speak to the same point of order.

The Chair: On the point of order, please.

Mr. Pat Martin: On the point of order.

The Chair: On the deferral really.

Mr. Pat Martin: On the motion to defer this.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: It's not a motion, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, you made a point of order.

Under what point of order is he acting here? And what are we debating?

The Chair: Are you moving that this be deferred until tomorrow, Mr. Hubbard?

Mr. Pat Martin: He can't make a motion on a point of order.

The Chair: Is anyone moving that this be deferred? If not, we're--

Mr. David Chatters: I'll move that it be deferred until tomorrow.

The Chair: Mr. Chatters moved that it be deferred until tomorrow.

Now on that deferral, which is only on time, you can only debate the time of deferral. And we will vote whether we defer or not.

Are you ready for the question that it be deferred until tomorrow?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: CA-2 is deferred until tomorrow.

I guess it's understood that if we don't get to that one tomorrow, if we don't finish clause 3 tomorrow, I'll put it at the end.

NDP-6 on page 18.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: I move that clause 3 of Bill C-7 be amended by adding after line 14 the following:

to facilitate the fulfillment by the Government of Canada of its commitment to negotiate and implement self-governments agreements;

I believe this paragraph is fairly self evident, in keeping with the objectives of both of the Bloc's previous amendments and our amendment before that.

I also move that we replace in the French version line 16 with the following:

[Translation]

(h) to allow bands to better satisfy

[English]

Our objectives in moving this amendment are to reflect the input we had from across the country. We want to have within the text of the actual agreement the government's commitment to negotiate and implement self-government agreements without any reference to negotiations. This was drafted in the optimism that the previous amendment to delete reference to negotiations, etc., would have passed. So this would have been a subparagraph under paragraph 3(a).

Now the commitment to negotiate and implement self-government agreements is in the preamble, but is lacking in the substance of the bill itself or in the clauses of the bill. This is the type of language we want reinforced by having it appear in the purposes, stated intentions, or goals of the act, or in what we're trying to achieve. I think it's even in keeping with what the minister has been saying, that to facilitate the fulfillment of its commitment to negotiate and implement self-government agreements, surely this should be one of the goals of any legislation—if it is the intention of the government to go along this route.

Despite the minister's repeated and stated concern with self-governance, and the stated goals of helping first nations to develop effective tools of self-governance, what has been most striking to most of us who have reviewed this bill is the degree to which matters of governance within the First Nations Governance Act—

¼ (1845)

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I think we don't have quorum, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: We have quorum, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Despite the stated objective of the government in the FNGA and the stated objective of first nations to develop effective tools of self-governance, what's been most remarkable to those of us who have had a chance to study the bill and to hear witnesses is the degree to which matters of governance in the FNGA are not left to first nations. In fact, if anything, we found that the bill enhances and expands the discretionary authority of the minister, which is in complete contrast to what is being projected around the country and to what the government has been saying in an effort to sell this to the Canadian public.

Of course, we're concerned with timeframes and other aspects that will be dealt with under other clauses, but if we're going to get off to a start that is in keeping with the publicity and an advertising campaign in which the government has spent $15 million at the outset of this bill, we should at least state within the enforceable provisions or within the clauses of the bill that it's a stated objective of the government to fulfill its commitment to negotiate and implement self-government agreements. We see no harm in restating what's been publicly stated by the minister in the House of Commons, in press releases, and in documentation all over the country. Certainly, in their promotional meetings across the country pitching this particular package unabashedly to aboriginal people--which substituted for consultations--the government and INAC have led first nations to believe that the FNGA is all about self-governance. Yet as I've stated before, we believe it's about anything but self-governance. If anything, it's about undermining fiduciary responsibilities, or about getting out from under the burden of the government's fiduciary responsibilities, and to streamline the management of first nations to do away with irritants in first nations.

If we did adopt language such as amendment NDP-6, we could see that there would be enforceable provisions. I know the language for amending the Indian Act was carefully chosen and selected, but once the Indian Act is open for amendment, it's open to amend any aspects of the bill. This is why I think it's unfair that we can't amend or add to anything to it other than what has been introduced by the government. When the government opens up the Indian Act for amendment to eliminate some irritants, surely they could have gone well beyond those administrative details that they chose to....

Now I think we may be lacking quorum, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Are you calling quorum, Mr. Martin?

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm calling quorum.

The Chair: We are suspended for quorum.

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, the wording in the current act suggests that Canada views self-government rights as contingent or as subject to negotiation before they exist, but that's not what the courts have been telling us. We want to clarify that there's nothing contingent or that needs to be proved to recognize inherent aboriginal and treaty rights. If we were listening to the last twenty years of study and observation by more thoughtful processes than we are dealing with now.... I'm not implying that people around the table aren't thoughtful, but that the timeframes don't allow us to be thoughtful.

I'm going to call quorum again.

¼ (1855)

The Chair: Quorum called.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, you have the floor.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to make the point, Mr. Chair, that even though this bill pays particular attention to issues of accountability, we seem to have missed the point that accountability and decision-making authority are linked. In other words, successful models of accountability are inexorably linked to independence, self-governance, and decision-making authority. These must come first.

We've learned from many presenters, and from the Harvard study that was commissioned, that good governance without sovereign powers is as unlikely to be effective in improving the welfare of first nations people, just as sovereign powers would be without good governance. All of the empirical evidence indicates the two have to go together. To have effective models of accountability, and even effective models of economic development across the country, the prerequisite is having decision-making authority seated with the bodies we seek to influence.

In cases like this, it's even more important that in the stated purposes and objectives in the introduction of this act, or beyond the preamble, we make it abundantly clear that one of the purposes of this act is to facilitate the fulfillment of the commitment of the Government of Canada to negotiate and implement self-government agreements--even before we go any further.

The minister has stated time and time again, and the Prime Minister has even stated recently, that rights and redress issues will take a back seat to economic development. In fact, they're tired of rights and redress issues and of the delay in the settlement of land claims, etc. They're going to take another tack and promote economic development models. They're saying a stepping stone toward economic development is the accountability, transparency, etc., found in the First Nations Governance Act.

If that is true, and we're careful to point out that we don't approve of abandoning--

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Is there anyone else on NDP-6?

Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I congratulate my colleague from the NDP, Mr. Martin, for having moved this amendment to clause 3.

As you can see, clause 3 is very important and we're not the only ones to have found clause 3 that important during our analysis of Bill C-7. In most of the interventions made by 14 interveners, clause 3 was the one almost exclusively addressed because it's the one that sets the tone for the bill in general and opens up the broad array of possibilities that the first nations will be able to benefit from in future.

It says that the inherent right to self-government can be negotiated. At the outset, a representative of aboriginal nations seeing that would say that right belongs to him quite naturally and that there's nothing to negotiate concerning the inherent right to self-government. What has to be negotiated is how he'll be able to set up his institutions according to his culture, his history and even according to what existed before the Europeans set foot here and destroyed his system of governance and everything his people had already put in place at that time.

It seems to me you don't need to spell it out for the government and the senior officials and my Liberal colleagues to understand that the inherent right to self-government is a right that must not be negotiated. What must be negotiated is everything flowing from that: how this inherent right to self-government is exercised, what are the needs of the aboriginal nations, the first nations, concerning the exercise of this inherent right to self-government. It's not telling them that they're going to exercise it in such or such a way. No, that's not how things work.

The federal government has a fiduciary role and duty towards the aboriginal nations. That means it's responsible for all the commitments and all the treaties that were signed previously between the aboriginal nations and Canada or the Crown before that. It is responsible for the correct, honest and transparent implementation of those treaties. It also has a fiduciary duty to the well-being of the aboriginal nations until they become self-governing based on their inherent right to that self-government. It must support the aboriginal nations and not give them directions. Supporting them does not mean giving them a bit of a push towards the hole you want them to fall into. It means supporting the aboriginal nations.

½ (1900)

The Chair: It's probably hard for the interpreters because you're facing the wall.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: It's a bad habit I have, Mr. Chairman. I do that it the House, too. Actually, you can sometimes see the back of my head and that's rather amusing. That's the only time I can actually see what I look like from behind. I'll be more careful, Mr. Chairman.

So, the inherent right to self-government must be exercised only by the aboriginal nations. As I was saying, supporting the aboriginal nations means to support them, to support them so that they can attain the objectives they have as a society in the area of economic development as well as social development, without forgetting the rebuilding of their culture. It's clear that during the 130 years the Indian Act has been in force, the conditions and provisions to be found in the Indian Act did not favour self-government and the maintenance of the culture and language of the first nations.

But despite what has been imposed upon them during those 130 years of colonialism, the aboriginal nations have managed to maintain their culture and even return to the teaching of their mother tongue.

Mr. Chairman, we all have to raise our hats to the aboriginal nations who, against all odds, despite all the atrocious, infamous and detestable conditions imposed upon them by the Indian Act, have managed to maintain their pride and their taste for self-government based on their inherent rights and on the treaties.

There were treaties in the past and these treaties were signed between equals, between the aboriginal nations and the Europeans first, and then ourselves. These are treaties in which we spoke of sharing the territory, because the aboriginal nations were already occupying it before we showed up. It was about sharing, not the domination of one nation over all the other nations. They were contracts between nations that respected one another, in those days.

As time passed, we forgot the fact that the aboriginal nations had never given up a single inch of their territory, that they had never given up a centimetre of their prerogatives as sovereign nations, that they had never given up on their ambition to develop and ensure the perennial nature of their communities. Perenniality means duration in time, the possibility to reproduce, the possibility to exist, the right to exist. That was forgotten.

One hundred and thirty years ago, when the Indian Act was passed, people thought they'd settled that problem once and for all. The francophones of Canada went through that with the Durham report. People thought that they would settle that matter once and for all and that they'd park the aboriginals in reserves, that they would give them everything they wanted at first while they developed the adjacent territory that was full of wealth and just forget all the treaties and all the pacts that were signed as equals with the aboriginal nations.

The object of the excellent amendment put forth by my colleague Martin is to recognize the fact that we must, in the most urgent manner, as the Royal Commission's report on aboriginal peoples said, get back to the real priorities, in other words to accelerate negotiations concerning territory, self-government, and the financial and human needs in the area of rebuilding and nation-building that the first nations will have to see to during the coming years.

That's what we've been hearing since the beginning of the hearings on this bill. We were not told it was a good bill. We were told it was a bad bill. The first ones concerned, the representatives of the first nations, did not come before us to say that it was a bill that would allow them to move towards self-government, towards taking over a territory to be developed, over which they could exercise self-government.

½ (1905)

They came to tell us that it was a useless bill in that respect, a bill that went against what they thought they'd settled or what had been settled through numerous decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada and also international courts, because there were some. It was expected that Canada would be sensitive, especially since in some United Nations Organization resolutions it says that Canada does not respect the aboriginal nations. It was thought that Canada would react promptly and would accelerate negotiations with the aboriginal nations in order that their rights be respected.

But it didn't happen. The aboriginal nations are still fighting wind and tide with a bill introduced by a self-sufficient minister determined to satisfy only himself and maybe the soon-to-be-former Prime Minister, because this bill has an odd but distinct resemblance to the 1969 white paper released at the time the current prime minister was Minister of Indian Affairs. I don't know if Robert Nault wants to walk in the moccasins of his prime minister and give him another reason to be proud before he retires, but that's what it looks like.

In short, I would like us to support this amendment introduced by the NDP. I would like my colleagues to support it, because this way there will be less spilled milk to mop up than there will be should we pass Bill C-7 as it is.

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Loubier.

Mr. Godfrey.

Mr. John Godfrey: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to again note that this amendment comes in two parts, and I want to speak first to the second part, which simply deals with an amendment of the French version by removing the pronoun “leur” and substituting “aux bandes”. Curiously, I wonder if Mr. Martin also intended to do the same in paragraph 3(c), where the same parallelism would apply, that is, substituting a noun for a pronoun, which would parallel the English version. I don't know if that's an oversight.

It also strikes me as being a drafting suggestion that is pretty non-confrontational. Unless I'm missing something, maybe the officials can tell me whether it simply removes any potential ambiguity. That's one part of my question to them.

My second observation is that the proposed paragraph 3(a.1) Mr. Martin is offering essentially argues that one of the purposes of the bill is to ease the way to facilitate the fulfillment of the Government of Canada's commitment to negotiate and implement self-government agreements. It's hard to believe the minister himself wouldn't argue the same thing, that this is actually a way of further taking us down the road. This is an interim step, and it simply fills in some of the detail that is implied in the original paragraph 3(a). So I don't view this, at least in my reading, as a harmful or problematic interpretation. It seems to me to advance...it argues that this is a stepped process.

So on both those points, perhaps starting with the minor point of French translation and then the more major point of whether this is not indeed a purpose, I'd like to know why one couldn't in good faith go with this amendment.

½ (1910)

Mr. Andrew Beynon: Perhaps I could speak to the issue of the drafting of the second amendment. I think Mr. Godfrey is right to note that in English, in the enumeration of the purposes in paragraphs 3(a), (b), and (c), there is a repetition with “bands”, “enable bands”, and “enable bands”. In French it is typical, as a drafting practice, once there has been mention of a noun such as “bandes”, to, in the rest of the iteration, say “leur”, and that refers back to the same “bandes”. If this single amendment were to be made, then you would have in paragraph 3(a) a reference to the noun “bandes”, in paragraph 3(b) a reference again to the noun “bandes”, but then in paragraph 3(c) the pronoun or the reflex back of “leur”.

It wouldn't create a legal problem. I think the courts could wind their way through, understanding the English and French. It just might look a bit sloppy in the drafting if you go “bandes”, “bandes”, and “leur”. Francophones would say, why wouldn't it all match?

Mr. John Godfrey: So there's really no problem with that, except we would, for consistency's purpose, have to agree to add the third reference.

And what do you have on the first point, on adding paragraph 3(a.1) to the purposes?

Mr. Warren Johnson: I think you're correct in the characterization of the comments and statements made about the minister in terms of the hope that this act or the objective of this act would be useful in the transition to self-government.

The only question, and there may be more legal discussion to follow this point, is that one of the things the minister committed to, and something we were asked to be very careful about in developing this act, is that it not prejudge the outcome of those negotiations or attempt to define their nature and scope. There's a specific statement on that in the preamble.

I guess there's a question of whether the interpretation of...rather than facilitating implementation generally or however you might state it...the wording that would use the fulfillment by Canada, would that imply that this is a partial fulfillment of the inherent right? This is not a place we wanted to go, purposely. We committed not to go. This is not supposed to be about the inherent right of self-government or an infringement on that case. We've been trying to be very careful, so we're sensitive to wording that might be interpreted that way, as meaning that. That's not what we understand the objective is here, but the wording might be a question. I don't know whether or not....

Mr. John Godfrey: I just have a technical question, through the chair. Suppose one wanted to pass the amendment, but you wanted to add to it the second reference to “bandes”. Is there a way of modifying or amending this amendment just for consistency's sake? Could we do it just by agreement of the committee, that if we passed it we would want to extend it to...? What's the deal on this?

The Chair: You need a subamendment.

Mr. John Godfrey: Could I move such a subamendment, and is this the time to do it?

The Chair: You can move it, and we re-engage the whole debate for another hour.

Mr. John Godfrey: That was not my intention, but I do think in virtue of consistency--

The Chair: That will be the outcome.

Mr. John Godfrey: Anyone could move such a subamendment, then, could they?

½ (1915)

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. John Godfrey: This is a very tough call. That can be moved at any point, the subamendment?

The Chair: If it's relative to the amendment, yes.

Mr. John Godfrey: I just realized I'm going to be killed if I do. The downside is, they'll have to kill me, but other than that--

The Chair: You could ask for unanimous consent to change “leur” to “bandes”.

Mr. John Godfrey: Let me try that. Without prejudging how we may all vote on the amendment itself, could I get unanimous consent of the committee and of course of the mover--

The Chair: You should ask the mover first.

Mr. John Godfrey: Would it be appropriate for me to ask for unanimous consent for your second reference to be added in there?

The Chair: You're asking for unanimous consent that in the third instance “leur” be replaced by “bandes”. Do I have unanimous consent?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: No.

The Chair: We don't.

Mr. Pat Martin: [Inaudible—Editor]...I think that's a mistake, isn't it? Is that what you're asking?

Mr. John Godfrey: I'm just saying that if we're going to amend, to make the second reference to “bandes”, we should have three references, “bandes”, “bandes”, and “bandes”, and not “bandes”, “bandes”, and “leur”. It just picks up in paragraph 3(c); it just allows....

In English you have “bands”, “bands”, and “bands” in paragraphs 3(a), (b), and (c), and in French you'd have “bandes”, “bandes”, and “bandes” in paragraphs 3(a), (b), and (c). That's all I'm asking, that at least we vote on a consistent thing. I don't know why the parliamentary secretary doesn't think that's a good idea, because it doesn't prejudice the outcome of the vote. Could we try again?

The Chair: You have a maximum of ten minutes, and you have two minutes left. I told you about both ways you could do it, subamendment or unanimous consent.

Mr. John Godfrey: I'm trying to avoid an hour's debate, and if the parliamentary secretary will allow unanimous consent in order to move forward, I won't have to do that. We can avoid an hour, but it's in the hands of the parliamentary secretary, of course.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Is that your rule, Mr. Chair, unanimous consent or we don't for another hour...?

The Chair: If we get unanimous consent to change that one word to make it consistent with the other two, then you won't have to put a subamendment.

Mr. John Godfrey: That's exactly what I'm asking for.

The Chair: If we deny unanimous consent, his only option is to go to a subamendment. If we go to a subamendment, he's the mover and he gets ten minutes and another ten at the end, and everybody gets ten.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: I would agree, Mr. Chair, if it doesn't mean we have to vote and spend another hour on his--

The Chair: That's what we're preventing.

Do I have unanimous consent to replace--

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I think there are two words, “aux bandes”, aren't there?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chair: Do I have unanimous consent to change “leur” to “aux bandes”?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I do. So that is now an integral part of the amendment still belonging to Mr. Martin.

Mr. Godfrey has 28 seconds left.

Mr. John Godfrey: Mr. Godfrey will concede the floor to whoever needs it.

The Chair: Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: I'm having a little difficulty understanding at this point, Mr. Chair, and I need to understand, maybe in the wrap-up comments from Mr. Martin. I don't think I heard the first nations witnesses we had across the country saying Bill C-7 is in any way a fulfillment--they certainly want it to be interim at best--of a self-government agreement. I'm not so sure if the wording of it--and you can help me out maybe as our specialist here. Does it seem to imply by this wording that Bill C-7 is then a partial fulfillment of self-government agreements? Would that be the nature of the wording?

Mr. Warren Johnson: That was the nature of my earlier comment, that this wording would likely be interpreted that way.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It would seem to suggest that, and I think a lot of the first nations would be fairly resistant to that. I'm sure Mr. Martin's spirit and intent here is not to set things back. I don't think he's particularly favourable to the notion that Bill C-7 is a partial fulfillment of a self-government agreement.

I don't have a comment beyond that, but I just want to caution the member that we don't want to set things back and in fact have Bill C-7 perceived as a fulfillment or partial fulfillment of a self-government agreement.

That is my remark, and I would invite the member's response on that.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, may we have your closing remarks.

½ (1920)

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, I think the point's been made that this is in keeping with the way this bill was introduced at the very beginning. This is a stepping stone toward the fulfillment of the intention of the Government of Canada to implement self-government agreements. I think it's in keeping with the way it was presented in the very title of the bill, but also, in the advertising campaign that went around the country to promote the First Nations Governance Act, it was stated over and over again that to achieve absolute, complete self-governance may take, I believe the minister used the term, 60 years of agonizing negotiations.

In the interim we will get rid of some of the worst irritants of the Indian Act by providing aspects of self-governance now as an intermediate step toward true independence.

So I don't think that's contradictory at all. I believe this clause would reiterate or make clear that it is one of the stated goals and objectives of this bill to facilitate the fulfillment of the Government of Canada's commitment to negotiate and implement self-governance agreements. I don't see the contradiction; I don't see the risk.

One of the fears has been that this will be all we get. Many first nations have brought it to our attention that if the Indian Act is only opened up once every 50 years, we want to make sure we don't just tinker with it around the fringes, around the periphery. We want to actually implement substantial changes, and if there's going to be a First Nations Governance Act, it better be viewed as a stepping stone toward something more concrete, comprehensive, and thorough in terms of the true transfer of jurisdiction to first nations communities.

I believe having this reference in here would give some comfort to those people who were apprehensive about the intentions of the bill, because it would be stating clearly that the First Nations Governance Act should not be viewed as a conclusion or an end unto itself, that the FNGA would be viewed as an interim step. Nothing about the FNGA would be viewed as the end of a negotiation, just a stepping stone.

Again, in the absence of any other language to the contrary or any language to give comfort to these fears that have been brought to the table, this was presented to us as language that would give some satisfaction or assurance that the government is not trying to get out from under obligations or commitments made in the past. So a reminder or restatement of the commitment should not be viewed as a sign of weakness; it should just be an acknowledgment that such a commitment does exist.

This commitment has been restated by the minister with great pride many times. It's our commitment to do away with the Indian Act. It's our commitment that first nations governance agreements will be in place right across the country. What has frustrated him, he says, is the length of time this takes.

So if this is viewed as an interim step, it is only giving voice to what the people understood, the formalizing of the agreement that has been offered and I think at least heard by first nations. So if they're asking for this modest amendment, I don't see how it harms the government.

I haven't even heard from the technical experts or the ADM how it will hinder or be an obstacle or even be subject to challenge to putting this in place. I don't think it does deviate from the goals and intentions of the FNGA. In fact, we're kind of helping to shape and define what we heard and what we understood the meaning of the FNGA to be.

The reason this was brought to our attention...by others, I should add; this isn't something I invented. We're only presenting amendments that were brought to us by first nations. What they're trying to avoid, or are fearful of, is the imposition of some cookie-cutter approach, some template for codes of governance that won't be sensitive to customs, band traditions, and the spiritual aspects of how governance structures are formed. This gives some comfort to the fact that there won't be a permanent imposition of some cookie-cutter approach, that this in no way deters the first nations and the government from continuing on in their ongoing negotiations to conclude self-governance agreements.

½ (1925)

If anything, the sales pitch was that this would expedite those negotiations, because bringing some order to first nations communities, the government said, would make it easier to accommodate realistic transfers of authorities from the federal government to the community.

So I think we sense some interest, at least, in this clause, and I think it would be appreciated by all concerned to have some clauses successfully amended. To reject this outright for the sake of rejecting it, or to flex the majority muscle, if you will, would be viewed with even more disdain than is already out there.

There's a sense and a feeling that people are stubbornly arguing against any and all amendments simply because they don't like the fact that amendments are being brought forward or it's too time-consuming.

Even the fact that we considered how much time it would take to introduce a subamendment, if anybody around this table thought it was the right thing to do, why would it deter them to consider that it may take a half an hour to get a subamendment through?

That trivializes the issues we're dealing with here today, if that's even a consideration. If we're here at midnight arguing about amendments that we think are right, I don't think it is proper for the chair to even suggest that by saying, “You realize, if you move this subamendment, you're here for another hour”. Well, that's not much of an argument about the merits of a subamendment.

First of all, the chair shouldn't have any opinion about the merits of a motion or a subamendment anyway, but to advise a member that it may not be in his interest to move a subamendment because it might keep him here for another hour is interference by the chair, in my opinion.

I beg your pardon?

The Chair: All you have to do is refuse unanimous consent. That's easy.

Mr. Pat Martin: I had no intention of refusing unanimous consent on that particular clause, because frankly the translation aspect of this clause wasn't even something that I or the first nations that brought it to our attention asked for. It was the legislative drafting people that arbitrarily did that on our behalf, and it showed up before us in one of my clauses.

Mr. Godfrey raised a legitimate point, but he was cautious about introducing that point because the chair said, “Oh, be careful, you might be here for another hour if you go moving any subamendments”. What does that say about the way we're viewing the importance of the work we're doing here if we're judging things based on how long it's going to take?

It adds to our point that we should be taking weeks, if not months, to do this important work, never mind ramming this through by the end of the week so it can be tabled in the House of Commons by Friday before 2:30 p.m.

I don't know how you intend to do this, Mr. Chair, frankly, because it does a disservice to the issues we're raising. It's certainly a disservice to opposition MPs who haven't even had a chance to study this.

It's a disservice to the Assembly of First Nations, whose researcher sits out there trying to figure out what in God's name we're saying so that he can report back to the very people this affects. And he doesn't even have a copy of the amendments in front of him.

There's no involvement of aboriginal people in this process, and yet we're worried that it's going to take us another half an hour to make an amendment or a subamendment to this. It indicates how flawed this whole process is.

In fact, on that basis, I'd like to move that we adjourn this meeting until 3:30 p.m. tomorrow so that we can provide copies of these amendments and motions to the Assembly of First Nations.

That's my motion, Mr. Chair. I move to adjourn.

The Chair: You're finished speaking and now you're moving to adjourn?

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm not speaking to it; I'm not allowed to. It's non-debatable.

The Chair: We haven't accepted motions while members were speaking. You were speaking and you moved a motion. You did what I won't allow others to do to you.

So now you've terminated your closing remarks?

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, I have a question, then, on order.

I understood you weren't allowed to move a motion on a point of order, which Mr. Hubbard tried to do. I understand that's against the rules of this committee. I also understood that at the end of my remarks, just as in the House of Commons, I'm allowed to move a motion.

½ (1930)

The Chair: I asked you if you had finished your remarks.

Mr. Pat Martin: Yes, sir.

The Chair: We have a motion to adjourn.

(Motion negatived)

The Chair: Now we go directly to the recorded vote, starting from the opposition side.

(Amendment as amended negatived: nays 6; yeas 4)

The Chair: Now we move to NDP-7.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, I object to the process here, because I haven't had time to prepare debate on any one of these, even our own amendments, given the context of the Bloc amendments, the Alliance amendments, even the government amendments. So it's an unreasonable and unfair timeframe we have for dealing with these amendments tonight.

Having said that, we have made the case that paragraph 3(c) should be substantially amended. In fact, it's instructive, I think, to refer to the original Bloc motion BQ-5, which proposed substantial amendments to the whole of paragraph 3(c). Many of the lines you see the NDP suggesting we amend now are lifted directly from this language, because it was a wide variety of presenters who made the same case for amending paragraph 3(c), under “Purposes of Act”.

Now, had we passed amendment BQ-5, none of these subsequent amendments would be necessary. But seeing that BQ-5 failed, it's necessary for the NDP to go through them virtually line by line, seeking to amend point by point, instead of agreeing that the tone and the content of clause 3 doesn't accurately reflect what we heard in our cross-country consultations.

In the amendment you have before you entitled NDP-7 we're seeking that clause 3 in Bill C-7 be amended by replacing, in the English version, line 18 on page 3 with “certain purposes”. Line 18 currently says “to collaborate for certain purposes”. The whole point is it deletes the word “and”.

The whole issue is there are broader issues here that take us beyond the specific provisions of the act and are directly related to each amendment we put forward here.

We're dealing with concepts of trying to build capable government at the local level by the imposition of specific lines in an act that's very narrow and prescriptive. This has been one of the criticisms. That's the difficulty we have here. It's a classically difficult task, because it hasn't been approached in a community-based process. We're trying to impose these governance codes on a top-down basis with a cookie-cutter template approach.

The “Purposes of Act” clause doesn't really reflect what's to follow, because the imposition of these cookie-cutter codes and templates that so offend first nations communities across the country.... There's no announcement or warning in this.

I don't want to be sarcastic, but frankly, if we were being accurate under the clause “Purposes of Act”, we would be saying that the purpose of the act is to enhance and augment the discretionary authority of the minister and derogate from the constitutionally recognized inherent rights to self-governance of aboriginal people.

Now, no one would state that on the face of it, but that would be a more honest portrayal of what follows.

In anticipation of amending this bill in subsequent clauses, we believe we should set the tone by at least beginning in the purpose of the act by stating it is not the intention of this government to undermine, derogate from, or diminish in any way the inherent recognized rights to self-governance. We should make that abundantly clear. And a number of amendments would be necessary then.

Going incrementally like this, it may be difficult to see the overall objective. That's why I refer you to amendment BQ-5, which failed, because that amendment did list in detail the many changes to clause 3 that we would recommend. It's difficult to follow, I suppose, going incrementally.

½ (1935)

So in paragraph 3(d), towards the end, perhaps it's easier to see some of the details we would be seeking to achieve by this amendment.

So after a few minor details, in paragraphs (a) and (b) of the amendment, we would add paragraph 3(d), which would say the purpose of this act is:

to protect the freedom of bands to choose their own means of achieving transparency, accountability and good governance in accordance with their traditions and culture.

That's significant and substantial, and it adds to the list of purposes as outlined in clause 3.

I'll repeat that. I think people can probably accept that this should be one of the stated goals of this bill, that the purpose of this act is

to protect the freedom of bands to choose their own means of achieving transparency, accountability and good governance in accordance with their traditions and culture.

I don't see anything in that paragraph that contradicts what the government has been saying. What it doesn't say is that if you don't choose your own means, means will be imposed upon you, but nothing in this language precludes the government's intention of imposing changes later on. So I think these four lines that we're suggesting be added in paragraph 3(d), more than anything else we've suggested so far, would give some comfort to the people who are apprehensive about this bill, that it's the stated purpose or the stated objective of the government to protect the freedom of bands to choose.

There are places in the act that do encourage bands to adopt their own election codes or governance codes or financial accountability practices. It outlines what should be done and when it should be done, quite specifically. But bands are free to choose those, and they are even free to choose those in accordance with their traditions and cultures. In fact, some custom bands will be exempt if their customary practice of electing chief and council is such that it's established and fundamental in their traditional ways of dealing with matters in their own communities.

I'm sure there'll be plenty of good reasons why the government can't support this amendment, but one would be hard pressed to make a reasoned argument why this would be offensive to anybody on either side of the House.

So dealing with the details, we would be deleting the word “and” from paragraph 3(b), as it exists currently. In paragraph 3(c), we would be deleting lines 23 and 24 on page 3 and then adding the new wording we're suggesting as paragraph 3(d).

Just to be clear, lines 23 and 24 would be deleted, and “ity” would be added to “accountability”. So that makes room for, as it has been pointed out to me, paragraph 3(d) to flow from paragraph 3(c). That's helpful.

We think this is a positive amendment. It's offered in the spirit of cooperation, which we think will actually reduce some of the hostility we witnessed earlier today among even members of the Liberal Party, prominent members of the Liberal Party, who were thrown out of the room earlier today. It might give some satisfaction to those people who are concerned that there's something sinister about Bill C-7 that seeks to undermine their ability to choose, or their freedom to choose, their own means of achieving transparency and accountability in accordance with their traditions and culture.

I think it would be negligent if we had a clause 3, under “Purposes of Act”, that didn't even have the words “traditions and culture” included, because as my colleague from the Bloc has pointed out, language, culture, and tradition are aspects of self-governance and aspects of sovereignty that shape and define an independent people.

We have very little reference anywhere in this act to traditional structures of culture, language and traditions, spiritual influences, medicine wheels, all these aspects of culture that we were told by many presenters are integral and important to the design of any governance structures at all.

So I would seek the broad support of everyone to be able to entertain the introduction of paragraph 3(d).

½ (1940)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Hubbard.

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

Very briefly, I would have to question the motive of this amendment. To remove the word “and” doesn't seem to be very significant. I would hope that the mover, in his summary, would indicate the significance of the word “and”.

Secondly, Mr. Chair, the removal of lines 23 and 24 and substituting would seem to destroy, or at least to do away with, the intent that most bands do have successful methods of regimes, as I guess we call them in the bill, and it would appear that the honourable member wants to remove the necessity of having successful regimes.

I know in some of our hearings we heard that the occasional band has no rules whatsoever and it seems to be a matter of what is acceptable or used at that particular instance in time.

So the point I would make is that it destroys the intent of our bill, and I would hope that the mover would explain that to the committee before the vote is taken.

The Chair: Anyone else?

Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I thought Mr. Hubbard was putting a question to the officials. Can Mr. Martin answer?

The Chair: He'll have 10 minutes at the end.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Fine.

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to support this amendment introduced by my colleague from the NDP, Mr. Martin, because I think this is an amendment that, as compared to the present wording of clause 3, can at least serve to correct certain deficiencies, some weaknesses or some things that were forgotten by the people who wrote up the bill.

For example, when he says that clause 3(c), on page 3, should end after "ity; and", I can only agree, because the rest of the paragraph's only purpose is to impose rules on the aboriginal nations that they don't want and that don't come from them and that, once again, come from the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. It's sort of like maintaining the status quo because that's what we're doing right now. When the aboriginal nations don't want something, a co-manager is appointed and imposed upon them and they are subjected to intimidation. In many cases, all across Canada, we heard about intimidation being exercised on aboriginal band leaders by the Department of Indian Affairs.

The other aspect I find quite interesting, because it summarizes the whole debate we've been having since the beginning of our deliberations:

(d) to protect the freedom of bands to choose their own means of achieving transparency, accountability and good governance in accordance with their traditions and culture.

It couldn't be said any better in view of the debate that has been ongoing since we've been here. We're talking about freedom of choice. Any sovereign nation has that freedom to choose, for better or for worse. This nation can choose whatever direction it likes, and make mistakes, but it remains responsible for the success or failure of the decision it has made.

That's what you call sovereignty. It can be exercised for good or for bad but it is not up to us, other nations, to judge the relevancy of those decisions made by the native nations which are otherwise sovereign. It is not up to us to decide whether they are right or wrong.

So it's the freedom to choose with all the duties that go with that. I congratulate my colleague Martin. It could not have been worded better in that respect; this wording is of considerable scope as to the meaning of what a nation is.

So, we're talking about the freedom to choose the means to attain all the objectives we wish to attain with this bill. It talks about transparency and good management. I think we were right in pointing out, at the beginning of this evening, that by raising this business about transparency, good management and accountability, we were being led to believe that the native nations had been bad managers of the funds they were allocated.

When she tabled her latest report, the Auditor General said that the onus isn't on the aboriginal nations but on the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, who demands scores of management reports, year after year, then takes those management reports and files them in the nearest wastebasket without even taking them into account. Those reports requires considerable energy as well as human and financial resources that could be used for other purposes if the department were interested in the advancement of the aboriginal nations.

So what we want to do here is to "protect the freedom of bands to choose their own mean of achieving transparency", if that's not the case already, and "accountability and good governance in accordance with their traditions and culture."

That's another interesting aspect of the wording of that amendment introduced by my colleague from the NDP. Whoever says nation, inherent right to self-government and rights stemming from treaties is also talking about showing respect for the people who are at the root of those treaties or the inherent right to self-government.

½ (1945)

It is fundamental for the aboriginal nations that we take into account their traditions and their culture. They want to govern themselves based on what they are, based on their history, based on the institutions that existed before we started trampling the ground here with our colonizers' boots and imposed supposedly more modern and effective systems on them. Finally, if you look at the colonizers of this country and Bill C-7 which is being imposed by the federal government, there's not much difference between the two. At that time, the aboriginal nations were told that their systems were inadequate, that they were ill-organized and that we had the answer to their problems, their apparent problem of governance.

There were aboriginal nations in America— and I'm talking here about the three Americas— that were organized in a way that would make the modern organization we now have in the areas of government and departments and others pale in comparison. Those systems were really effective. They had systems of representation that could serve as lessons in democracy for us.

We showed up and told them that wasn't the right way to do things and that with our European methods we would show them how governance actually is done. So we demolished all the tools of governance and the institutions of the first nations.

Then we looked at their religion and we did the same thing. Religion and culture are intimately intertwined for the aboriginal nations and this is easy to feel. Spirituality, culture and traditions are intertwined and form a beautiful historic base that the aboriginal nations managed to conserve against all odds. Then they were told that their religion was not the right one, that it was a pagan religion. So Christian religions were imposed on them.

Then we criticized their dress and told them that long hair wasn't good and we cut their hair. We took their children away from them and put them in orphanages because the aboriginal nations weren't able to properly educate their children, or so we said.

Bill C-7 provides a way in which we can continue to dictate to those aboriginal nations what they must be and what they must do. What difference is there between the first wave of colonization, when the Europeans showed up and destroyed everything the aboriginal nations had and the bill we have here before us? I find the amendment introduced by Mr. Martin in favour of "good governance in accordance with their traditions and culture" is fundamental when you compare it to the initial wording of clause 3 that was presented to us in Bill C-7.

I must congratulate him again because he has managed to include in this amendment the many representations we heard at the Indian Affairs Committee about Bill C-7 but also about Bill C-6. Those representations all went in the same direction, which was the rejection of this bill because it is fundamentally flawed at the outset, as it does not recognize what the aboriginal nations are. Besides, instead of renewing our relations on a new basis, the preference seems to be to carry on colonizing, in spite of all the problems that may bring in the future.

I can't repeat it enough: if we're not careful and if we think we're going to pass a bill like this one without seeing any reactions... I would refer all my colleagues back to the report of the Royal Commission which, as early as 1991, said that you couldn't just whip any old thing past the aboriginal nations anymore, that those days were over. The aboriginal nations know their rights and also their obligations, but they first and foremost know our duty to them which is not to repeat the errors of history.

If the committee persists in this way of analyzing Bill C-7 and in its attitude in that respect, a steam-roller attitude, the more— and mostly less— elegant attitude that we've witnessed during our many debates, where invective was flying, I do believe that we are going to be royally mistaken and that the reaction we've witnessed today might occur again and intensify over the coming days.

½ (1950)

I would just, then, suggest to my colleagues on this committee to vote in favour of this excellent amendment which, on the one hand, relieves the native nations from the obligation to conform to rules that would just be thrown at them and, on the other hand protects their freedom to choose.

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Loubier.

Is there anyone else?

Mr. Martin, closing remarks.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I guess I would begin by reminding members that clause 3, on the purposes of the act, is supposed to be a statement of fundamental principles. It's supposed to give direction or guidance to those who would pick up this bill to read it or those who are charged with the responsibility of interpreting it. It's supposed to give guidance to those who may come across this bill years from now, long after we're gone, when someone will be arguing about the interpretation of the bill or about an aspect of it. If they can't agree and there is an impasse over the interpretation of the bill, they will then go to what the original drafters intended by the language. In the future, this will give some direction or guidance to an arbitrator or a judge.

So the purposes of the clauses are very important. They not only state what the plan is, but by showing what the bill is about, they also give some comfort to those people who the bill is affecting. It's just a short version or an encapsulation of what the bill seeks to achieve or what its goals are. It's an incredible and glaring oversight that nowhere in the purposes of the act is there any acknowledgement or recognition of aboriginal culture or tradition. This is the very place that it belongs--to acknowledge and recognize that everything about this act should be done in accordance with traditional cultural norms and mores. If the whole bill or this particular clause is about principles, this is where we find it to be very, very important to state the fundamental principles, that culture and tradition....

Frankly, in my Winnipeg riding, there are over 14,000 people who self-identified as aboriginal in the last census--and I believe there are many more. In my riding, it's been obvious to me that so much strength has been garnered lately from exercising traditional cultural practices that even though, by anyone's standards, the overwhelming majority of aboriginal people live well below the poverty line and are suffering from many of the predictable social consequences of chronic long-term poverty--youth gang violence, crimes, substance abuse, and many of these issues--it's been heartening to me to see how many youth are actually regaining a sense of pride and a sense of hope by rediscovering their traditional spirituality, practices, and codes, etc. I don't speak for them, but it's become apparent to me and many people in the community that, for a couple hundred of years, they have felt like a round peg in a square hole. They've been subjected to our Eurocentric and colonial view of the world, and they have not been flourishing under our interpretation of what's good for them. Even within the confines and the parameters of the current Indian Act, or western culture as we know it, the semblance of strength that we are seeing emerging among young aboriginal people who are in recovery, and their survival in their environment, is coming from their traditional cultural practices.

It would be a glaring oversight or an omission on our part to not make reference to that. Nothing else, as I pointed out, in any way contradicts the purposes or the intention of the act. People may be interested in the first two aspects.

Frankly, I forget Mr. Hubbard's question.

If I can ask through the chair, was it paragraph 3(b) that your question was about, Mr. Hubbard?

½ (1955)

Mr. Charles Hubbard: May I answer?

The Chair: Yes, please.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: The significance of the word “and”, and secondly, the motive, in terms of attempting to change the intent of the bill....

Mr. Pat Martin: Well, it wasn't my intention.

I don't think, in answering you very seriously, the reason “and” is deleted is that you wouldn't need an “and” any more. This is strictly a language thing so that the bill flows. We're not trying to achieve anything by that. It's simply for clarity in terms of reading. And I don't see how anything in what we're proposing changes the intent of the bill because it is the stated intention of the bill.

Certainly I've heard the minister make reference to culture and tradition, and I've heard many people call for it. If it's not the stated intention of the bill to protect the freedom of bands to choose their own means, then this bill should never be passed. If you have in your mind anything to the contrary, then this government is up to more sinister activity than even I expected.

Right within the bill it recognizes the freedom of bands to choose their own means of governance. It also says that if they choose not to adopt their own means, then means will be imposed on them. But that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about acknowledging and recognizing the freedom of bands to choose their own means of accountability and good governance.

I wish I could have a dialogue with Mr. Hubbard so he could explain to me how he thinks that changes the intent of the bill. Or perhaps he does not see it elsewhere in the bill. It actually calls upon first nations to find and create their own means of achieving those three stated objectives: accountability, election codes, and good governance codes.

So I fail to see where there's any threat to the intentions of the bill. And it gives some satisfaction to those people who have brought it to our intention that nowhere in the purpose clause, clause 3, does it acknowledge and recognize cultures and traditions.

Elsewhere in the bill, I think it would be in keeping with other aspects of the bill where it does recognize custom codes. Bands may be exempted from the imposition of the default mechanism of this bill, if in fact their established custom practices prevail.

I hope I've answered Mr. Hubbard's questions.

Perhaps our technical people can enlighten us further if there is any time left in my ten minutes. I welcome them to help Mr. Hubbard with clarification if that is of interest to him.

¾ (2000)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Warren Johnson: Given the statement, the intent to acknowledge and make reference to culture and tradition and not to change the intent, the choice in reference to developing and referencing that is earlier in the same clause, in reference to elsewhere in the bill in terms of development of their own codes. The question would be in this specific choice of words, since, again, it's in the same clause...it may be interpreted to mean something different. One clear interpretation that could come out of this is that you can opt out of the whole thing, that this bill doesn't apply to you, separate from the process of implementation of the inherent right, which is also referenced in the bill. It would potentially mean, in plain language, if not in legalese, that there is some third option here, which is in fact not the intent of the bill, and therefore it might be interpreted as a change in intent in the bill.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, you have 40 seconds.

Mr. Pat Martin: I suppose the ADM, Mr. Johnson, is correct, because we also seek to delete the language “while providing rules for those bands that do not choose to do so”. I guess we are eliminating the default mechanism of the whole process, which is exactly what we are asked to do by virtually all first nations that came to speak to us. If there is anything subversive about this amendment, I'll put it on the table, and that's exactly it.

We would seek to achieve the recognition of traditions in culture and the freedom to choose, but by deleting the words “ while providing rules for those bands that do not choose to do so”, it really takes away the idea of the imposition of default codes on those bands that don't choose to do so.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now for the vote.

An hon. member: I would like a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 2)

The Chair: Now we go to amendment NDP-8, and I should say that amendment BQ-7 and amendment NDP-8 are identical. Therefore the result of amendment NDP-8 will apply to amendment BQ-7.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: I will withdraw amendment NDP-8.

The Chair: Amendment NDP-8 is withdrawn. We are on amendment BQ-7.

¾ (2005)

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, the purpose of this amendment is to get rid of an irritant which, besides being major, was also described as a constant one by the vast majority of people who tabled briefs on Bill C-7 and, more particularly, its clause 3 before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs.

Now, it is quite possible that at the end of the day, most of the first nations will choose their own code and that the last part of paragraph 3(c) might not have to be implemented. On the other hand, the fact that in some respects this bill gives first nations the feeling their innermost core is under attack and that is irritating and even revolting. Imposing rules on those bands that don't come up with their own is something that cannot be accepted anymore, in 2003, some 12 years after the report produced by the Royal Commission on aboriginal peoples.

Even in those days, the seven commissioners of the Erasmus-Dussault Commission unanimously stated that if we really wanted to get our relations back on the same footing they were before the Indian Act, we had to come to a state of mind not to say a state of principles that would set the table for negotiations and discussions between equals. In other words, you couldn't have one nation holding dominion over the other. Each nation should to be able to discuss, express its thoughts and make suggestions that would result in harmonious relations and partnerships.

Fourteen major witnesses had problems with clause 3. If, on top of that, we've been examining this clause for some four hours now, it isn't without a valid reason. This is really a major irritant and I'm wondering if by limiting ourselves strictly to the wording of paragraph 3(c) which is an obligation for accountability, as is suggested, without providing for rules to be imposed upon those native nations that would not conform to that provision, wouldn't that be one way of eliminating from any of our future discussions on Bill C-7 this irritant which has been chasing if not pursuing us so far.

That is the reason behind this amendment. I'm sure that Mr. Martin, who proposed exactly the same wording—namely to just enforce accountability and do away with imposing rules and codes on the native nations—did so exactly for the same reasons as I and because he heard the same things. However, what may come as a surprise is that, on the other side, my colleagues did not hear the same recriminations coming from the first nation representatives concerning the last part of the wording of paragraph 3(c) that we would like to eliminate.

Based on the discussions we held with the aboriginal representatives, we identified that irritant and we will find, as we examine the other clauses of this bill, that there are many more. It seems to me that if we really want to show good will and good faith in the establishment of new, more harmonious relations with the native nations, we should meet their expectations in that respect especially as that would not be a major change to the scope of clause 3.

¾ (2010)

This would enable us to adopt a positive and civilized approach that would respect the freedom of the Aboriginal nations and their inherent right to self-government. We could subsequently put behind us these 130 years during what we enforced a completely colonialist act, namely the Indian Act.

I would like my colleagues to understand that this will not take anything away from this clause. In a closer examination, you can see that a type of threat is hanging over the Aboriginal nations. They have to hurry up and implement their codes and institutions within two years. Bands that fail to establish their own system will have rules imposed on them. What is even worse, as was pointed out during a course of many interventions pertaining to clause 3, the people consulted were not even able to tell us what codes and rules would apply by default.

How can you threaten someone with something without even knowing what it is all about? In this world where so many mistakes are made and so much excessive language is used, as has been the case here, at certain times, we're resorting to intimidation and rudeness of this type. Telling the Aboriginal nations that, if they do not do their assigned homework, we will be imposing our own rules on them, is really no different, in terms of attitude, from the way we have governed our relations with them since time immemorial.

I am therefore moving, in the hope that it will be supported—I know that I have the support of Mr. Martin from the NDP, because he was suggesting exactly the same wording as I am—, to ensure that, from the outset, we receive no further criticism with respect to clause 3, which is at the very heart of the bill.

It seems to me that, as legislators, it must be gratifying to be able to say that we have really done some good work and that, by finalizing the details, we have achieved the result such as paragraph 3(c) will no longer contain irritants. It must be pleasant to think that, with this clause resolved, we can now move on to clause 4 knowing that the first nations will accept the wording, given the fact that whst they precisely resent is having things imposed upon them and being intimidated. It seems to me that, as legislators, we would feel that we have done our job.

We have travelled to the regions and we have examined all of the briefs submitted, not to mention all of the excellent summaries prepared by the Library of Parliament, my trainee and my assistant. Why should we have bothered to atend so many presentations and analysis, why should we have spent so much time and resources in conjunction with these presentations when, at the end of the day, each of the strengths and weaknesses pointed out in the bill was dismissed and put into the garbage? Why did we bother travelling? Why did we hear the witnesses? Why did we do these analyses and why did the witnesses prepare briefs when you knew, from the outset, you, the disciples of emperor Robert Nault, that no amendment would be made to this bill, with the exception of the 35 amendments aimed at ensuring that the government, acting like the two of spades by presenting Bill C-7, is not had? There are so many grey zones, so many nebulous and dangerous zones that the government feels the need to table 35 amendments.

However, out of respect for all of those who have made representations, would it be possible to accept a few amendments, particularly those which, like these ones, are so fundamental? I am referring to amendments that would put an end to the systematic infantilization of the Aboriginal nations, when the political discourse is so totally different.

As for the analysis of the bill, I believe that we can demonstrate goodwill and good faith. I am appealing to your understanding and therefore asking you to support this amendment, which would contribute positively to the debate on the adoption of Bill C-7, since clause 3 itself becomes positive when we strike out the last part of the sentence.

¾ (2015)

I am appealing to your clemency, your good will and your intelligence. You have read and heard the same things that I have during our travels, and it is clear that no one wants the last part of paragraph 3(c).

I would challenge you to name one first nation, out of all of those who have appeared before us or who have tabled a brief, which agrees with this part of the wording and is pleased at the prospect of getting hit over the head two years down the road—

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Hubbard.

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

In his opening statement Mr. Loubier complained about the time that's being taken to follow these amendments. I'd like to note, Mr. Chair, that in nearly every case this afternoon, both Mr. Loubier and Mr. Martin not only tried to explain but they wanted to utilize the maximum amount of time available to them. In fact, the chair had to cut them off each time because they utilized every possible moment, often talking about issues that weren't directly connected with their amendment.

I'd also like to point out, Mr. Chair, that in clause 3 they talk about collaborative efforts that may be made by several bands together. The minister has indicated that resources will be provided or offered to bands that are involved in developing their codes and their so-called regimes. To take out of the purpose of the act the fact that there is a necessity of developing a code or a regime certainly would destroy the intent of what this legislation is about. So from that point of view, Mr. Chair, we would find it difficult to support the motion that was made on this amendment.

The Chair: Thank you.

Does anyone else wish to comment?

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to Mr. Loubier for giving us an opportunity to explain to Mr. Hubbard why it's so important that this particular language does come out of the scope, or the purposes, clause of this bill. If clause 3 is the intention, if it's a statement of principles, the very principle that so offends most people across the country is this idea that by default someone else, the Great White Father, the government in this case, will impose codes of government upon your community, on your supposedly independent state, or independent government peoples, that are maybe against your wishes, against your wills, and that you had no part in crafting.

What is particularly offensive is the fact that we don't even know what these rules are going to look like because the regulations have not even been drafted and drawn up yet. It's small comfort that the government has said that first nations will have a role in crafting these regulations.

They've had no role in crafting the bill. They're certainly not confident they'll have any more role in crafting the regulations that will follow. This speaks to the whole issue; those two lines, line 23 and line 24 in clause 3, if they were eliminated, even though we pointed out things we would rather were changed in clause 3, clause 3 does not offend nearly as much without, if you viewed it, this language of providing rules for those bands that do not choose to do so. Whether a band cannot or will not or fails to adopt the codes as envisioned by the government, regulations that they have never seen before and had no part in crafting will be imposed on them.

I've tried to point out the folly in that, not based on my own opinion and not even based on what we've heard, but based on the leading authorities on the subject of successful first nations communities elsewhere in the world, specifically the Harvard study. And I've made reference to this in previous comments, but they have some points of view in the Harvard Native Nations Institute report on the First Nations Governance Act that we should be seriously taking a look at around this table.

The idea of imposing a template, cookie-cutter approach ignores a vital reality that there's an enormous variety across first nations communities. There's a variety in circumstances, and history, and culture, including people's preferences about how they wish to govern or be governed. So when communities are allowed to make their own decisions about institutional form, this rich variety tends to produce diverse government structures and practices, not some kind of homogenized version as envisioned by the government.

It may look inefficient from an administrative point of view across the country to have individual structures and to allow that diversity. But it's that very diversity that's the recipe for success in the experience of the communities studied by the Harvard study. In fact, the imposed uniformity is the less efficient course to take because of its tendency to undermine, instead of facilitate, local governance. These are quotes from the researcher of the Harvard study, Dr. Stephen Cornell. He also points out that uniform decentralization schemes undertaken in various parts of the world often result in local governments that locals do not want and in which they refuse to participate.

I should share with you that this is what happened in the United States in the Indian Reorganization Act of 1934, which, while allowing Indian nations then to establish local governing units, specified the forms those units should take and the process by which they should be established.

It began by assuming that the basic organizational structure of American democracy was the ideal for everyone. So it was imposing their view upon first nations and it created a version of that structure designed by the federal government for Indian nations.

¾ (2020)

It organized an adoption process much like is contemplated by the language in lines 23 and 24, that while paying lip service to native decision-making, in effect, it imposed this structure on native communities, and the result was governing structures that for the most part ignored indigenous political culture and community organization. Many of these structures subsequently proved incapable of governing effectively, in part because they had no legitimacy with the people they were intended to govern.

So in layperson's terms, you're not going to get the buy-in of the very communities you're seeking to impose good governance codes on if those codes are imposed from above. Don't take my word for it. These are the experts and the authorities we sought out and brought to the committee to explain their findings. They've done the comprehensive analysis and the best analysis across the country.

The other problem, and it deals with the transfer of jurisdictional authority, true jurisdictional authority, these structures faced as well is they had very little real power. The Indian governments created under the Indian Reorganization Act, which is maybe what we should rename this bill, in the United States were not allowed to decide much of significance. It's like a line we used to use in labour negotiations: you'd get to choose what colour to paint the lunchroom and the boss still gets to decide at what speed the assembly line goes. That's essentially what's happening. The real decision-making authority still lies vested with the minister and very little of real jurisdictional power is transferred to the communities.

The Indian governments created under the Indian Reorganization Act in the United States were largely toothless and they became tribal arms of what remained in effect a federal administrative apparatus. If that sounds familiar, it's pretty much exactly the model we'd be introducing by the First Nations Governance Act. This was by design in the United States, but in their defence, it was 1934, when we were a lot less sensitive to a lot of issues we're aware of today.

So the designers of that legislation saw the fledgling tribal governance that they'd hoped to bring into being as vehicles not of self-rule but of assimilation, as mechanisms by which Indian communities could be transformed into slightly different versions of other American communities, and Indian individuals could learn to participate in the larger American polity as anyone else could.

This is completely appropriate and timely and on topic for what we're dealing with today. We're being cautioned by experts. What I regret is that I may have lost some legitimacy with you across the room because of the tactics we adopted in seeking to interrupt the flow of this bill, but I ask you to take at least some of the points I raise seriously in spite of how you feel about me. This is a serious cautionary note that was brought to our attention by Stephen Cornell and the Harvard study on first nations governance. It's a recipe to fail, and I say that with no mischief or malice. It's not going to work, is what we've been told by the authorities and by the very people it seeks to impose changes upon.

This one--it's not a benign or an innocuous change; it's a significant change. But by eliminating this language, or eliminating reference to the default mechanism, there's not much else in the bill that would really turn heads. Really, what most of the harsh critics of the bill are dwelling on is this fact that this is what infringes upon constitutionally recognized rights to self-governance, in that it clearly speaks to the fact that rules will be imposed, which surely undermines the right to self-determination if by whatever default mechanism your ability and your right to design your own codes of governance are being taken away from you and the authority is vested in the minister to impose codes that you may not want, you may not like, you may not need, and you may be determined to oppose.

I ask us to consider--

¾ (2025)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Ms. Neville.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I've been sitting here quietly because I'm not anxious to prolong the debate, but I just feel I have to make some comment.

I agree with my colleague across the way that this clause is indeed a statement of fundamental principles, and my understanding in reading paragraph 3(c) is that priority is given to the enabling piece to enable bands to design and implement their own regimes. I read this as the opportunity to make it happen, and I see the default mechanism as protection for those individuals who are ordinary band members where the power regimes choose not to design, implement, or whatever the opportunity for governance mechanisms we would hope they would do.

We've heard much about intimidation and threats, and I very much regret what went on here earlier today. It reminded me as I was sitting here of the intimidation and threats that went on by some of the same people involved today at the hearing in Winnipeg when those who disagreed with them chose to speak. That's why I am speaking on this clause, because I think those who disagree have to be ensured that their opportunity for protection is in fact in place.

I would ask for some clarification from those who were here today. I'm not a lawyer and I don't follow the nuances of the legislation. Am I right that the first part is the enabling legislation that will be there and that the final two lines are the protection for those ordinary members of a community who might wish governance when it's not there? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but....

¾ (2030)

The Chair: Mr. Johnson.

Mr. Warren Johnson: I think the simple answer is yes, given the way this is phrased, with the “enable” part first and then “while providing for those”.

The Chair: Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: If I understood correctly the last part of Ms. Neville's opinion and Mr. Johnson's response, you want to protect the Aboriginal peoples from themselves. You want to protect them from themselves. Is that really what you are telling us? In my opinion, this answer is not really rational or intelligent.

From the outset, we have seen first nations who want to assume responsibility for themselves, who know where they want to go and who are hoping that we will be able to support them in their efforts to assume this responsibility, while respecting who they are.

If some of you feel that the debate is too long and that we are always discussing the same things, namely clause 3 and its irritants, since we have been here, I would remind them that we are using their own rules of time allocation. This is what you have imposed on us. We wanted nothing to do with these time allocation rules, but you impose them on us by adopting Mr. Hubbard's motion, which implemented Mr. Finlay's motion. Moreover, count yourselves lucky, because part of the wording of the time allocation motion gives us an opportunity to ask you for ten additional minutes in order to debate a motion or an amendment and we haven't used this up until now. It is, however, quite comical to see Mr. Hubbard whining, when in fact we had warned him that he would be the one to carry the burden of history on his shoulders. History has only gone on for a few days, and already Mr. Hubbard is staggering under the weight of it, as a result of the time allocation motion.

In answer to the last comment I heard, I would say that I see some form of intimidation in the last part of the wording of paragraph 3(c). It cannot be said that we are respecting the Aboriginal nations, because if they are unable to come up with their own regime, we are going to hit them over the head. That is no way to enter into an agreement. I have rarely seen contracts stating that the parties trust each other, that they are partners and that they are shaking hands, but if ever things do not go in accordance with the plans of one party, the other party will be hit over the head. That is no way to get things off to a good start.

Bill C-7 begins by telling the Aboriginal nations that if they are not able to come up with codes, governance rules and democratic rules, we will impose some on them. If that is not intimidation, I wonder what is.

Moreover, when you look at the speeches, you get the impression that this is becoming almost a type of specialty item at the department of Indian and Northern Affairs. If a first nation is not in agreement with the findings of the Indian agent or co-manager, then it will be threatened with all kinds of things. We can threaten to cut its grants, we can overlook a family when it comes to housing and so on and so forth.

There was even the Femmes autochtones du QuébecAssociation which said that it normally received a subsidy of $113,000 from Heritage Canada and that, after being very vocal about its opposition to Bill C-7, it found itself without any Heritage Canada subsidy this year. It's actually quite funny. If that isn't intimidation, you have to wonder what is. Once the association had expressed its opposition to C-7 and the wording of 3(c), criticizing it and asking that it be struck out, even the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, which had promised the association $50,000 for a project, wound up giving it only $4,000. That is not intimidation? Of course not.

I know what intimidation is all about. A few years ago, criminal biker gangs tried to intimidate people in my region. I see that it is not only organized crime that can intimidate. Even in a bill, it is possible to intimidate and threaten, as was the case during the debate two days ago, when someone threatened to beat us up outside. We were called bastards. There can be that kind of intimidation, through a bill, and these are acceptable words. The bill states: “while providing rules for those bands that do not choose to do so.” This is all very politically correct, very fair play, harmless. But in the facts, we are saying that we do not respect the nations that have appeared before us, while at the same time stating that we want to consider them as equal nations.

¾ (2035)

It seems to me that there is something hypocritical about that, it is a despicable approach.

I go back to the representations we heard and the briefs we read. It would be so simple if both sides acted responsibly. It would be so easy to acknowledge that there is a problem in the wording and that providing for, from the outset, the imposition of codes and rules on bands that have not already defined a regime after a two-year period is not a good way to lay the ground work for harmonious relations between our nations. We want to assess them based on what we claim to be the best codes or the best rules in the world for selecting leaders or for managing the funds of a first nation.

Once again, I am appealing to your common sense. We have been doing so since 4 o'clock this afternoon, but it seems that we are preaching in the desert. Nonetheless, I am appealing to your common sense in asking you to strike out this portion of paragraph 3c). Representatives from the aboriginal nations appeared before us and there are some here this evening. They would appreciate it if you would at least set aside this type of stick that we are holding over their head, telling them that if they do not go along, we will make them do so based on our rules. That is no way to lay the foundations for the next decades. It seems to me that the burden of criticism resulting from 130 years of enforcing the Indian Act is quite sufficient, without beginning all over again with this type of consideration.

Moreover, we were not alone. A man you know very well, who was once Minister of Indian Affairs, denounced this type of thing. In Montreal, Mr. Warren Allmand told us that he disagreed with Bill C-7 because it did not respect the aboriginal nations and did not give them the consideration that they were due, namely, as nations that have our full respect, that have an inherent right to self-government and that also have rights resulting from treaties signed decades ago. He also deplored this allusion to colonialism which he thought had been wiped from the surface of the earth. We are now in the year 2003 and it seems to me that, at one point, we have to do away with this. I hope that you still respect your former colleague, Warren Allmand. As far as I am concerned, my respect for him has grown since he voiced his opposition to this bill. He has stated that he never thought he would change his mind, but that, after reading and analyzing this bill, he realized that the concept he had of our relationship with the aboriginal nations had indeed changed. He stated that he had changed and that he now recognized that we had been on the wrong trail, and that the right path was spelled out by the Royal Commission on aboriginal peoples. Mr. Allmand said all of that.

You can reject what I am telling you, because I am not of the same political stripe as you, but I do not accept your dismissing the analysis of a former colleague who was respected and is respectful. We really need to question your capacity to change your mind or to challenge your emperor, the Minister of Indian Affairs, emperor Robert Nault.

I am asking you, once again, to do away with this provision, but I am sure that you will not do so. It would really take a miracle to get you to agree to such an amendment. But it seems to me that this would help things move along.

Since 4 o'clock, we have been debating all aspects of this clause, but up until now, we have not adopted any amendments that would enable us to eliminate this irritant and strengthen the wording in the preamble to the bill, but which is not found anywhere else in the bill, which begins with clause 3.

I will ask you once again to support my amendment and I am also asking for a recorded vote.

¾ (2040)

Le président: A recorded division.

Amendment negatived: nays, 8; yeas,1.

[English]

The Chair: We're on to BQ-8. Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to address clause 3 once again. I think I'll be having alphabet visions in my soup for the next few days.

In clause 3, Mr. Chairman, once again we try to improve things by saying that you can or must provide, for the implementation of Bill C-7, resources to help the aboriginal nations accelerate the setting up of institutions, rules or codes of governance.

In the discussion we had previously, we were saying that we had to support the efforts of aboriginal nations, that we had to see to it that they could govern themselves based on their own vision of their community development, their own institutions and their own ways of doing things that are linked to their culture, their history and their environment because they are intimately linked to that environment through historical links, ancestral practices and spirituality.

We are asking that through this bill some things be fast-tracked , others be finalized and that for some others a code of governance and financial management characterized by transparency and other requirements for the modern management of a community be set up.

From the outset, just as most of the aboriginal nation representatives who appeared before us, we have been saying that they need the proper resources to do everything we're asking them to do such as preparing their territorial claims, researching treaties signed decades ago and collecting the many tales of oral tradition that will help establish their native rights. They need a lot of resources to prepare all that as well as their defence regarding territorial claims and their rights over those territories.

Besides, we're now asking them to meet the requirements of Bill C-7 which, for some of them, will monopolize the greater proportion of the human and financial resources they have available. They'll have to use those few limited resources, especially financial resources, to bring Bill C-7 to fruition.

Notwithstanding that, we asking them to pursue the legal steps they've undertaken with regard to certain specific claims. This has to be done in another area and this will call upon enormous first nation financial and human resources that they don't necessarily have available. There's a problem there. Now, when we're talking about specific claims, even if aboriginal nations have to spend tremendous amounts of resources of all kinds, they've just had a cap of $7 million imposed upon them as to the amount of specific claims they can legally pursue.

¾ (2045)

We will have an opportunity to go back to this issue of special claims, but let us examine our initial comments.

Since the beginning of the debate on Bill C-7, the federal government, through Robert Nault, without really making any commitment, said that it may free up some monies to assist the first nations in meeting the requirements of Bill C-7. However, the minister has not closed the gap between the ability to do something and the political will to carry this out. If the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs does in fact really want to make additional resources available to the aboriginal nations so that they can meet the many requirements of Bill C-7, why did he not provide resources for aboriginal nations directly in the bill, by identifying these resources as well as the amounts? Why did he not stipulate in the bill that there would be resources available to meet the requirements of Bill C-7?

Earlier a colleague said that we had to trust the minister. In this type of contract, we cannot trust any minister, any government. I am starting to become very familiar with the history. In the past, we signed treaties with the aboriginal nations and then we passed legislation, when there was a transfer from the Crown to the federal government. There has been too much betrayal of these agreements for us to trust a minister who may very well be replaced in one or two years. He is asking many aboriginal nations in Canada to trust him and he is saying that some additional money could be made available so that they will not be strangled by the requirements of an offensive which, in every aspect, appears to be just about complementary to C-7, C-19 and all that.

How can we believe this minister when he tells us that he may make additional money available to help aboriginals comply with the various conditions laid down in Bill C-7? How can we believe him when he is telling us, at the same time, that C-7 is there to mitigate this reflex which is too often used as a court process in relationships between aboriginal people and the federal government? He has said that Bill C-7 will decrease the use of this court process because things will be clearer and that he intends to push ahead with self-government projects and land claim discussions.

We are not idiots. It is not possible for people not to understand exactly what we understand. This bill settles nothing regarding aboriginal land claim requirements. Nothing has been resolved with respect to aboriginal self-government and the many lawsuits that may follow. All of those working in the legal field are telling us that the likelihood of challenges under Bill C-7 are greater, if you take a look at what is contained in the Indian Act and other federal laws.

On the one hand, we are being told that there will be less use of the judicial system and that aboriginal peoples will therefore have additional resources that they can use elsewhere, and the minister is saying that he will be making additional money available. On the other hand, we are being told that Bill C-7 may have the opposite effect: the number of court challenges will increase and the very scarce resources of the aboriginal nations may very well wind up being used to finance legal court battles, and that the number of these cases may double. What is the weak promise made by the Minister of Indian Affairs to increase resources to help them when all kinds of legislative resources are being implemented to crush them?

¾ (2050)

The purpose of this amendment is to provide, in the bill itself, administrative and technical support to first nations to enable them to develop these codes and rules. It seems to me that such support requires no explanation when you are dealing with such requirements.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: At this time, Mr. Chair, I'm going to move that we adjourn the meeting. If that doesn't pass, I think there'll be some of us leaving at this point. We've put in a fairly long day, and I think we need to be alert and rested to be able to take this work on seriously. With that, I move adjournment of the meeting.

I'll be departing shortly if this doesn't pass.

The Chair: Without debate, those in favour?

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: We are adjourned until 3:15 tomorrow afternoon.