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

Monday, May 12, 2003

1535

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

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.)

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1550

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1555

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1600

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. Pat Martin

1605

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1610

1615

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1620

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1625

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

1630

The Chair

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

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. Pat Martin

1635

1640

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1645

1650

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1655

1700

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1705

1710

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1715

1720

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1725

1730

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1735

1740

1745

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1750

1755

The Chair

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

1825

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1830

1835

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1840

1845

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

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

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1850

1855

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1900

1905

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

1910

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1915

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1935

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

1940

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1945

1950

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

1955

2000

The Chair

Mr. Maurice Vellacott

The Chair

Mr. Charles Hubbard

2005

Mr. Paul Salembier

Mr. Charles Hubbard

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

2010

2015

The Chair

Mr. Jeremy LeBlanc (Procedural Clerk)

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

2020

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

2025

2030

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

The Chair

Mr. Pat Martin

2035

2040

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

2045

2050

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources

NUMBER 072

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Monday, May 12, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¹ (1535)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.)): Bonjour, and welcome, everyone. We'll resume our clause-by-clause study of Bill C-7, an act respecting leadership selection, administration, and accountability of Indian bands, and to make related amendments to other acts. We are on page 189, amendment BQ-40, Monsieur Loubier.

(On clause 30--Band registry)

The Chair: Mr. Hubbard, on a point of order.

Mr. Charles Hubbard (Miramichi, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I would like you to rule on amendment BQ-40 because it calls for the expenditure of money, which I believe is beyond the scope of this committee.

The Chair: We'll get a ruling on that.

This amendment replaces a suggestion in the bill that a registry be established, and this is interpreted as being a similar type of infrastructure. Because of that reason, the recommendation by the legislative clerk is to accept it. I will accept it.

Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): There is a problem with the interpretation: the volume is very low.

[English]

The Chair: We will suspend for 10 minutes until we can hear properly.

¹ (1537)

¹ (1548)

The Chair: Monsieur Loubier, on amendment BQ-40, page 189.

[Translation]

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

Before we begin, I would just like to know why today's sitting is not being televised. Based on Mr. Hubbard's request last Monday, my understanding was that all sittings would be televised. But I see that today's session is not. Is there a reason for that?

[English]

The Chair: Last Thursday, when I decided to adjourn and that today we would sit for only six hours--it seems to be a national scandal that we're sitting for only six hours; I thought that was long for a committee--I also decided I would not invite the cameras to be active, because of the spectacle and the embarrassment we're putting Canadians through in this committee.

That's why we don't have the cameras. It's my call and I'm sticking to it.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: So, you're saying that by explaining Bill C-7 to Canadians, we're causing them embarrassment. It's pretty incredible to hear comments like that. The reason these sessions are televised is to inform people of the decisions being made by the government about the First Nations. We are here to keep people informed.

Now if you believe deep down that it's pointless and that we are being bothersome by doing so, well you are entitled to your own opinion, but the system does not exist only to serve you, Mr. Chairman; its role is to serve the people of Canada, and so far, we've had only positive feedback. I have in fact received e-mails at my office, and Pat Martin probably has as well, about the fact that for once, we are telling people about the real issues facing the First Nations, and not about the kind of futile issues covered in Bill C-7. So, I am absolutely stunned to hear you say that telling Canadians about the government's real intentions with respect to the First Nations is harmful to them. I don't agree with that.

We can discuss that later, but I have every intention of challenging that ruling, particularly since when Mr. Hubbard asked that our sittings be televised last Monday, he didn't say that it was just for the week. He said that it would be for all sittings, so I'm a little disappointed.

¹ (1550)

[English]

The Chair: Pat Martin.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Hubbard is the one who proposed that our sitting be televised. We'll get the motion out; we'll check the “blues”.

[English]

Have you suggested we have television?

A voice: Yes.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, and Mr. Hubbard too, if I remember from last Monday.

The Chair: When we went to this room and it was televised, it was as a result of Mr. Pat Martin's request. My office indicated to Mr. Martin's office that they should poll members and if they got the support, we would ask for this room and for the cameras.

It was a good suggestion. We did a week of that, until 4:30 in the morning. Now, it's still in this room, but there are no cameras.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: And what can we do to find those cameras again, Mr. Chairman? Do we have to make the request and hope that the prince will see fit to accede to his subjects' request? What's the process here?

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Martin's request was for one meeting. I left the cameras on all week.

We are now in clause-by-clause. You are on your 10 minutes; you're up to 3 minutes and 25 seconds.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Yes, but I'm going to take the time I need. This is my speaking time. If I request that our meetings be televised until clause-by-clause consideration is completed, will you look favourably on that request, given that you looked favourably on such a request from Mr. Martin? I'm asking you the question and also making that request: would it be possible to have all our meetings televised until Bill C-7 is passed?

[English]

The Chair: Do what Mr. Martin did--poll the members. If you get a majority of the standing committee members to agree with you, I will always acquiesce to the wishes of the committee. I've been chairing for a long time, and always the committee makes those decisions.

But it won't be done now, today. After this meeting you can ask all the members for their support.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I'm a little disappointed, but I will make a formal request and attempt to benefit from the same privileges granted Mr. Martin last week. My understand, however, was that this would be done until completion of debate.

My amendment BQ-40 is intended to eliminate something we have always denounced since first starting clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-7, namely the Minister's power to decide for First Nations what's good for them. Indeed, the initial wording is:

The Minister shall provide for the establishment of a national registry of codes and laws.

From the very beginning, we have been saying that the Minister's role, like the government's, is a fiduciary role--in other words, to support initiatives developed by the First Nations, not to try and impose things on them, like the establishment of a national registry of codes and laws to which all persons have access. There is quite a bit of background to that. Indeed, the First Nations have clearly asked the federal government for additional resources to develop these codes.

As things now stand, however, the First Nations lack resources. Their resources are extremely limited. Indeed, the needs of their communities are so considerable that it is a lot to ask of them that they use those resources to develop codes such as those required under Bill C-7, which will serve no purpose whatsoever, since the next Prime Minister won't implement this Bill.

So, First Nations are being asked to use human and financial resources to develop codes and laws in order to comply with a Bill that they don't want. That is a pretty outrageous request. Put yourselves in their position: you are asking them to develop codes and laws, yet you're not supporting them, as we would have had a right to expect from the central government, you make no provision in the Bill for additional resources to be provided to them, and you're demanding that they meet all kinds of conditions which ultimately will in no way improve their situation.

I know that you are not really receptive to our amendments. It looks like everything aimed at improving the Bill gets on your nerves, and that all you really want to do is have a chance to gayly announce, as the Chairman has been doing for a week now, “defeated”, with a big smile on your face. The whole point of my amendment is to improve things by creating a national governance centre that will help the First Nations develop those codes themselves, if they so desire and based on their own requirements--in other words, guided, as always, by that philosophy that should underlie our relations with the First Nations.

Over the weekend, given that I take a tremendous interest in the subject, I was re-reading the report of the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government in Canada to see what vision and approach it presented. In fact, it suggested that the First Nations, and only the First Nations, define their codes, their legislation, their government structures and their democratic system based on their culture, their history and in the case of a number of communities, based on what existed before the Europeans arrived. And the only thing the federal government was asked to do was, in keeping with its fiduciary role, offer guidance, through the provision of appropriate resources, with respect to how all of this should be developed as part of a third order of Aboriginal government.

Furthermore, we received testimony here in Ottawa about where and how certain American experiences with rebuilding their First Nations had worked. And those experiences did not entail imposing anything on the First Nations; rather, they were supported and assisted with the work of developing their governance structures based on their needs, the needs of their members, their culture, and what had existed before the arrival of the Europeans. I believe that this national centre would be more favourably received than the idea of the Minister providing for the establishment of a national registry. Setting rules and providing for the establishment of a national registry will change absolutely nothing. That comes after the fact, once we've already asked First Nations to invest considerable resources in developing codes that they don't even want. What they need now is support. I'm sure we can all agree that some small communities--indeed, I was discussing this today with a reporter--might require more help than the majority of First Nations. But it is the small isolated communities that may at some point encounter problems in terms of their government. That's why we need to support them, not impose things on them. But we don't need…

¹ (1555)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Martin.

[English]

Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We find ourselves back where we left off last week. Some of us had a glimmer of hope and optimism that perhaps the government was changing its mind about this bill, that our arguments over 95-some-odd hours of debate around the committee table had been listened to and heard, and that perhaps the government had even revisited some of the many submissions that were made.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, if I may, maybe the government is, but this is not government, and we'll never find out until we send it back to the House. This is not the government, so who knows? Maybe they are reconsidering, but let's send it back and find out.

Mr. Pat Martin: Point taken, but I think it's clear the minister has a very direct role to play in the conduct of this standing committee, and there's been some very direct interference in the role of this committee by the minister and the minister's office, not the least of which is the aggressive public relations campaign that's playing itself out across the country as we speak, with open letters to editorial boards, etc.--a campaign, really, to try to garner support for this bill, even though at the same instant the public is becoming aware of how flawed and fundamentally wrong this bill is. There's a growing understanding across the country that what's going on around this committee is fundamentally wrong, that the process is as offensive as the content of the bill, and that we are making these determinations without the input or the participation of the very people whose lives will be affected by this bill.

Mr. Loubier has put forward an amendment as we're seeking to plod through this bill to try to mitigate some of the more offensive details, or the issues associated with the bill that most offend first nations. He's trying his best, in this amendment, to introduce the concept that if we are going to have any central registry of governance codes, that central registry should be viewed as a centre of excellence to assist first nations, if they choose, to review the current practice, to assess the type of development that has taken place in first nations across the country, and to draw from or build off those best practices we may find in other parts of the country.

We see the difference between what Mr. Loubier is recommending in his amendment BQ-40 compared to what the bill has. We don't know who drafted the bill; we certainly had no participation or role in crafting this language. Neither did first nations people. But the language in Bill C-7 says:

The Minister shall provide for the establishment of a national registry of codes and laws made under this Act, to which all persons have reasonable access during normal business hours.

The minister can do whatever he wants, frankly. Who cares if the minister decides to establish a list of the codes that are developed around the country? We have no particular objection to that idea. The minister is within his rights to create such a list. Such a list would exist, I suppose, by virtue of the fact that these things would be filed with the department anyway. And the hours within which people can visit and review these things is so petty, I argue it doesn't belong within any kind of legislative regime. If anything, it's the type of thing the details of which would be developed later under regulations.

But why you would actually talk about access “during normal business hours” in this particular bill is beyond me. Just how prescriptive are we going to get here? Would we dictate the type of paper upon which the codes are to be written and the type of shelves upon which they're to be stored? It really is micromanaging the impact of this bill.

Mr. Loubier is seeking to delete that--

º (1600)

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Cookies and biscuits....

Mr. Pat Martin: This is what we talked about earlier. They seek to micromanage us to the point of telling us what type of meetings should be held, where they should be held, how often they should be held, what type of milk and cookies should be served at the meeting, etc. You might as well take it to the ridiculous extremes. How far can paternalism go while we're testing the boundaries or pushing the envelope? How paternalistic can we get in one bill? This seems to be the objective here.

Mr. Loubier is suggesting that we take the nucleus of a concept and develop it into something useful. He's suggesting that the minister shall provide for the establishment of a national governance centre, a centre of excellence where people can bring their best practices and compare them and learn from them and analyse them and assess them and draw inspiration from them. Or smaller communities that may not have the administrative capacity may borrow ideas from a centre of excellence.

There's precedent for that across the country in many fields and endeavours, whether it's a centre of excellence for health or for industry--for any number of things.

So a centre of excellence for governance makes eminent good sense to me. If we're in agreement, or if the government is of the opinion that governance issues warrant attention in first nations communities, then it would be logical to put some of the energy and resources and direction towards establishing a governance centre that will assist bands and first nations in the development of governance codes.

That's the spirit. That's the language and the tone that would be accepted readily, because it's offering assistance in good faith. I think that would be a good use of dollars, frankly.

Mr. Hubbard, the parliamentary secretary, raised the issue that this could be considered a cost factor and therefore it wasn't an appropriate amendment.

Well, even if it is a cost factor, I would argue it's a justifiable cost factor. And it would be a better use of money than the $1.3 million the government is spending on an advertising campaign to try to promote a bill that nobody wants. It would be a better use of dollars than the $15 million the government spent in the absolute sham of a consultation process, which we all know was not a consultation process.

This I can agree with. Mr. Chairman, I can see the sense in this.

So under Mr. Loubier's proposal, he suggests that the minister shall provide for, and I quote, the:

establishment of a national governance centre that will assist bands or first nations with the development of governance codes.

Now, if this meeting were televised, I think you would find broad acceptance for this idea right across the country. Because my name was drawn into the original point that Mr. Loubier raised about whether or not the meeting should be televised, it was my proposal and my recommendation that the meetings of this committee should be televised and broadcast. I believed it was wrong for us to be taking part in this exercise without the participation or even the full knowledge of first nations communities across the country.

If it is broadcast on CPAC, people whose lives are going to be affected by this bill could at least tune in and make comments on or perhaps give direction, through their leadership, to have messages come to us.

I am critical of the fact, Mr. Chairman, that you've arbitrarily and unilaterally decided to terminate this televised portion of these meetings, because we have been getting input from communities as far away as northern Manitoba.

I don't know if Mr. Loubier has had input from small communities in his province of Quebec. We have been getting direction from remote, isolated communities that have been following this with great interest, to the best of their ability.

It's a pattern of denying access to this committee. It gets to be an issue of natural justice.

People didn't have access to the committee in the consultation process. They didn't have meaningful access even in the tour of this committee, when we went across the country, because obviously none of their submissions were given any attention or folded into the final product. And now we're even further denying access by turning off the television. So we're now in a big enough room that guests can come and witness this, but we're not broadcasting this.

There is only one improvement I would suggest to Mr. Loubier's amendment. I think the idea of a national governance centre is a good idea, but I'm not sure it's practical.

º (1605)

I would put forward a subamendment that would change that to say:

establishment of regional governance centres that will assist bands and first nations with the development of governance codes consistent with culture, tradition, treaties, and inherent rights.

As a friendly amendment, I would like to suggest that perhaps we should alter this bill. I've written this down for the convenience of the committee members, and I'd be happy to sign it.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, on your subamendment.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm glad. I sense that this subamendment is being met with some enthusiasm already. I hope it garners broad support as we visit the idea. I only suggest this as a way to improve what is already a worthy amendment and to build on the concept that has been introduced by Mr. Loubier that the establishment of a governance centre is of great interest to me. I'd like to even follow through what that could mean.

It's not unusual when an institution like that is formed to invite guest speakers and authorities on the subject of governance to make addresses, to even be a guest chair, for instance, for a year at a time. I would suggest that one of those people who these regional governance centres might invite would be people like Derek Lee, the member of Parliament who attended this committee who is an authority on governance issues and has actually written books on the subject of governance in different cultures, in different settings, in the Eastern Bloc, for instance, as they develop what we consider to be multi-party democracies, etc.

There has been a great deal of interest and research done on governance issues in third world developing nations. As we review giving aid to countries in Africa, for instance, often tied to the aid is an obligation that the country will revisit their governance structures to introduce multi-party democracies, etc. So there's a great deal of work that has been done on these issues. There's a great deal of expertise. I think it would be a natural extension in the thought process we're dealing with here today.

We could envision that were such establishments and institutes developed, it could be a place of such great interest that I think you'd find university students from around the country wanting to visit these governance centres. People who may be doing their graduate work on issues of governance might find it extremely interesting to visit a centre of excellence in Canada that would embody the actual experience of first nations communities as they incorporate all the values and principles that we talk about around this table into governance codes.

You might want to have a relationship with the people who are studying these issues in the University of Arizona. It was Stephen Cornell who testified before this committee as an authority, of course, on North American native communities and the governance structures of those communities. It was he who pointed out to this committee, and in other meetings with departmental officials, that in their belief, successful economic development models rely on or are inexorably linked to good governance and independent governance, self-governance. There's a direct link and an undeniable link between successful economic development models and the establishment of independent, self-governing codes of practice within the communities.

I think it would be exciting if Canada was at the leading edge of this progressive thought. Why couldn't Canada be viewed, given our shameful history to date of our relationship with first nations people...I think it would be viewed as a gesture of goodwill if in fact we made this a part of the healing process that must necessarily stem from our acknowledgment of shameful past practices if we put together governance institutions--in my view, regional governance centres--to assist bands and first nations with the development of governance codes consistent with culture, tradition, treaties, and inherent rights.

I know of no other institution in the world that would be a source for that type of academic study regarding governance. There would also be such a very real, practical component to it, because first nations wishing to seek out that body of knowledge could go to one place, one source.

º (1610)

I think it's quite an exciting prospect, Mr. Chairman. This is something that comes to us as an unexpected bonus in our study of this bill, because most of this has been agonizing. I think everyone will agree it's been a painful exercise to date in many of the clauses. But this is one of those clauses that now, in its amended form, could give hope, could give room for optimism that perhaps as a nation, our attitude is shifting to a more progressive and positive approach, instead of the negativity, the acrimony, and hostility, to be fair, that we've seen demonstrated around this table in our experience in dealing with this bill.

So in sharp contrast to what can only be described as a frustrating experience to date, we're now, on this start of a new week, coming back to the table fresh, dealing with a clause that could excite an optimism in communities, in ourselves, even in the most jaded of hearts that sit around this table--and there are some people, I know, who are terribly frustrated and jaded with their own failure to address the many pressing issues that first nations face.

Many of the people around this table, I know, feel a great weight on their shoulders in that they failed to accept the challenge to address the urgent social problems that exist in first nations communities, and many of the people around the table acknowledge in their own hearts the lost opportunity, the wilful failure, the wilful reluctance to do anything constructive and positive, instead dwelling on issues that exacerbate the problems and make the problems that exist in first nations communities that much worse.

So in a spirit of goodwill, at the start of a new week, Mr. Loubier and I offer a very constructive suggestion, an amendment that can be viewed only as a very positive initiative, and it perhaps mitigates and offsets some of the negativity we sense and feel about virtually every other clause in this bill.

I notice there was a broad acceptance when we first read this particular clause out. I'd be interested in hearing from members of other parties how they feel about this idea. But I don't think there's any room in the bill for language about what the minister shall or shall not do in terms of putting up a registry of codes and laws. I don't care what hours of the day he had envisioned this registry be open to the general public. I think that language, really, is superfluous to any of the things we've been talking about and doesn't have any place. The fact that we can replace that useless language with something fairly constructive and positive we should view with a sense of optimism and hope.

So should we see fit to mandate the establishment of these regional governance centres, it may in fact take away the government's feeling that it needs to impose governance codes, thinking that perhaps first nations don't have the capacity to develop their own. Well, this would be putting a tool in the hands of communities.

I think it's wrong, and it was arrogant of government to assume governance codes don't exist until they're applied or assigned by the federal government to first nations communities. But if that's the mindset we find government locked into, if that's the negative mindset they have, at least in addressing that issue they could offer assistance. They could offer a useful tool, a useful instrument first nations communities might be able to use.

º (1615)

Imagine if a visiting delegation from a community that was revisiting their own election process would be able to come to such a centre and study the existing body of knowledge surrounding the issue, review the best practices from around the country, which would be stored and housed therein, in the stacks of a library associated with such a governance centre, and be able to speak to academics and professionals who may be there in a visiting guest lecturer capacity to provide guidance and support as the communities revisit their own experience and see if they are interested in adopting some of the national standards that may be developed.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

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

This is where we see how wise my friend and colleague, Pat Martin, truly is. He has enriched my amendment in a way that I never expected. It's absolutely true that given regional differences--and that's what his sub-amendment says--it is important that there be several small governance centres disseminated all across the country. This is a big country and in order to reach all of the communities, it is especially important to consider the regional issue. I should have thought of this myself. I'm a little disappointed that I didn't. Your idea is an absolutely brilliant one. Given my sensitivity to issues related to the regions and sparsely populated areas, I really should have thought of this. I'm annoyed with myself for not thinking of it.

The other aspect of your sub-amendment is also extremely important. Since we began debating Bill C-7, we have consistently said that there is a need to recognize the character of the First Nations. We need to recognize that they have different cultures, different traditions, and that there are treaties in place that we have to abide by. Those treaties have been around from time immemorial, and the essential point is that the First Nations have an inherent right of self-government. That is a right that no one can take away from them, because it is a right given by the Creator.

So, those of you seated at this table who would define the inherent right and give only truncated powers or rights through a Bill like this are making a mistake. There is no doubt that you are making a mistake. Not only is the inherent right of self-government recognized in the Canadian Constitution, but it is as well in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and by the United Nations, which recognizes that inalienable and indefeasible right of the First Nations.

We cannot, based on our conception and our idea of Aboriginal self-government, set out to define what we think governance should look like. That is out of the question. What right would we have to do that? How can we claim to redefine something the First Nations have always had and that we took away from them for 130 years under the Indian Act?

We are not here to give them anything. We are here, first, to recognize that the First Nations have the right of self-determination. Second, we are there to support them. Third, we are there to provide support in the appropriate form. They are the ones that must develop these codes based on their culture, history, traditions and what they are, which is true nations. It is up to them to develop these governance codes.

So, I find Pat Martin's sub-amendment to be a particularly attractive one. Not only do we have a tremendous tool in the form of a national governance centre to support First Nations, but in addition to that, Mr. Martin has suggested that rather than a national centre, there should be several small centres scattered across the country in order to reach all of the communities, and avoid doing something that happens all too often, namely, centralizing an activity while forgetting that the primary client base is disseminated over a very wide area, such as Canada.

I hear music. I think the Liberals are having a party tonight. It's a Liberal party.

An hon. member: [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

º (1620)

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I'm starting to understand, seeing such fantastic amendments and sub-amendments come forward, why the government has decided not to televise our meetings anymore. People were starting to understand more and more just what the government was up to and they didn't like it.

I received phone calls from people who had listened to the debates and were harshly critical of the attitude of certain Liberal Members of Parliament, saying that they considered that attitude to be irresponsible and aimed at provoking the First Nations. On the other hand, there were a lot of compliments for the comments and observations of Mr. Martin, Mr. Vellacott and myself. Our interventions are aimed at ensuring that people understand what Bill C-7 is all about, and especially the stage we have reached as regards the history of our relationship with the First Nations.

Not many people--now there are a lot more--knew what the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples was all about. Very few knew what that Royal Commission had asked us to do. Very few people were aware of the fantastic report issued by the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government in Canada.

Nobody was familiar with that report, which was tabled in 1983. And that Committee was made up of equal numbers of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal representatives. They issued the report under the direction of the Honourable Warren Allmand, a Liberal. That report represented an initial process of reflection on self-government for the First Nations.

That first process was extended through the work of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, whose report was made public in 1997. Practically no one had heard about it findings. You know, we believe that given what we do here, the speeches we make or the bills we consider, people know what's going on. But to really know what's going on, people have to be given some explanation and have an opportunity to see these debates on television. Now that the right to televise these sittings has been taken away, there is a question I had earlier that I forgot to ask, but that I will now ask publicly, even though we are the only ones who will hear it.

You can really see just how strange this situation is, in a sense. Here we are considering a bill on transparency and accountability in relation to decisions made by the First Nations. There is a part of the Bill that deals with that. Yet here we are in a committee where transparency is being denied. By refusing to continue televising these debates, the government seems to be saying that it wants us to work in isolation. When we televise our meetings, people start to react, and start saying that what we're doing makes no sense whatsoever. Because people generally don't like fights, when they see the tension rising with the First Nations, people say that they won't go along with that kind of thing and that it just won't work.

So, we need to have a transparent debate. Even though transparency has just been denied us, the government, through Bill C-7, wants to impose it on all the First Nations because they supposedly lack transparency. Accountability in terms of decision-making is also another important aspect of Bill C-7. We have to make band councils accountable for their decisions.

Here, however, decisions are being made; the federal government is making decisions. But it doesn't want to be accountable to the people, since it doesn't want these debates to be televised. You can see the kind of farcical situation we're in. This is truly worthy of some of Kafka's best novels.

So, let's come back to the fabulous sub-amendment moved by my friend, Mr. Martin. From the beginning, we have been trying--and this is a good writing exercise--to reflect in our amendments and sub-amendments the kind of vision that all of us sitting at this table should share, because that is how far we've come in this country. It's a vision that demands that we be respectful. I repeat: respectful. It's a vision that demands that our relations with the First Nations be defined on the basis of their restored dignity. I repeat: dignity.

º (1625)

We have to recognize that the First Nations have rights, that theirs are inalienable rights, and that we have to work together, demonstrating our respect for the rights associated with self-government. They are inherent or treaty rights that have existed from time immemorial.

And we would have liked to continue to educate people by having our discussions televised. I realized, particularly last week, that the issues surrounding Bill C-7 really haven't been covered much in the Quebec media. However, on the weekend, there were two positive developments as far as Quebec media coverage is concerned. First, there was the Radio-Canada program hosted by Mr. L'Heureux at 5:30 AM. It presented a very good story about eight to ten minutes in length on Bill C-7 and the fact that Pat Martin and I had been honoured with the gift of an eagle feather. This is a privilege that touches us deeply.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Monsieur Loubier.

Mr. Hubbard.

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

I want to draw to your attention the fact that it was disappointing that you did not disallow the Bloc amendment on the basis that it does infringe upon the royal prerogative of spending money to create an institution.

Secondly, Mr. Chair, in terms of the subamendment, I'm very disappointed that you even went further in allowing it to be tabled, and the fact that it was requesting the establishment of regional governance centres that, in my opinion--and I'm sure maybe your legislative assistant might disagree again. It is disappointing that he does not see that as within the royal prerogative of the minister and of the Government of Canada.

We're debating here at length an amendment and a subamendment, neither of which I feel, as parliamentary secretary, are within the confines of what this committee is asked to do.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

º (1630)

The Chair: Anyone else?

Ms. Neville.

Ms. Anita Neville (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.): Briefly, Mr. Chair, I would like to go on record as saying that I agree with the parliamentary secretary in that I do not believe this is the time or the place to deal with the concept of a first nations governance centre. I have some sympathy with the concept, but I do not believe that at this time, when one is dealing with a potentially very substantial expenditure of money, this is the time or place to deal with it.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Martin, closing remarks.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, I don't accept either of the arguments put forward by the two Liberal members who spoke regarding money. We don't know that the implementation or the establishment of these regional governance centres would cost any more money than the actions already provided for in the bill, where “The minister shall provide for the establishment of”. We simply changed the details of what the minister shall establish.

We know the budget of this entire bill is $550 million over five years, a figure that we think is atrocious and a figure that...even if all is spent, we'd question that there would be any kind of lasting benefit associated with the expenditure of that $550 million. So I think it's getting very petty and miserly in terms of time, that the parliamentary secretary would deny 10 minutes or make the argument that it's a waste of time to spend 10 minutes on the idea of establishing governance centres of excellence.

It's miserly as well that he would object to the relatively insignificant amount of money associated with establishing these centres of excellence when the government contemplates spending $550 million on a bill that nobody wants and that people unanimously, from one end of the country to the other, have rejected outright as being against their wishes. It is not only of no interest to them but it is completely 180 degrees in contrast to what their wishes are and have been expressed very clearly as witnesses before the committee.

If anybody should object, it should be first nations people across the country who have the right to object to the lack of vision expressed by members of this committee who won't find it in their hearts to debate a reasonable clause that may in fact have some residual benefit for first nations people. But they're willing to spend all kinds of time and energy in ramming this bill down the throats of people who have expressed clearly that they don't want it, that they don't like it. They've read it, they understand it, and they reject it in no uncertain terms.

As far as who's wasting whose time, I would argue it's the government's intransigence and unwillingness to entertain the reasonable amendments brought forward by the hundreds and hundreds of witnesses who presented in good faith before this committee, who were appealing to the government, who were humbly approaching the government....

Mr. Chairman, I find it really difficult to continue my train of thought with the level of music and the noise that comes into this room. I object to that.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, I agree with you. I will ask that this door be locked. Could we have this door locked, please? That will help a bit. I mean locked with a key. We have three other exits, so I think we're okay for safety.

Continue, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: What do we do in case of fire?

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Loubier is concerned where he should run in case of fire. There could be spontaneous combustion or something occurring.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: There's no smoke without fire.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm interested that the weekend was spent constructively by some people, who are developing their arguments regarding these amendments, and destructively by others.

I point to, Mr. Chairman, the lobbying. The minister's assistants must have been very busy throughout the weekend trying to influence journalists and editorial boards across the country, and putting forward messages that could only be viewed as inflammatory, such as this quote from the minister, saying that:

In assessing the opposition to it, one should take care not to measure Ottawa's relationship with First Nations people on the basis of our relationship with Grand Chief Coon Come. It's my view that the position of the AFN leadership is out of sync with the people for whom they claim to speak.

He goes on to say:

Many First Nations people are too frightened to speak of their support of the bill for fear of reprisals.

I'm sure the minister is aware of just how offensive those comments are to the first nations communities and the leadership, the legitimately elected leadership of first nations people, who are doing their job and representing the views of the people who they represent in objecting to this bill, only to have the minister making public comments around the country that compound the problems associated with the bill.

Mr. Chairman, there are people who have made it abundantly clear that they think this bill affects and seeks to diminish and infringe upon constitutionally recognized rights. It's interesting that there's a pattern associated with that goal.

I have with me a ministerial memorandum written by a former deputy minister of Indian Affairs. It was a slide presentation for the cabinet committee regarding planning and priorities, listing the lost rights of Indian peoples--in other words, the progress being made in diminishing the rights of aboriginal people and the cause of it.Under the category of culture, he says “The right to exercise customs are limited or prohibited”, and he cites the Indian Act as the cause; “The right to preserve Indian culture is eroded by pre- and post-Confederation Indian Acts”, is the source. He says, “The Indian Act does not recognize cultural diversity of Indians, acknowledged in section 27 of the charter concerning multiculturalism and section 35”. He's right there.

Under membership as some of the rights, the preface is:

Historically, Indians and Indian communities exercised a wide range of rights, which are categorized as aboriginal rights or treaty rights. Today, these traditional rights have been dramatically reduced. The following list enumerates these rights and indicates the direct reason for the erosion of those rights.

Under membership, he cites:

The right to determine who is included in the Indian community is denied by the Indian Act. The collective right to establish individual rights of members is eroded by the Indian Act, e.g. certificate of possession. The right to be an Indian may be denied by the Indian Act, i.e. sexual discrimination and enfranchisement.

Under self-government--this was particularly appropriate--the deputy minister of Indian Affairs, explaining to cabinet those rights as they're diminishing under self-government says:

(1) The right to traditional forms of government eliminated by the Indian Act; (2) the right to determine who is an Indian community established by the Indian Act, minister or governor in council; (3) the right to make decisions and manage affairs removed or circumscribed by the Indian Act; (4) the rights of a natural person denied Indian communities by Indian Act; (5) the right of an Indian community to exercise traditional powers denied by the Indian Act.

I should remind you, this is a former deputy minister of Indian Affairs giving a presentation to cabinet. I can always share this with you if anybody has any reason to challenge the veracity of this document.

Under citizenship:

The right to vote in federal elections not granted until 1961, and then the provinces followed suit. The traditional right to move across borders limited by non-recognition of the Jay Treaty.

Under land:

The right to management and control reserve lands restricted or removed by the Indian Act, section 18. The right for traditional use of the land base eroded by surrenders, treaties, and land claim settlements. The right to use traditional land base extinguished in treaties and comprehensive claim settlements.

º (1635)

Under the administration of justice and customary law the deputy minister points out the rights that have disappeared: the right to traditional forms of tribal justice prohibited by federal laws, including section 88 of the Indian Act; the right to evolve and implement customary law eroded by the Canadian laws of general application, for example, adoption; the right to enforce laws of Canada determined by the federal government, i.e. policing.

Under non-renewable resources--this is where we got into the gravel business that we spent so many paragraphs on in this particular bill--the deputy minister says:

The right to control, use, and benefit from reserves, minerals, oil and gas established by the Indian Act, federal-provincial agreements, Indian Oil and Gas Act.

That's where I wanted to point out, Mr. Chairman, that under the oil and gas provisions I would like to share with you what that really means when we're dealing with control of natural resources, land and resources.

º (1640)

The Chair: I thank you very much.

Mr. Pat Martin: Maybe I'll do that next time.

The Chair: We'll go directly to a recorded vote on subamendment to BQ- 40 on page 189.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)

The Chair: On the amendment, Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think it's really unfortunate that such a perfect amendment has been defeated. It reflected what the First Nations want; when we went around the country, we heard the views of the First Nations, and we read the briefs that the First Nations took the time to draft in order to present them to the Committee and respond to its needs. This is quite unfortunate because addressing the regional question, in terms of tools for supporting the First Nations' communities, and helping them redefine themselves and rebuild, was one of the suggestions that came forward.

The same applies to the idea of having several regional governance centres for the purpose of providing assistance. That also reflects the need to reach the communities in the areas where they are established, on their own territory, while at the same time providing that support, as I was saying.

I would like to come back to my amendment; it talks about creating a governance centre that will assist bands or First Nations with the development of governance codes. This proposal obviously is drafted using terms that I chose myself, but the testimony we received from a number of people, including from outside the First Nations, indicated that this was a concern. This would mean that the Minister or Department of Indian Affairs could not treat the First Nations like vassals, particularly since the language in clause 30 that refers to the powers of the Minister of Indian Affairs conflicts with the proper conception of our relationship with the First Nations.

I clearly recall the words of Mr. Bradford Morse, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, who said this, and I quote:

The requirement that each First Nation maintain a registry of its own codes and laws is clearly necessary, just as necessary as having a national registry. However…

And this is where he qualifies his statement.

…we are missing an opportunity here, in that sub-clause 30(2) should be amended to provide for a national registry that would be an institution independent of the government and reporting directly to Parliament…

He also talks about creating an advisory committee to help the First Nations--a committee that would operate pretty much along the same lines as advisory committees that looked at Indian taxation issues more than ten years ago.

And it was the same for the Pikwakanagan Algonquins. At our 19th sitting, they made their position very clear. They presented a brief which said the following:

…Bill C-7 gives the Minister new powers, including the power to supervise a national registry of First Nations' laws.

And I want to again quote from the Pikwakanagan Algonquins' brief:

So far the Government of Canada has done a very poor job of managing the registries…

They go on to say that this option should not be retained. That's why we are removing the reference in the original version, which reads “The Minister shall provide for the establishment of a national registry…”; the Minister has no business providing for anything whatsoever. In fact, in their brief, the Pikwakanagan Algonquins say that when it comes to keeping a registry for First Nations, the government does not have a very good track record. So, it would not be a good idea for the Minister of Indian Affairs to provide for the establishment of a national registry of codes and laws.

On the other hand, the creation of a national centre to support governance also reflects what we heard right here in Ottawa from some of our first witnesses. Mr. Cornell, a professor at the University of Arizona, who is a leading expert in the field, told us we should look at what has worked so far. And what has worked are those experiences where we provided support with the development of their own institutions, not where we told the First Nations what to do.

º (1645)

I believe this kind of governance centre, aimed at helping the First Nations develop governance codes--codes based on their own conception of what a governance code should be--or consecrate what are now their own governance codes, is a more positive, constructive approach that won't lead to the kind of tensions that currently characterize relations between the federal government and the First Nations.

If you won't listen to Opposition MPs, you should at least listen to people from your own party, including Warren Allmand. He was present for our hearings in Montreal. I read about the comments he made in the newspapers on three separate occasions. He said he totally disagrees with Bill C-7. In Montreal, he said that the federal government is on the wrong track with a Bill like this. He was not always of that view, but is honest enough to say so.

Things are evolving in certain areas, and thank Heaven for that! Not everyone has the ability to evolve; some people stick with their initial idea and will probably go to the grave with the same convictions. That's life. My mother used to say that only fools never change their minds. Warren Allmand was right when he told us in Montreal that he didn't always think that, but when he looks at Bill C-7 and what the federal government is doing with related Bills C-6 and C-19, his sense is that we have moved beyond that now in Canada.

The fact is, Mr. Allmand was once very closely involved in the Indian Affairs portfolio. When a member of your own gang or group--or band council, if you like--tells you that you're on the wrong track, then you should listen. When the man would be Prime Minister also tells you that he is uncomfortable with this legislation--the new Prime Minister who will take up his duties in November and who says he is uncomfortable with this Bill, and when we hear rumours that if Liberals support the future Prime Minister by voting against the Bill, Mr. Chrétien might decide to call an early election, well, that really is something else.

Finally, this is a Bill that bears the mark of a single man. This is a Bill conceived by Mr. Chrétien, who wants to bring back his 1969 White Paper. He was sharply criticized, as was the White Paper, by the First Nations. My view is that Mr. Chrétien, who was Minister of Indian Affairs for six years, never really got over that: that still sticks in his craw. He has never accepted the fact that when he issued the White Paper believing that he'd found the solution, the First Nations told him that it wasn't in fact the solution, that that wasn't what they wanted. They fought back forcefully and vigorously. It almost looks as though Mr. Chrétien has decided that before he leaves office, he is going to impose legislation on the First Nations that reflects what was in his 1969 White Paper. You can almost sense a spirit of vengeance in the fact that Mr. Chrétien is so determined to push this through with his steamroller, that he is even prepared to call an early election. A lot of people would not be happy if that happened.

So, even if the next Prime Minister says he won't implement the Bill, here we are with Liberal colleagues who continue to work on a completely pointless piece of legislation, even though they support the future Prime Minister.

I understand now why the decision was made to stop televising our meetings. It must be awful for a Liberal to hear the truths that are being spoken, to realize that their own government, their own party is doing something like this: the party is tearing itself apart; the next Prime Minister rejects this Bill; and the outgoing Prime Minister wants to shove it down the throats of the First Nations.

That is not the kind of thing we are used to seeing in the Liberal Party. As a general rule, the squabbling stays within the confines of the party and doesn't spill out into the open to this extent. It is a very serious matter, in my view, when a country is governed on the basis of an outgoing Prime Minister's resentment and a squabble between the outgoing Prime Minister and the incoming Prime Minister. That presents a strange image of this country and of what motivates those that govern it, if they are this intent on imposing a bill on the First Nations that they don't want.

º (1650)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

Are we ready for the question on clause 30?

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I'd like a recorded vote.

The Chair: We'll have a recorded vote on BQ-40.

Mr. Pat Martin: Sorry, Mr. Chair, I just want to add that when you put that as a motion, it's an opportunity for us to debate whether or not such a clause shall carry.

The Chair: That's why I asked if we were ready for the vote.

Mr. Pat Martin: That's why I had my hand up. I don't believe we are ready for the vote.

The Chair: You will not be voting. Mr. Martin, you have the floor.

Mr. Pat Martin: The question is, shall--

The Chair: Just a moment.

Mr. Pat Martin: The question is on whether or not the amendment should carry, and I don't think it should even be voted.

The Chair: Just a moment, Mr. Martin. We will vote on the amendment. You have spoken on the amendment. Then we'll talk about the clause.

A recorded vote on BQ-40, page 189.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)

The Chair: On BQ-41, page 190, Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I thought that you hadn't noticed that there were other amendments to clause 30, and that as a result, we wouldn't be discussing the clause afterwards.

The Chair: The clause will be discussed after we have dealt with the amendments.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: After the three amendments, then. Fine.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment proposed by my party once again is intended to emphasize that the First Nations are the ones that must decide what will apply to them and to their members. You will surely have noted that sub-clause 30(3) reads as follows:

On the adoption of a code or the making of a law under this Act, the original shall be deposited in the band registry and the date of deposit endorsed on it, and a copy, certified to be true copy by a person designated by the band, shall be delivered to the national registry within fourteen days after the adoption of the code or making of the law.

Rather than keep this sort of prescriptive approach, I preferred to end the clause with the words “deposited in the band registry”. In other words, I have kept the idea of the original being deposited in the band registry, but eliminated all the other requirements which serve no useful purpose and are, in fact, ridiculous. The government claims to be giving the First Nations the right to govern themselves and states that they are the ones that develop their laws and codes, and yet when you consider all the prescriptive clauses found in Bill C-7, you see that in actual fact, it is quite the opposite.

You cannot, on the one hand, recognize that the First Nations have the power to make laws and to develop the codes that will apply to various aspects of their political life, as well as the planning of the lands they control and, at the same time, specify every detail, down to the colour of the paper they should use, or tell them that “a copy, certified to be a true copy by a person designated by the band, shall be delivered to the national registry within fourteen days after the adoption of the code or making of the law.”

Let's give the First Nations the flexibility to define on their own terms the process whereby each Aboriginal community will choose its own ways and means. A desire to prescribe everything down to the last detail is certainly not the right approach. We should realize that we're no longer living in the 1920s. The time when governments told the First Nations what they had to do in the most minute detail is long gone.

When we began clause-by-clause consideration of the Bill, I said, jokingly, that we would have to decide how large a pot of coffee and what kind of biscuits would be served when band councils meet. And that is almost what this is. It's becoming quite annoying.

So, let's stop wanting to describe all kinds of things for the First Nations. Let's respect them for what they are and allow them to make their own choices about their methods of governance, and especially the specific details that will give shape to their third order of government. That is the intent of what I am proposing here.

We heard testimony during our travels, and in Ottawa, we began analyzing this bill. Yet it's quite surprising that nobody here, considering the amendments moved by the government since we began this exercise and those yet to come, including the university professors who gave testimony, seems to recall the suggestions made by First Nations people aimed specifically at abolishing such prescriptions. And that even applies to Mr. Allmand's colleagues. Mr. Allmand, however, in his great wisdom, is denouncing this Bill. I respect his honesty in that he said his views had changed over the last 20 years, and that he now supported a new way of thinking that should be a stepping stone for rebuilding relations between the federal government and First Nations people.

We should give careful consideration to the comments made, not only as part of our consultations, but in the briefs that were presented. We're not only talking here about improving the language of the Bill, but actually including corrective measures that could take their inspiration from the presentations made by the many witnesses that appeared before the Committee.

º (1655)

To accept practically none of the suggestions made by people who are deeply concerned and offended by the language in this Bill is like saying that we held consultations, received briefs, that people worked at preparing those briefs, but that whatever their conclusions, we won't consider them. Here we are examining clause 30, and having looked at all the summaries of the briefs that were presented here, and having read them all from A to Z, it is clear to me that there is nothing in this Bill that addresses the many criticisms made by people as well intentioned and competent as Bradford Morse, from the Law Faculty of the University of Ottawa, or people even more qualified than he--although I certainly don't mean to insult him--namely, the people who live everyday on Aboriginal lands, in Aboriginal communities--indeed, the First Nations people themselves, who are a lot more qualified than any university professor or anybody sitting at this table when it comes to defining and determining what they want as members of First Nations. The question that still comes to mind, and I know my friend, Pat Martin, has been asking himself the same question ever since we began, is: how is it that no First Nations people are sitting at this table? And how is it that the First Nations people that are here in the room are sitting as observers, while we decide their future and the framework that should apply to their communities?

First Nations people, both men and women, have been in this room since we began to debate this Bill. Many of them stayed up until the wee hours of the morning as we frantically reviewed the clauses of this Bill.

If we brought a UN observer in here, for example, and he were to listen to these proceedings, see our attitude and note that there were First Nations people in the room, that UN representative, who would have a sense of responsibility and as well as a deep commitment to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, would consider it an incredible injustice were he to see us dealing with issues that affect the lives of First Nations people and see that the people who are directly affected by our discussions in this room don't have the right to speak, or be represented, or even become annoyed when they hear the offensive comments that Liberal colleagues have been making since we began clause-by-clause consideration. He would also find it unjust that every time we move amendments or sub-amendments based on what we heard during these proceedings, based on what the First Nations have asked us to present in the way of amendments to the Bill, those changes are rejected out of hand, without our Liberal colleagues even agreeing to debate them. It is really unfortunate to see that, but I imagine that if there were an observer in the room with the ability to understand what is happening here and make the connection with the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, he would have ample material with which to make a report to the United Nations. I have no doubt about that.

And if there were also a representative of the Council of Europe, or the European Parliament in Strasbourg, which studied the events at Oka several years ago… And at that point, relations between the Government of Quebec and the First Nations were not what they are now. There were tensions there as well. But we realized, in the aftermath of such events, that we couldn't continue on in the same way, to tear each other's hair out, as they say. Representatives of the Council of Europe came over to see what had happened and were sharply critical. And the fact of being told by outside observers that what you're doing isn't right can sometimes be a wake-up call.

» (1700)

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

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

I understand what Bloc amendment BQ-41 is seeking to achieve, and I support the idea of what this amendment is trying to achieve because it addresses one of the most annoying qualities of this entire bill in that it seeks to micromanage every minute detail and aspect of how people conduct their affairs. It's recognized in language, if not in practice, to be independent first nations with a right to govern themselves. Having this prescriptive, detailed language flies in the face of the government's own stated policy, it flies in the face of the preamble of this bill, it flies in the face of the constitutionally recognized rights, and it should be deleted. The language this amendment seeks to delete should be rejected out of hand by everybody around this table.

I can read that language for the record. It's a shame these proceedings aren't televised any more, but what Mr. Loubier is seeking to achieve with his amendment is to delete the reference to the way in which a newly adopted code shall be filed with the band registry.

The language in Bill C-7 suggests that on the adoption of a code or the making of a law under this act, the original shall be deposited in the band registry and the date of the deposit endorsed on it, and a copy, certified to be a true copy by a person designated by the band, shall be delivered to the national registry within 14 days after the adoption of the code or the making of the law.

I have to ask, what are they implying here? Is it that without the direct and specific order to do so, no first nation would see fit to file their own codes and laws in some form of a registry? Are they implying that there's a conspiracy to act in secrecy and not share this information? That is what an objective bystander would assume when they read this law, that the government is accusing first nations of being either irresponsible or crooked and that they would fail to go through a common practice in terms of filing these codes if they weren't specifically ordered to do so--and not just ordered to do so, but ordered to do so within 14 days and have it endorsed by a notary public, or whatever it might be. It implies that without the stern hand of government watching their every move, they will either engage in practices that aren't acceptable or deliberately try to withhold this information from people who have a right to know it.

The actual experience is just the opposite. First nations have come before us as witnesses and have very openly bragged about their codes and bylaws that they put in place in their communities, and the practice they have of sharing that information, etc.

I would challenge the government to show us where this has been such a problem that it warrants such heavy language in the bill. I think everyone around the table agrees that a code or a bylaw should be deposited in the band registry and should be made available to members of the band. That's a common practice and that is the practice around the country. Again, there have been no examples brought to our attention to lead us to believe otherwise, that some serious problem exists to the contrary.

I like the idea Mr. Loubier has brought forward that we simply state, in his amended version of this clause, that on the adoption of a code or the making of a law under this act, an original shall be deposited in the band registry so that there's a permanent record of an original document on file. We know it will be accessible and that it will be referred to by those who administer the law, and presumably will be made accessible to the people in the community. To imply otherwise is insulting, really, to the members of the community.

» (1705)

If they wanted to make any improvements or if they wanted to specify the manner in which these bylaws are registered, they could deal with the normal practices regarding the registering of official documents. For instance, most rules surrounding filing official documents will state in what official language those documents shall be filed and registered. I think a recommendation that could have been made in a constructive way by the government, if they had been interested in tradition and culture being incorporated into this bill, is that these codes and bylaws be registered in either official language and the original language of the nation. That would be an acknowledgment at least, a recognition, of the first nation's own language. I think that would be an important gesture.

Again, it may already be the practice in many communities across the country to have these things made available. I think I read to you, Mr. Chair, some of the bylaw development processes from some communities that have come to our attention, where in the consultation process around the ratification of these bylaws, the codes were put into Cree and Cree syllabics for the members of that particular...I believe it was the Whitefish Nation who brought to our attention their practice. That strengthened the law in their minds, because as we've heard elders presenting before this committee...and I'm thinking about northern Manitoba especially, where in one very compelling presentation an elder said to us, “Our laws are in our language.” He didn't just mean their laws are spoken in their language, he meant their laws are in their language in the fullest sense of the word.

This is what I mean. There's been no effort whatsoever made for a cultural match between this bill and the people who it will have authority over. There's been not even the slightest gesture of goodwill in that regard. It would have been so easy to fold into this particular aspect of the bill, where they're talking about where you have to deposit these codes, how you have to deposit them, the fact that you have to go to an outside third party to have them notarized, to be certified as a true copy--a person designated by the band.

This all implies that without the specific guidance there would just be a bunch of nincompoops running around bumping into each other without an idea of how to record the important work the band council has done in developing and adopting a code or bylaw. It makes you wonder how anybody could possibly have got by without the helpful hand of the federal government to tell them how to do stuff, because that's certainly what is implied when you read this particular clause.

The joint ministerial advisory committee, and Jim Aldridge, whom the government seems to have a lot of time for, reject the amendments and presentations brought forward by anybody else in the country, but it seems they do listen to their own joint ministerial advisory committee at times. Well, Jim Aldridge told the committee:

We would be remiss if we failed to point out that the bill does not provide for the enactment and registration of laws in the first nation's own language. Some JMAC members felt such a measure would facilitate the protection and rejuvenation of first nations languages across Canada. You can find a lengthy discussion of that idea at page 27 of our report, appendix 1.

So the report of the joint ministerial advisory committee recommended that if we're going to micromanage how these codes and bylaws are going to be registered or deposited in a registry, there should be at least a reference to the fact that it's not only acceptable but it's desirable to have the codes and bylaws made available in the language of the first nation.

» (1710)

Mr. Chair, I believe it's incumbent on me to seek to further improve the amendment put forward in good faith by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois and add to amendment BQ-41, after the words, “in the band registry” the words “in either French or English and in the First Nation's own language”. I would move that as a subamendment.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, on your subamendment.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, I think it would be interesting for us to review this, as this is not my idea. It's actually Jim Aldridge's idea. It may in fact have some chance of succeeding. I know that anything I suggest is rejected out of hand, out of sheer ill will, but in actual fact this is not my idea. So I want to make that clear once and for all. I don't make this stuff up. This was brought to our attention by the minister's own advisory committee.

So perhaps Liberal members will actually listen to this one for a change.

I think it would be helpful for all of the members, especially the parliamentary secretary, to perhaps revisit the report of the joint ministerial advisory committee from time to time and specifically page 27 of the report, appendix 1. I think that's where you will find some arguments that you may find even more compelling than my arguments.

As it stands, subclause 30(3) is an example of the exquisite detail elaborated by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs to maintain its colonial position.

The issue is discussed in even more detail in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs' web page, under the title of “Registration and Proof of Band-Designed Governance Codes and Laws”. That's where you find the infinitesimal, microscopic detail that fairly well tells Indians to put one foot in front of the other foot while they're walking towards the place to deposit and register their bylaws. It also explains that you should reach down with your hand and pick the bylaw up and carry it to the table and present it at the table. That's the kind of detail on the registration and proof of band-designed governance codes and laws that you'll find in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs' web page.

We all know about the credibility of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs' website. That's where you find me as a supporter of this bill, which I point out to you again is an absolute bald-faced lie. I hope that has been corrected over the weekend so that I don't have to sue anybody and take them court. Now that I've made them aware of the damage they're doing to my credibility and my career, I do fully intend to seek damages, unless it's withdrawn with an apology immediately.

We know the general routine associated with this, Mr. Chairman. The First Nations Governance Act would give bands the authority to make codes with respect to the administration of government, leadership selection, and financial management and accountability. And if bands don't pass such codes, they would be governed by the default regulatory regime to be outlined in the First Nations Governance Act.

This is the language from their website. It says:

Bands would also have authority to make laws with respect to specific subject matters outlined in the FNGA.

And to know that, we have to look through other documents.

It goes on to say:

The FNGA would clarify when such codes and laws come into force and effect, and how interested parties were ensured access to them.

Then it says:

The legislation would require a band to maintain at its principal administrative office a registry of laws, containing all codes and laws enacted by the band, to which any person may have reasonable access during normal business hours.

A code or law would come into force the day after it is registered in the band's registry, unless it specifies a later date. In addition to local availability, a national registry of laws to which any person may have reasonable access would be established by the Minister.

As soon as it is passed, a code or law would be required to be deposited in the band's registry and a certified copy must be delivered to the national registry within 14 days after the adoption of the code or making of the law.

On the question, “Oh, isn't that just like bureaucracy?”, this is like colonial England introducing a bureaucracy to India in the grand old days of colonialism. You can destroy all old documents if you make three copies of each. That's the colonial view of it. Why does this have anything to do with governance?

It goes on further to say that:

Consistent with the First Nations Governance objective to provide First Nations the tools they need now for effective and financially accountable governance and economic development, the FNGA would provide for the coming into force and effect of a band's codes and laws.

While such codes and laws would come into force when they are registered in the band's registry, the dual registration requirements would ensure that overall transparency and access are ensured both locally and nationally.

Local registry requirements would be flexible, allowing for a system as simple or complex as the community wishes. This is to avoid unnecessary administrative burdens on First Nations, while providing adequate accessibility and notice to members and third parties.

» (1715)

Now, it goes on to say:

Registration of band governance codes and laws would allow for easier enforcement. Related provisions, including those providing for the taking of judicial notice, would also make it simpler for band governance codes and laws to be introduced into court and other proceedings as evidence.

Unfortunately the term “band registry” already has a meaning in first nations. It means the registry on members maintained in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. People are given band registry cards, so there's a duplicity and the possibility of a misunderstanding associated with this.

This clause of Bill C-7 is one more effort, we argue, to push first nations into an integrated, federally designed framework in order to keep them from exercising their inherent rights. Those are the conclusions we draw from visiting the website on this particular bill.

The subamendment I am moving forward, Mr. Chairman, today, though...to include a reference to language, I think, is important.

I'm particularly sensitive to this issue. I myself studied Cree in high school instead of French, as you know, as my language option. I've told you before. There's nothing that gave a more heightened sensitivity to the culture of first nations people than studying the language and dealing with concepts in the languages that don't often translate well into English or French, into either of our official languages. This has been part of the frustration in negotiating treaties over the years.

I was rereading some history, Mr. Chairman, over the weekend regarding the development of the treaty process in pre-history. Some of the language problems associated with negotiating treaties have manifested themselves in problems right up to this day, in the misunderstanding of what one party thought they were agreeing to and what the other party knew could only be viewed as an oversight.

On the language aspect, I notice that the federal government has just committed a fairly substantial amount of money to the preservation and promotion of first nations languages. In fact, Winnipeg will be the beneficiary of some of that spending for putting together institutes for the promotion of these languages, because these languages are becoming extinct rapidly.

I visited the Huron-Wendat people outside of Montreal and I introduced myself in the Cree language, the language I learned. I explained who I was and what I was doing there. The chief of the Huron-Wendat, a woman, stood up--and her name escapes me at the moment--and introduced herself and her band and council. She said, in a very regrettable tone, that the last speaker of the language of their community, the Huron-Wendat people of southern Quebec, died over 100 years ago.

Language is a living thing. So incorporating and using the language is, first of all, much more egalitarian, as there are speakers who still are raised in the language of the first nation and who may be more comfortable if they visit the newly incorporated codes or bylaws in their own language. Secondly, it reinforces and gives life to the language to use it in such a way. And thirdly, to incorporate this language into this bill, it simply would be seen that at least the people around this table are concerned with or interested in the promotion of tradition and culture as an aspect or an element to any legislation dealing with aboriginal people or first nations.

I don't believe there's a cost factor associated with it. If anything, it's neutral or benign in terms of cost factor. I don't see any reason to oppose this subamendment, to tell you the truth, Mr. Chairman. I can't imagine anyone around the table having a strong objection to the inclusion of this language, which would support and acknowledge that first nations languages are an integral part of the culture and the community.

I would like to get back to my original point.

An elder in northern Manitoba, I believe it may even have been Grand Chief Francis Flett of the MKO, made the very compelling presentation that our laws are in our language--

» (1720)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

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

I particularly like this amendment because everything that has to do with language is of great interest to me, and has been ever since I came into this world.

My people, the people of Quebec, have always fought to ensure the survival of their language and to promote French. In Quebec, we are particularly sensitive to such things as recognizing the richness of a language, to the point where many documents issued by the Government of Quebec, and particularly the Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat, are produced in the 11 languages of the First Nations living in Quebec. There is an increasing attempt to make that a general practice, particularly where policies are involved that may affect the First Nations or land negotiations, or even draft agreements, such as the agreement with the Innu. That agreement is drafted in French, English and in the language of the Montagnais or Innu. That is a practice that should be widespread. I certainly hope it will, and I personally intend to do what I can to make that happen.

There is no better sign of respect, at least in appearance, than showing respect for a nation's language, because the language of a nation is the primary means through which it expresses its culture. If you respect the language, that means that you also respect the culture of these nations. Language is the first point of contact, the first means by which communities come together.

When the Europeans arrived in America for the first time and heard these rich languages that were spoken, I imagine they were struck by their beauty. Unfortunately, however, the consideration they should have received wasn't there. It is now up to us to make reparation for the affront suffered by the First Nations when we prohibited them, under the Indian Act, from using their language.

I was listening to a young Aboriginal man the other day, who was about 40 years old--that's still young--saying that when he attended elementary and secondary school, around the same time as myself, he would be rapped on the knuckles if he spoke his mother tongue. This young Aboriginal that he was then and still is now was prevented from talking to his friend from the same community as himself in his own language. I find that so poignant that I wondered how I had been treated at that age. I wondered how I would have reacted if I'd been rapped on the knuckles every time I spoke French in order to force me to speak English--or French in Quebec, because it was also like that for decades in Quebec. I wondered whether I would have felt my dignity had been attacked by not allowing me to speak my language. I think I would have disobeyed and continued to speak my language, probably until I died from the blows. My language is what makes me what I am, what makes me a member of a community and is an incredible source of pride.

Indeed, when we went to Montreal to hold hearings on Bill C-7, at one point, we heard from representatives of the Mohawk Nation at Kahnawake. There was Billy Two Rivers, if memory serves me, and Joe Norton, the Grand Chief of Kahnawake. Joe Norton was there with two of his children or grandchildren. I wouldn't want to say that they were his grandchildren, in case they were actually his children and he would be offended by my making him older than he is; but if they were his grandchildren, then Mr. Norton looked very young. If they were his children, then he is very young.

But those two children--a little boy and a little girl about six or seven years old--spoke in their own language, the Iroquois language, for about 10 minutes, telling a story about the spirituality of the Kahnawake Mohawks. Nobody at the table understood what they were saying, but it was absolutely fascinating to hear children that age speaking their language. It wasn't important that we couldn't understand them. It was just wonderful to hear the rich sounds and intonations of their language, and to hear them speaking it with such ease, enthusiasm and incredible pride.

» (1725)

I realize that if those children had been deprived of the right that they now have to speak their own language, it would have been a disaster, not only for those two children, but for us as well, to be deprived of the chance to hear such a beautiful language--a melodious, profound, and spiritual language that “gets you right there”, as they say.

So, I am just thrilled that this sub-amendment has been moved, and it reminds me of those two Mohawk children that were admirable in their ability to tell a spiritual story of their nation with their incantations. And I have another example: at one point, we were in Abitibi where a young Cree who was about 40 years old came before the Committee and spent about five minutes telling us in Cree what he felt about Bill C-7. The language was so expressive, and people are so sensitive to a language when that language is spoken with warmth and pride, that even though we didn't really understand the words, we certainly understood the message. Pat Martin and I talked about it afterwards… I even said in one of my interventions that I hadn't really understood what he had said, but that the incredible rage he was feeling had come through in the energy and vigour of the language as he spoke it.

In fact, that young Cree delivered a sweeping condemnation of Bill C-7, because it didn't respect what he was and left him with the impression, like past generations, that he once again had been had by this legislation. For five minutes, he was determined to express what he had to say in his own language, knowing full well that we wouldn't understand what he was saying, but knowing as well that meaning was emerging from every intonation of the language and that we understood that for him, this was starting to be just about enough, that he was fed up, that he had had it with generations of his people suffering and not being allowed to express themselves as they should.

Today, I want to congratulate Mr. Martin who, by moving an amendment like this, has demonstrated incredible sensitivity to the needs of nations, and the First Nations in particular, and to the pride they might feel in seeing laws that all the community could understand written in their language and even recorded orally. That would be an extraordinary contribution.

I come back to what I was saying last week, which was that we mustn't deprive ourselves of such treasures. Culturally, we now live in a world that is becoming increasingly uniform because of trade and globalization. If we are so incredibly fortunate to have dozens of languages here, languages that are not yet used or known, then we should be ensuring that other people know about those languages. We should be doing what we can to provide the means for that culture to express itself, because this is an incredible treasure that we should take advantage of.

We shouldn't be seeing this as an inconvenience, but rather, as a treasure. Everyone is seeking cultural diversity. Everyone is trying to express that diversity in his own way, based on language, cultural patterns and the history behind the cultural or historical paradigm associated with all peoples. Let us not deprive humanity of such an incredible treasure.

My view is that it would be a wonderful contribution if you were to vote for Mr. Martin's sub-amendment, that says that laws will be available not only in French or English, but also in the language of the community, in the language of the First Nation. It seems to me that would be a step forward and proper recognition of how far we have come.

I dream of a day when we, too, will be able to understand the Aboriginal languages. I know that Pat Martin speaks some Cree. In fact, he's always been a little embarrassed to speak Cree with me, but I would really like to learn a few Cree words or phrases. I would really like to do that. I am starting to learn a few expressions in the Innu language, but I am very shy myself. It's a language that is spoken from the heart to such an extent that you really have to be a member of the Aboriginal community to be able to speak it with the warmth, vigour and sensitivity required to speak a language like one of the Aboriginal languages.

» (1730)

So, I give my unqualified support to Mr. Martin's sub-amendment, hoping as well that when we talk about…

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Monsieur Loubier.

Mr. Martin, for ten minutes of closing remarks. After Mr. Martin, we will suspend for 20 minutes for members to have dinner.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm surprised and somewhat disappointed that no one else wants to participate in this debate regarding a subject like this. I thought it would be a gesture of goodwill that we could make to the many first nations people who have been shut out of this process. At least by passing the subamendment I move there would be some reference to and acknowledgement of the importance of language and culture in the determination of any structure or governance bylaws that may be put into effect by first nations on their own or especially as they're imposed on them by this community.

I want to thank my colleague with the Bloc for raising the importance of the issue of cultural diversity. All around the world cultures are disappearing forever. Languages are disappearing forever. A great harmonization is taking place, and whether it's Walt Disney or McDonald's or the westernization of cultures, not just in North America but all around the world, we're not taking steps to value cultural diversity as part of the wealth of this planet. We're recognizing biodiversity. We're recognizing how important it is to preserve species and plants and animals and ecosystems, but at the same rate that biology is disappearing, so is culture disappearing, especially original cultures or pre-European contact cultures.

The strength in what I raise today, Mr. Chairman, is that there's been a lack of participation in this entire process from first nations people. We've been reminded over and over again how fundamentally wrong it is for those of us sitting around this table who are not of aboriginal descent to be making law, to be making legislation, whereas the actual people these laws will affect are reduced to observer status.

We have leaders in this room today who are leaders from first nations around the country, and I'd like to recognize, as it's been brought to my attention, that we have Grand Chief Raymond Martin of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne; we also have Chief Angie Barnes of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne and Chief Pat Madahbee of the Ojibway, Sucker Creek. I acknowledge their presence and I thank them for being here. And we have Chief Franklin Paibomsai of the Whitefish River First Nation in Ontario.

So we have experts and authorities in the field of governance issues as they pertain to first nations communities relegated to the peanut gallery, sitting in the benches behind this table as we in our pomposity plow forward with legislation that people have made it abundantly clear they don't want and resent in no uncertain terms, while we're taking these steps to modernize colonialism.

Language is an integral element in the colonizer's approach or the colonizer's methodology. I've read the history of colonialism as it pertains to first nations and the methodology for cultural genocide--and I don't use that word to be sensationalistic. There was a specific methodology used by the European colonizers. First you send the missionaries in to undermine the religion; you destabilize the community by sending in the missionaries first. Then you break up the community structure, the structure of the families who are in small cells or a number of families together, in whatever structure you happen to find, and when you break those up you move them around in some unnatural way.Then the third thing you attack is language. You undermine the language.

Once you've undermined the religion, broken up the traditional structure of the culture in the community, and undermined the language, you're effectively on your way to assimilation into the parent colonizing culture. That's the methodology. It's in textbooks. There are books written on how you do this. And we have been guilty of that very thing.

» (1735)

I am reminded of the story told to me by Matthew Coon Come, the national chief of the Assembly of First Nations, when he was pulled from his parents' home and sent to residential school. On his first day in residential school he remembers being beaten in the shower room for speaking his own language with his younger brother. It is an image I will carry with me for my entire life. When his little brother looked at him and asked in his own language if he should wash between his toes, he was beaten for speaking their language, against the rules of the residential school. If for no other reason than to make up for the horror stories associated with the deliberate denial of a person's right to their own language, if for no other reason than that, we should pass this particular clause in this particular bill and incorporate first nations' language into this piece of legislation.

You will find, Mr. Chair, in section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms the guarantee of the right to self-expression that has been found to include use of your own language, whether it's one of the official languages of the country or not. There is nothing stopping us around this table from adding it to the language used in anything we do, Mr. Chair.

I should point out that in this cabinet document, written by a former deputy minister as a presentation, they dealt with outlining the wide range of aboriginal rights that have been diminished or eroded or eliminated. This was a question...I'll read it:

Please find attached as requested at the last meeting of the working group a listing of lost rights of aboriginal peoples.

This is the deputy minister advising cabinet. Under language, it says:

The right to use native languages has been prohibited in residential schools by education policy until recently.

Under language it also says:

With few exceptions, the right to learn native languages is not granted in provincial schools.

The deputy minister has to advise the members of Cabinet that section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for freedom of expression, including native languages.

Now, when I went to high school, there was only one school in Winnipeg that offered Cree as an option. When I studied Cree, we had to be taken out of the school and brought down to a separate place where Cree elders came in to teach us. Thankfully, the Children of the Earth school and the Wi Wabigooni school in Winnipeg and the Red Feather High School have come into being. There are places where people can study their original languages, and we think it's in keeping with perhaps a maturing, in our view, of first nations culture that we should acknowledge aboriginal language in legislation, particularly as it applies to this section. When you're registering band council bylaws and codes of governance with the band registry, you do so in either of the official languages and the original language of that first nation.

I think it would be viewed and appreciated as a gesture of goodwill if the people around this table saw fit to acknowledge that reality and to adopt this simple amendment. I don't know what kind of excuses, frankly, members around the committee could possibly find to not cooperate in that.

With that, I make reference again to how it was brought to the attention of this committee by Jim Aldridge of the joint ministerial advisory committee, and in his words I quote:

He refers further, to those who wish more information and detail, to page 27 of their report. If I had that handy I would read that into the record, because it's that type of sensitivity we were hoping for. We hoped there'd be enough goodwill around this table to at least appreciate...even if the Liberal members of the committee are unwilling to accept that what they're doing is wrong all the way through, at least there would be an eagerness--a willingness if not an eagerness--to try to mitigate some of that blatant oversight by at least paying minimal deference to the idea that culture and tradition and governance are three integrated things that cannot be separated and cannot be dealt with in isolation.

» (1740)

You can't pull culture out of law-making in first nations and aboriginal communities, and what I know of aboriginal society, they are integral. As an aspect of this, we seek to delete some of the prescriptive nature of this bill and at the same time introduce some acknowledgment and recognition of the importance of culture and tradition into this bill in every clause we come to.

So, Mr. Chair, you can count on the commitment that we make to maintaining this argument as we go into the night, and tomorrow, and the day after that, and the day after that, to remind this committee of its failures, to remind this committee of its oversights, and to propose helpful recommendations and to introduce helpful suggestions along these lines.

» (1745)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

We will have a recorded vote on the subamendment to amendment BQ-41, page 190.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 2)

The Chair: We'll continue with the amendment. We'll hear closing remarks on the amendment from Mr. Loubier, and then we'll go to the vote.

Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, is that on amendment BQ-41?

The Chair: Yes, that's closing remarks on amendment BQ-41.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I apologize, Mr. Chairman, for being slow to react. I am still under the spell of Mr. Martin's excellent amendment.

I was reading some excerpts from the Erasmus-Dussault report that relate to language, and I have found something here that is quite extraordinary. It's a poem that was written about Aboriginal languages. It was written by Rita Joe and is entitled: I Lost My Talk. It is quite poignant. I'm wondering whether I shouldn't have read this short poem earlier, because it really conveys just how important the Aboriginal languages are.

Rita Joe says:

I lost my talk
The talk you took away.
When I was a little girl
At Shubenacadie school.

You snatched it away:
I speak like you
I think like you
I create like you
The scrambled ballad about my world.

Two ways I talk.
Both was I say:
Your way is more powerful.

So gently I offer my hand and ask:
Let me find my talk.
So I can teach you about me.

Maybe I should have quoted you that beautiful poem about language that was written by an Aboriginal representative. Unfortunately, though, I didn't have time to do that earlier.

There is another beautiful phrase, a unique phrase about language, that was quoted by Mary Lou Fox, an Elder with the Ojibway Cultural Foundation in Sudbury. She said this, quoting the words of an Elder: “Without the language, we are warm bodies without a spirit.”

That really provides food for thought. However, given that thought is an extremely rare and limited commodity in this committee, some members couldn't see any further than the tip of their nose when they voted on the amendment, on Mr. Martin's excellent amendment about First Nation languages with respect to the laws deposited in the registry.

I find that terribly sad. Actually, the AkwesasneChief was here when Billy Two Rivers and Joe Norton appeared before the Committee with the two small children who spoke Mohawk. He can attest to just how beautiful their words were.

I would really have liked us to be able to vote on this sub-amendment. Perhaps Grand Chief Raymond Mitchell would also have remembered the two Mohawk children that told those amazing stories when they appeared in Montreal. They spoke Iroquois.

Having said that, I'm extremely disappointed at the present turn of events. We are now on clause 30. We have already considered I don't know how many dozens of amendments and sub-amendments. Rare were the amendments and sub-amendments that were accepted, even though they had tremendous merit, and particularly the merit of reflecting what the First Nations want in this Bill. All the First Nations people who appeared, and non-Aboriginal witnesses as well, told us that improvements had to be made. And try as we may to make improvements, to suggest amendments and sub-amendments that demonstrate the respect we must have for the First Nations, for their languages, their culture, their religions, and what they were before the Europeans decided to demolish them, nothing is ever suitable. We have presented amendments and sub-amendments, but only rarely have they been accepted.

And yet I'm absolutely convinced that these amendments made perfect sense. In fact, had this meeting been televised, we would have continued to receive feedback from the people listening to us. We would have received that feedback both from First Nations people and non-Aboriginal Canadians. We could have continued to hear their thoughts about our commentary and analysis with respect to the First Nations.

The people of Quebec and Canada have gone a lot further than the individuals sitting at this table. Last weekend, I attended a symposium on rural development in Quebec; I was the official rapporteur--the person who had to present a summary after each of the plenaries on different topics.

Of course, I was introduced as the Member for Saint-Hyacinthe--Bagot, and as an economist as well, but the important thing they said was that I had been honoured--and that is absolutely correct--with the gift of an eagle feather from the First Nations.

» (1750)

Do you know what happened next? The people in the room were from rural areas all across Quebec. They were people who live side-by-side with the members of the 11 Aboriginal Nations that are officially recognized in Quebec, who know about their lands and their reality. The people in the room stood up and applauded. That gives you a good indication of their state of mind.

Do you really think that people don't know what's going on? People do know what's going on and they have known since 1983 what has occurred here in the way of change. They understand as well that we are way beyond the Bill we are considering here, which bears a strange resemblance to something you might have found in South Africa before the emancipation of the Black population.

Actually, we should invite Nelson Mandela to come over here to observe the way in which the First Nations are treated as vassals of the state with this Bill, and maybe hear what he has to say. He presided over the emancipation of the African people in South Africa and over their liberation. Before he led the fight of his life--he spent almost 35 years in chains in a prison cell--the African people were victims of discrimination. They were constantly discriminated against and people said they were incapable of governing themselves. After their emancipation, people realized that South Africa was doing a lot better than it had been before being freed from the bonds of apartheid. I'm sure that Nelson Mandela would understand what is being attempted with this Bill. I admit it's quite subtle. It's a little more subtle, a little more modern. With the complicated language of this Bill, we are once again trying to impose our knee-jerk colonialism and contempt for the First Nations.

I can't believe that the people sitting at this table don't understand what is happening, don't understand what we are doing with a Bill like this. I think the best thing would be to make international representations. Why not invite international officials over here and let them judge for themselves what Canada is doing with a piece de legislation that is supposedly going to usher in the second phase of relations between the First Nations and the federal government. I don't think you would need to be a genius to find foreigners who, looking from the outside at what the federal government is doing, would say that we are simply reproducing the same old system that was behind the development, or rather, the underdevelopment of the First Nations for almost 130 years. They say they want to replace that with Bill C-7, but that is absolutely untrue.

In fact, I was talking to a reporter this afternoon. She recounted some absolute horror stories. As she interviewed me, she told me that the Minister's Office is telling a different story. So I asked her what they were saying at the Minister's Office. Well, the Minister's Office is telling everyone that there are incredible governance problems in First Nations' communities. That's what she told me. She asked me whether it was true or not. I replied that based on my information, and the Auditor General's information, the vast majority of First Nations' communities--in other words, 95 per cent of them--annually file audit reports. She added that they're being told exactly the opposite by the Minister's Office; they're being told that there are governance problems and transparency problems in terms of the way the First Nations manage their affairs. I told her that if anybody has transparency problems, it's the Department of Indian Affairs, not the Aboriginal communities.

In fact, it was concerning the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs that we learned some pretty incredible things when we went around the country. I am thinking, for example, of the salaries paid to managers and co-managers who make $60,000 working part-time. So, if they have 10 part-time jobs like that, do they make $600,000 a year? The fact is there is no transparency at the Department of Indians Affairs, and we never have a clear idea of what's going on.

Do you know what the Department of Indian Affairs is saying? The reporter mentioned that they're saying Bill C-7 will replace the Indian Act. She wondered why we are saying it's a despicable Bill and denouncing it left and right, and why everyone is denouncing it, and why it is that we're against it. I replied that first, it is untrue to claim that it replaces the Indian Act and they had better stop saying that. I told her that Robert Nault and the outgoing Prime Minister are the ones saying that this will replace the Indian Act, and that even the Canadian Bar Association and the Quebec Bar do not agree with that. Our view is Bill C-7 is being superimposed on the Indian Act, the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are even some contradictory clauses that could result in endless legal proceedings before the courts. I told her to stop taking that information for granted. But she said that that is what they're telling her at the Minister's Office. They also say that the public meetings we hold are inadequate and that we don't give First Nations' members enough advance notice when we invite them.

» (1755)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

[English]

We'll now go directly to a recorded vote.

(Amendment negatived: nays 9; yeas 2)

The Chair: We will suspend for 20 minutes and then return to amendment CA-45 on page 191.

» (1757)

¼ (1824)

The Chair: We will resume proceedings.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott (Saskatoon—Wanuskewin, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We had a similar amendment before. In that case, the amendment had referred to “payment of a nominal fee that does not exceed the cost of printing, a band shall...” but in this case we have slightly modified it to refer to the “cost of copying”.

I was at the point of thinking that I should maybe withdraw it, because we've gone around a little on this one before—although this one is slightly different. But in considering it a little longer, I really think I would be betraying first nations persons who I've had contact with over the last number of years. To us, it is something that seems so small to simply pay a fee for a copy of a law, but believe me, out there in Indian country, where I have had the experience of talking with people, the poverty level makes paying a fee kind of a reach up for them. They're not in a position, if somebody wants to play a little bit difficult on this issue....

I know that even the words “reasonable fee” supposedly have some meaning within jurisprudence or law, and maybe it could be stretched a bit, but I wanted the clause to be such that anybody who needs access to a copy of a law affecting them so directly on their own reserve, first nation or band, should be able to have it without any kind of obstruction, or without anybody putting up any kind of a roadblock to that.

It's a fairly basic amendment, wherein I would amend clause 30 in Bill C-7 by replacing line 20 on page 18. As it presently reads, the line states, “At the request of any person and on payment of a reasonable fee, a band shall provide a copy of any code or law of the band certified to be a true copy by a person designated by the band”. We're getting very specific and detailed here, and I'm not meaning to quibble, but instead of saying “on payment of a reasonable fee”, we're proposing “on payment of a nominal fee not to exceed the cost of copying, a band shall provide” that copy of the code or law of the band certified to be a true copy by a person designated by the band.

Many around this table or out in our audience today have some understanding of what we're talking about here. Sometimes people are just so poor that they don't have the finances to pay a fee. You can't even say if a $10 fee or a $15 fee could be “deemed reasonable”. In fact, maybe it would be, because sometimes there are administrative costs, Mr. Chair. So sometimes when people set reasonable fees in provincial or municipal law, for example, the fees might in fact include the time it took somebody to dig it out, make it available, and certify it, and so on. So you might have a reasonable fee of $15, or whatever.

In this case, we're just asking for a “payment of a nominal fee, not to exceed the cost of copying, the band shall provide...”. That's the straightforward intent of it; it's not going to be a $15 or $20 fee, or whatever, for the cost of some law, but whatever it takes. I would think that we have a range of costs, including whatever the cost of copying would be. Maybe it costs 5¢ or 10¢ a copy, but it's certainly not going to be much more than 20¢ a copy. You slap it down on a copier, and if it's 10 pages, then you have to charge a nominal fee of $2.

I think that explains itself. We can't have anything that's a barrier to somebody receiving a copy of a law, which in fact may be the very law by which they are being called on the carpet, so to speak. They need to know what pertains to them and to be aware of the particular laws of the band. They rightly ought to know that and to be able to understand what's in fact impinging on them at that point.

So that's what I intend in a good spirit. Although I could have withdrawn it, in the interest of not betraying those first nations people, and of being able to go back to them and to look them in the face, I need to at least test the waters to see if there's some will to have this simple insertion on line 20, page 18, clause 30 of Bill C-7.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

¼ (1825)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Vellacott.

Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand what Mr. Vellacott is trying to do with his amendment.

In fact, it is quite clear. When referring to reasonable fees or payments, it is much more precise to say: “payment of a nominal fee not to exceed the cost of copying, a band shall”. I believe the concern about not wanting to force people to pay undue fees for copies is a valid one.

The only criticism I might make about Mr. Vellacott's amendment is that it is just as interventionist as the language that already appears in sub-clause 30(5), where it talks about: “payment of a reasonable fee”. Since when do people with a duly constituted system in place ask for unreasonable fees to be paid? I, personally, have never heard of that happening.

Once again, I'm not criticizing Mr. Vellacott's intentions. It is highly commendable to think about the impact on people who may not be able to afford to pay for copies of a code or law and to propose the inclusion of this kind of provision, which is used by many municipalities, stating, for example, “payment of nominal fee not to exceed the cost of copying…”

But the attitude reflected here irritates me. If we were members of First Nations and were discussing our mode de governance, I might be the first to say that we should ensure that we only ask members to pay a nominal fee. But I am not a member of a First Nation and it is not up to me to prescribe a specific way of administering the payment of fees for a true copy of a law or code. I don't feel that I have the authority to include these kinds of details.

I found the original language just as unacceptable. Sub-clause 30(5) reads as follows:

(5) At the request of any person and on payment of a reasonable fee, a band shall provide a copy of any code or law…

But what right do we have to require the payment of reasonable fees by First Nations? It is up to them, not us, to put in place their own fee structure for payment of copies. The original wording is as follows:

[…] a copy of any code or law of the band certified to be a true copy…

With the amendment, the clause reads as follows:

…payment of a nominal fee not to exceed the cost of copying…

That is just the kind of clause that we have condemned again and again since we began clause-by-clause consideration of this government bill.

Your intentions are honourable, Mr. Vellacott, and you amendment does have value. Your concern for people of limited means is a welcomed one. However, I think that first, we have to recognize that the First Nations have the right to govern themselves, before we start prescribing certain procedures or telling them to charge fees for true copies, copies that could be provided to people living on band lands who so request it.

I am going to have to oppose this amendment, even though I think it is a worthwhile one from a social standpoint. Unfortunately, I see the same flaw here as in the original language.

The same problem is present throughout, in fact, and this kind of approach is really starting to get on my nerves. We are laying out details on the appropriate mode de governance or what the First Nations are required to do. We say that the laws they make mustn't conflict with the federal laws, because otherwise, the latter will prevail. The Minister does this, the Minister does that, the Minister decides this, that and the other thing, and the First Nations have obligations based on the rules of governance being imposed by the federal government.

¼ (1830)

I hope that we will continue this process until November. Without going so far as to become a Liberal and support Mr. Martin, I still see him as a circumstantial ally, if one can believe his recent statements. He seems to have understood. At least I hope so. We will judge him based on the action he ultimately takes. I hope he won't disappoint too many people when he becomes the leader of country in November. He made a commitment more than once not to implement Bill C-7. He made that public commitment to the First Nations on three occasions. My own view is that there is very little doubt he will be governing this country in November. So, I hope he understood, when he read the Bill and commented on it, that what is unacceptable is that the Bill recognizes the First Nations' inherent right of self-government but then turns around and denies them that right, letting the Minister decide for them and providing that Acts of Parliament have more value than the laws made by First Nations. Either this is a third order of government or it isn't. Either they have Aboriginal and treaty rights or they don't. We cannot tolerate the idea that they should have half a right and that the other half should be forced on them. A right is a right. There is no such thing as a half-right or a third of a right. If you enjoy a right, that's all there is to it. The inherent rights of the First Nations have been recognized by the courts, by the United Nations, by the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These are full rights, not rights that exist by halves or by thirds. You can't leave part of these rights in the hands of the federal government. Either they have the authority to govern and you recognize the inherent right of self-determination of the First Nations, or you don't recognize it. You can't only half recognize it. You have to fully recognize it or reject it. That's life. It's not black and it's not white. You have rights or you don't have rights. You can't always be talking out of both sides of your month. That just can't continue.

Over the last three decades, the way the thinking has evolved in relation to the First Nations is clear evidence of that. It's simply unacceptable in 2003 to still be motivated by the old, outmoded reactions of the past. I believe the government has been overtaken by the people of Canada, that want us to establish harmonious nations with the First Nations, to live together with them, as partners, as good neighbours, and avoid what occurred in recent decades, when we left the First Nations to their own devices or let them live under the tutelage of the government because of the Indian Act, without every trying to make changes. Today an attempt is being made to make changes, but they are the wrong changes. I just don't accept that.

I'm sure you understand, Mr. Vellacott, that if I'm not supporting your amendment, it's because it is too interventionist, in my view, and not because of the progressive side of it. Indeed, I want to commend you for it, because you are an Alliance MP and are taking a position that puts you to the left of the one espoused by many of your colleagues. That is a very good thing, but your amendment suffers from the same problem as the rest of the Bill, which is that it is interventionist in nature.

In order to improve your amendment, I would like to move a sub-amendment. Your amendment reads as follows: “payment of a nominal fee not to exceed the cost of copying, a band shall”, the change I would make would be to add the words: “in the language of the First Nation”. We talked about language concerns earlier. So, I think it would be a good idea to add a sub-amendment that would read as follows: “and in the language of the First Nation”. That would be a worthwhile sub-amendment, as I'm sure you agree.

I was actually watching you earlier, as I talked about language in relation to Mr. Martin's sub-amendment. You seemed very interested in my analysis of the importance of language for the First Nations.

So, my sub-amendment would read as follows: “and in the language of the First Nation”.

¼ (1835)

The Chair: Mr. Loubier, you have the floor on your sub-amendment.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, earlier we didn't really have an opportunity to thoroughly debate the question of the important role of language in relations between nations; indeed, we will never have such an opportunity.

We are talking about languages and the promotion of languages, such as the French language or the different First Nations languages. It is important, particularly in a Bill that concerns them, that French and English not be the only languages used for the kinds of activities mentioned in sub-clause 30(5) where it talks about providing “a copy of any code or law of the band certified to be a true copy”.

This should be common practice. The federal government should make funding available to band councils to have their codes and laws translated. They shouldn't be available only in French and English, but also in the language of the First Nation.

I was recently listening to a report on the Aboriginal channel known as APTN, if I'm not mistaken. It talked about a number of communities that were rebuilding and had decided to focus on the vibrancy of their language. They had gone back to teaching young children their Aboriginal language, a language that had been lost to almost 95 per cent of the community; that was the focus of the report; people were taking ownership of their language again. And by doing that, they were reclaiming again taking ownership of the soul of the Aboriginal nation. Without its language, a nation is not really a nation. It is the means of expressing of what makes them different.

When we're talking about a bill entitled “An Act respecting leadership selection, administration and accountability of Indian bands, and to make related amendments to other Acts”, it's important to provide for the translation into the First Nation language of laws and true copies of those laws and codes distributed by the band council. The federal government should be providing specific funding for the promotion of these languages. I don't see what would be strange about having laws written in Iroquois, Innu, or Cree, that could also be accessible to people in the community.

You don't revive a language just by learning it; you have to practice it as well. A language is something that must be spoken. You also have to practice it by reading, and be familiar with the alphabet and pictograms that may be used in the language. To reclaim ownership of one's language, one has to use it regularly, so that it becomes an everyday thing.

You can't use a language only for cultural performances, for example, while over here, we clap and say: “Oh, what a cultural treasure!” The First Nation itself has to make that language come alive. And the best way to make these languages come alive is to translate laws so that they are accessible to First Nations people in First Nations' languages.

In terms of ensuring the distribution of codes and laws, a very good idea would be to create a special fund to promote Aboriginal languages, part of that money being used to make laws and codes for leadership selection and other purposes available in Aboriginal languages.

Such an amendment would be very significant, in light of the history of the Indian Act and the way in which it was applied. The Aboriginal peoples were the victims of what I would call cultural genocide. For many decades, their children were forbidden to speak their own language, and were even beaten when they dared to do so.

¼ (1840)

It seems to me that we should show remorse for the past and that in light of all the suffering endured by young Aboriginals at different periods of over 130 years, it would be appropriate to take some action--for example, providing the necessary funding to the First Nations to allow them to reclaim ownership of their language. That could be reflected in the governance bill, by allowing First Nations people to have access to all materials developed for them in their language.

We have often talked about respecting the Canadian duality, French and English. I think we should broaden that so that rather than talking just about duality, we show respect for linguistic diversity. The Aboriginal languages of Quebec and Canada are part of that diversity and that rich cultural heritage; I'm surprised to see the lack of sensitivity in that regard.

Earlier, Mr. Martin moved a sub-amendment similar to mine with respect to the promotion of Aboriginal languages, and we voted on it. To me it is absolutely essential, given that recognition of Aboriginal languages is really a given, since we are talking here about governance laws developed by First Nations people. When we took the vote, I was sure that my Liberal colleagues would wake up, at least once, and support this amendment. But no, I was surprised to see that every Liberal, without exception, refused to recognize the importance of preserving and promoting Aboriginal languages. That's what their refusal amounts to.

We're talking about creating a third order of government with the First Nations, and yet these Aboriginal governments have been denied the right to govern themselves in their own language; that right has not even been recognized. We brought forward an amendment to make that a reality, but on the Liberal side, they weren't interested in recognizing that. It's just unbelievable.

I understand now why you don't want our meetings to be televised: your behaviour is an absolute disgrace. Especially where I'm from, and where language issues are extraordinarily important, imagine the reaction if you decide to scrap an amendment aimed at demonstrating respect for the Aboriginal languages. The joy was apparent as someone cried out : “Defeated”. It is with joy, glee and even pride that we hear you say : “Defeated!” This is a rejection of diversity, a rejection of the First Nations' right to make their own arrangements with respect to their languages, to reclaim ownership of those languages and to use them to govern themselves, and yet you are tickled pink to be able to say no, no, no.

It's high time we brought in some UN observers. There is an article in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that says that people should not suffer discrimination on grounds of language, religion or race. But here, we are in fact discriminating based on language, because we don't even recognize that Aboriginal languages exist, and what is worse, we don't recognize the First Nations' right to use their own languages to govern themselves. That is a pretty incredible state of affairs.

I would like there to be an observer. Last week, a UN observer visited a certain number of Indian reserves here in Canada. In an interview, he said he was stunned to see that in a country like Canada, said to be a rich country, in one of the eight most highly industrialized countries in the world, we still have reserves where people have no drinking water, their houses are falling apart, they're suffering chronic unemployment, their forests and lands have been devastated to make way for oil exploration, logging, and clear-cuts, and yet we continue to waste our time discussing futilities when we are clearly facing a national disaster. That UN observer should be in this room to see just how the Aboriginal peoples are being treated here, not only on the reserves, from a practical standpoint, but also the surreal way of dealing with their future. It's absolutely absurd.

I'm moving this amendment to focus, once again, on the importance of cultural diversity and the dignity of the Aboriginal peoples. I hope that at the very least, you will have the finesse, kindness, courtesy and respect to agree to this amendment with respect to what allows the Aboriginal cultures in Canada to express themselves. It would be another disaster if you were to reject this sub-amendment.

¼ (1845)

[English]

The Chair: All right.

Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: It's something that I hadn't thought of until my colleague Mr. Loubier raised this.

I guess I'd ask Mr. Johnson or Mr. Salembier, what is the intent in all these places where it talks about the writing up of the laws, and so on? Does the Official Languages Act apply? Does it need to be French, English, and/or a third language, or is it simply of their choosing for it to be in the first nation language only, or all three? What is the intent here?

Mr. Paul Salembier (Senior Counsel, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Since this is subordinate legislation, the Official Languages Act and the Constitution Act would apply. Section 16, I believe it is, of the Constitution Act, 1982 states that the official languages are English and French; therefore, it would have to be in at least one of the official languages. Indian bands are exempt from the Official Languages Act for the requirement that band laws be made in both official languages, but in order to comply with the Constitution Act, they would have to be made in at least one official language.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Okay, I thank you for that, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you.

Does anyone else want to speak on the subamendment?

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: I would like to add some thoughts on the subamendment as well. I think it builds from the issue I tried to raise in moving the subamendment earlier. It's an opportunity for us to introduce some recognition of culture and tradition as we move forward in this bill, as we race forward at breakneck speed. I think it's time we slowed down somewhat and took into consideration some of these issues before we make a terrible mistake. I think racing through these clauses at this unreasonable pace doesn't give us the opportunity to give these issues the full consideration they warrant and deserve.

I blame the current and former parliamentary secretaries for the situation we're in, with not having adequate time to deal with these issues, because they are the ones who moved closure on the debate and limited the time we are allowed to spend in exploring these issues and bring forth even more witnesses to really open these issues up in the full way they deserve to be opened up.

The fact that we're limited and hog-tied here by process probably means we'll be passing shoddy legislation. It will be against our best efforts, but in all likelihood the product of this exercise will be flawed and will not gain acceptance in the communities where it will be forced upon people. They will reject it. It will be challenged.

The provisional government of Paul Martin has spoken, saying they don't look forward--when they do become the government and not the provisional government--to all the court cases. The provisional government of Paul Martin has spoken out that they resent being burdened with this unnecessary grief associated with all the predictable consequences of this legislation, which will be challenges and court cases.

Earlier in the evening, before we broke for dinner, we had representatives in the room from KAIROS, the Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives of the mainstream Canadian churches--the United Church, the Anglican Church, the Lutheran Church. And we had David Pfrimmer, the head of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Canada, who is vehemently opposed to this bill, come to lend his support and pay his respects to those few of us who are valiantly trying to do what we can to make sure this bill doesn't become law. We had James B. Marshall, from the United Church of Canada, who also came to show his support for those who oppose this bill.

In the context of languages, as per the subamendment Mr. Loubier has put forward, I'm reminded of the fact that it was the Bishop from Moosonee, whose name I'm groping for now, Mr. Chairman.... I have it in my notes. I believe his name is Caleb...I'm sorry, I don't have his name. He made the comment that

Our position then is that Bill C-7 should be withdrawn and a better consultation process should be established. Discussion should be based on the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and should start with clear acknowledgement of the Constitution Act 1982....

I agree with the Bishop of Moosonee. The reason I raise the Anglican Church in the context of language is that the textbooks we studied as kids, in the Cree language, were by the Anglican Church of Canada. The dictionary was Cree-English, English-Cree. I have a copy of it in my office that I've brought to these meetings before.

The Anglican Church understood that to communicate effectively with aboriginal peoples, not just for trade purposes or anything else.... This was in the 1930s that they developed the first comprehensive dictionary of the Swampy Cree. The Plains Cree is the Y dialect; the Swampy Cree in the northern boreal forests is the language we were learning. That was the area of the Hudson's Bay fur trade, etc., so they didn't need this dictionary to deal with trade. They needed this dictionary to actually communicate and to start to enter into a more sensitive approach on how they dealt with first nations.

¼ (1850)

It's easy enough to trade goods without an adequate grasp of the language, if it's only commodities that you're trying to describe within the limitation of language, but if you are trying to put into language more complex issues associated with a relationship, then you need to understand what each other is saying.

That was the role, and I admire this role. As problematic as the Anglican Church's relationship with first nations people has been in the context of residential schools, at least at the time people were studying the language as an important aspect of culture. And even as an agent of an occupying force, if you will, the Anglican Church at least acknowledged how important language is if you are serious about communicating and relating to people.

When those two representatives from KAIROS, of which the Anglican Church is also a member.... When I see all of the mainstream churches united in their opposition to this bill, I am reminded that it's not just the leaders of the Assembly of First Nations who oppose this bill, as the minister would have you believe. In a recent circular that he sent around to Liberal MPs, he cited a bunch of editorials they successfully managed to get introduced into newspapers across the country. And in the circular there was a cover letter saying “Many of you may have heard that more than just the AFN chiefs are opposed to this bill”, and he went on to explain that in his view this is not true. But I'm going by the presentations we heard, and I suggest that fully 95% of the presenters we heard before the standing committee vigorously opposed this bill, including many non-aboriginal representatives of civil society.

All of the mainstream churches, all of them, and many respected academics, law professors, bar associations, and even the former Minister of Indian Affairs testified that in their opinion Bill C-7 infringes upon constitutionally recognized aboriginal and treaty rights, section 15 of the charter, and international conventions regarding the right to self-determination to which Canada is a signatory.

This modest amendment put forward by my colleague seeks to amend the Canadian Alliance's comments on clause 30 regarding the size of the fee.

Notwithstanding the size of the fee, I hope I'm going to have an opportunity to debate the main amendment after the fact, should time permit. I do have some views I want to share about the payment of the fee not to exceed the cost of copying, but in terms of the reference to language, I admire the subtlety with which my colleague from the Bloc has tried to introduce measures of recognition of the sensitive nature of culture and tradition as it pertains to any law-making or governance issues.

I'm reminded of the reading I've been doing of a work by Dr. Harold Cardinal, who is a former national leader of what was then the Native Indian Brotherhood, and is now with the Assembly of First Nations, and his reference to law-making, not only in the context of policy documents such as I've been quoting from but in the context of his historical reflections on the white paper.

At the time when he was actually the president of the Indian Association of Alberta in 1969, when he was organizing political activity in the west, he was publicly accusing the minister of the time, Jean Chrétien, of conducting a personal vendetta against him for being in opposition to the 1969 white paper.

Cardinal, in his very well documented history of those times, states that Chrétien at the time felt that his political credibility, if not his future, was at stake with the white paper. It seems both were using the Indian Act as a bargaining tool, but it is evident that if the Indians felt the Indian Act was a lever for them, more than 100 years of experience have proven that it was a stronger lever for the federal government.

This is in the context of the famous Lavell court ruling where Jeanette Lavell --

¼ (1855)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Mr. Chairman, I hope my colleagues will support this amendment, particularly since it has been recognized over time that a language is the vehicle for a people to directly express what they are and what they want to be, as a sovereign people living on this planet.

In the report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples issued in 1997, a section of the report dealt with the importance of language. A little later on, I will quote from some other publications, but for now I would like to quote from the report of the Commission:

Language is one of the main instruments for transmitting culture from one generation to another…

If we don't recognize the importance of that primary instrument for the transmission of culture from one generation to the next, then we are threatening the survival and even the development of the First Nations. If we are incapable of recognizing the importance of language, it's because we don't want to recognize that for generations to come, this instrument can play a role in ensuring that the First Nations continue to exist and thrive. Indeed, the rate of population growth among the Aboriginal peoples is twice as high as among the non-Aboriginal population in Canada.

In the Erasmus-Dussault report, again in the section on living languages, it said, and I quote:

Language is one of the main instruments for transmitting culture from one generation to another and for communicating meaning and making sense of collective experience. In Canada, there are 11 Aboriginal language families and more than 50 different languages.

Imagine what a cultural treasure those 50 different languages in Canada represent.

It also said in the report:

The number of Aboriginal language speakers is only a fraction of the Aboriginal population : about one person in three over the age of five.

So, only one in three over the age of five is able to speak an Aboriginal language:

Even the languages in most frequent use--Mi'kmaq, Montagnais, Cree, Ojibwa, Inuktitut, and some Dene languages--are in danger of extinction because of declining fluency in the young.

In fact, I would like to present some information with respect to the linguistic situation of the First Nations that is taken from the 2001 census. If you're interested in all the details, the publication is entitled: The Aboriginal People of Canada: A Demographic Profile. The section on language contains some very interesting information about how Aboriginal languages have evolved in Canada. We know that there are 50 different Aboriginal languages. What a cultural treasure! Here in Canada, we have 50 languages that we don't know but that it would be to our benefit to know, because this is a real cultural treasure. And we are denying the First Nations the right to carry out promotion.

In the 2001 census, it says, and I quote:

One quarter of Aboriginal persons can carry on a conversation in an Aboriginal language.

Now that is good news, even though it's only one quarter, but it should be 100 per cent and could be if an effort were made and the federal government really played its fiduciary role properly by giving the First Nations the means to promote their languages.

In this Statistics Canada report, one of the findings was that an essential condition for preserving and even expanding the use of these languages is regular use of them. If you don't use a language regularly, the language declines and is lost.

Indeed, I'm sure that a number of my colleague around this table probably no longer speak a language they learned in the past and suddenly realize that they had lost. That is what happened to me. After taking an intensive Spanish course, I could converse easily, even talk about politics in Chile under Allende, but after not speaking the language for 15 years, I lost it. It may come back, but means making an effort and using it on a daily basis in order not to lose it.

If the First Nations don't use one of the 50 Aboriginal languages in Canada, if that language is not used every day or in the laws relating to the future of the First Nations, the laws and codes that will define them, there is no doubt that that language will be used less and will be spoken less by First Nations communities.

½ (1900)

I heard Mr. Salembier say earlier that this information has to be in one of the two official languages. That means a First Nation could perform its lawmaking role, develop its laws in its own language, but would then be forced to deposit a version of those laws in the registry in French or English, and only in French or English, since the First Nations are deprived of the technical and financial means that should be made available to them by the federal government, and so they will just have to sacrifice their own language. That is absolutely ridiculous.

Not only should we include a reference to Aboriginal language in the Bill, but there should be an aggressive federal government policy to promote the use of these 50 languages by 100 per cent of the First Nations. The report says that one quarter of Aboriginal people can carry on a conversation in an Aboriginal language, but 100 per cent of First Nations people should be able to do that. That would be quite an incredible cultural resource that would be.

So why, in a Bill on First Nations governance is there no reference to the fact that First Nations could develop their laws and codes in their own languages, and that those codes, developed in their own languages, could be deposited in the registry, as requested by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs?

These census statistics are really interesting. I actually went through them quickly a few years ago, without really paying that much attention to them, but today, since we're talking about languages, it is very much to the point to review those statistics again. The report says:

A total of 235,075 Aboriginal persons, or approximately one quarter (24%) of the 976,305 persons who identified themselves as North American Indians, Métis or Inuits in 2001, stated that they had sufficient knowledge of an Aboriginal language to carry on a conversation. That percentage was lower than the 29% quoted in 1996.

Now does the fact that there has been a 5 per cent drop mean that no effort was made to support, both financially and technically, the desire of the Aboriginal communities to reclaim their languages and reclaim their soul, because language is the soul of a people? Is it because we, despite our fiduciary obligations, didn't do what we should have? We have left the First Nations with so few resources and so many unsatisfied basic needs, such as access to drinking water, for example. We forgot to give them the money they needed to meet those basic needs, as well a funding for the promotion of Aboriginal languages in Canada. The 2001 census shows a decrease.

And yet there are encouraging signs. In some of the communities that have signed self-government agreements--the first wave to have done so, before that wave broke on the reef of Bill C-7--and who have made progress towards Indian self-government are increasingly using those languages. The report says:

However, the number of people with knowledge of an Aboriginal language did not decline for all Aboriginal languages. There was in fact an increase for eight of the 14 languages spoken by at least 2,000 people in 2001, compared to six, where a decline was noted.

So, this is encouraging in a way, but there is no doubt that efforts need to be made. And the first of these efforts has to be to recognize the existence of these 50 Aboriginal languages, to promote those languages and to support the First Nations that want to revive them so that 100 per cent of the First Nations people in the communities can speak their language.

I just want to repeat what I said about cultural diversity. I was listening to Ms. Copps, who joined with Ms. Beaudoin, when she was Minister of International Relations for Quebec, to promote cultural diversity. You can't promote cultural diversity in the international arena and ignore the fact that the cultural diversity that exists here is being shunned, is not benefiting from any promotion and is therefore in decline, at least as far as many of those languages are concerned, languages that are connected to incredibly rich cultures and histories.

There is a glimmer of hope, but if the Aboriginal peoples had waited for the federal government to save their languages, or to revive those languages which are now starting to flourish, they would have waited a very long time, because the federal government didn't really make any effort, despite its fiduciary obligations, to encourage them to reclaim ownership of a cultural attribute of the first order--the mother tongue of the Aboriginal peoples.

½ (1905)

It says that a total of 31,945 people have…

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I'll come back to this, because this is a matter of public interest.

[English]

The Chair: We'll now go to a recorded vote on the subamendment to CA-45, page 191.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 2)

½ (1910)

The Chair: Defeated, and I will remind us that there is no provision for abstaining. If you wish not to vote, you roll your chair back away from the table.

Back on the amendment, Mr. Martin.

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

I'm glad to have an opportunity to speak to Mr. Vellacott's amendment, which seeks to change clause 30 in such a way that it would still speak to charging a fee to anyone who wished a copy of a band law or bylaw or code, etc. That's the language that worries me more than anything. I wish we were in fact debating the line above the line that Mr. Vellacott seeks to change, because we should view the clause as a whole. Clause 30(5) reads that:

At the request of any person and on payment of a reasonable fee, a band shall provide a copy of any code or law of the band certified to be a true copy by a person designated by the band.

I suppose the reasonable fee language is some comfort that a band is not going to be burdened with an undue obligation to provide these copies of codes to anybody who asks, but when it says “at the request of any person”, I really do wonder what the government could be thinking. I could see it would be reasonable if it said “at the request of any band member”. No matter where they lived they should have in fact free access to these codes. I don't think they should even be paying for photocopying. If they're a member of the band, they should have free and easy access to it.

But any person means you or me, Mr. Chair, or any student who may be studying this issue. We often get calls from students who might be doing a paper on Canadian governance, and it's difficult to find time as a member of Parliament to answer what seems like innocent questions from some students studying the issue. This is putting an obligation on a band, with its limited means and resources, to respond to the request of anybody, at any time, asking to be sent a copy of the band council bylaws, etc. I don't like that, but it's not the line we're debating here.

Mr. Vellacott's amendment finds fault with the language about a reasonable fee, because I understand he's concerned that people of modest means may not be able to even pay what the band might consider a reasonable fee. He points out that the fee should not exceed the cost of copying, and I presume he means photocopying. But I think reasonable fee can mean many things.

I had to buy some law books recently. I had to buy a new copy of Brown and Beatty because I lost mine, and it was $245 for a copy of Brown and Beatty on arbitration labour law. And I bought a copy of Palmer, which is a book we use a lot in labour law. It was $120. A copy of the Criminal Code according to Martin is $80. The statutes we have in our offices that are issued by the House of Commons, if you lose those or if you give them away as party favours at some event, they charge you $5,000 for those, so you don't want to lose them.

The point I raise is the issue of what's reasonable in terms of limited edition publications. They are not best sellers, and there's no way to recoup, by selling thousands of copies or any of these things, the actual cost of production. So instead of what might be deemed reasonable by one, maybe it's better left to language such as “a reasonable fee”, instead of “limiting to” the literal or the actual practice of photocopying a document as contemplated in the amendment by Mr. Vellacott.

Mr. Chair, how much time do I have?

The Chair: Five and a half minutes. I'm not a timekeeper, by the way.

Mr. Pat Martin: In fact, Mr. Chair, you are the timekeeper, because you always tell me to stop talking at a certain time.

½ (1915)

The Chair: We'll make a deal. In the future I'll tell you when it's over, but if you want to find out otherwise, buy a watch.

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

In terms of Mr. Vellacott's idea of any person being in poverty as a justification, I understand where Mr. Vellacott is coming from, but I don't accept that this is better than what we have in there currently. I would suggest that a better amendment to this clause would be, had we viewed who might make this request, that it would read “at the request of a member of the band”. I can see having reference to it then.

I know that Mr. Vellacott prefaced his remarks by saying that he too is cognizant of the fact that we're getting into very micro-micromanagement here by even dictating whether it should be a nickel a page or 7¢ a page for photocopying. If you go down to Kwik Kopy you might get it for 4¢ a page, so maybe we should be referring to where it should be photocopied.

We can't get that narrow in our scope here. Instead of dealing with the expansive issues associated with the rights of a first nation to self-determination and to craft their own codes of governance, we're now getting into commenting on how, and to whom, and for how much a piece of paper shall be reproduced. I'm trying not to be sarcastic here in my remarks, but it's hard not to be sarcastic about some of the clauses we're being asked to deal with here.

We have very little time to deal with issues of substance, but we seem to have all the time in the world with minutiae and insignificant minutiae. In my opinion, it's tragic to me that we can't see the forest for the trees in this sense.

I think we could probably improve this language if I moved a subamendment to Mr. Vellacott's amendment. Again, in good faith and in goodwill I put forward this alternative idea that would read as a subamendment to amendment CA-45. My subamendment is that in clause 30 I would suggest we should be replacing line 20 on page 18 with the following: “payment of a fee to be determined by the band administrator and escalated from year to year in accordance with the Consumer Price Index as set by the federal government...”. I'll move that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Mr. Martin, on your subamendment.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chair, as a subamendment, I think it's reasonable then.... If we're going to get into micromanaging every tiny aspect and detail of how first nations conduct themselves, it's not any more ridiculous to really include the federal government into the--

Mr. Charles Hubbard: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: On a point of order, Mr. Hubbard.

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Mr. Chair, it would be beneficial to us on this side to have a copy of this amendment or subamendment.

The Chair: We'll hold the clock until everyone has a copy. Both official languages, or the way it was presented?

Mr. Charles Hubbard: Probably for me Mi'kmaq and English will be best.

The Chair: We'll suspend until everyone has a copy in English.

½ (1918)

½ (1922)

The Chair: The clock is running.

Mr. Pat Martin: There we go.

Now that other members have the advantage of being able to see the language I've proposed--and I don't know if they have seen it yet or not--I think what I'm putting forward here is reasonable. This is the type of detail that should be left up to the administrator of the band, because if it's on a cost-recovery basis, it's the band administrator, not the chief or the councillors, who would know what the real administrative cost is associated with providing information to somebody.

I'm more concerned about the time. I'm concerned about two things. I'm concerned about the fact that anybody, no matter who they are, can simply request it at any time, and the band has to dance to their drum and produce it. I'm also concerned about the timeframe that these things have to be filed within. I'm wondering about the sanctions associated with or the consequences associated with not filing these on time.

I know that the government is going to be coming up with an amendment shortly to admit essentially that timeliness can't be used as an excuse to not allow a code to come into effect. I think I will be interested in seeing what the government has to say. I'm not a lawyer, but I know that time guidelines are for guidance only. Timeliness can usually be relieved.

Mr. Chairman, I think we have a quorum issue here.

The Chair: Quorum called. We will suspend.

½ (1924)

½ (1930)

The Chair: Mr. Martin.

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

I was reminded by some people I had the chance to speak to in the intermission that we are at first reading at this juncture. As we deal with amendments--I know the chair has been quite generous in allowing amendments to be put forward, and the issue of relevancy has not been raised in general--the parliamentary secretary did attempt to block one amendment because he felt there would be a cost factor in the introduction of governance institutes or centres of excellence for governance across the country.

We have to remind ourselves that at first reading the bill is not established or accepted in principle yet. That occurs after second reading. Really, the bill should be viewed as being in a very fluid state right now. New concepts and ideas can and should be able to be introduced at this stage, even if the amendment goes beyond dealing with the text of one of the clauses in the bill. The advantage to having a bill at this stage should be that we may introduce and entertain new concepts and bold new initiatives that would then become part of the bill agreed to in principle after second reading.

We should remind ourselves of that, especially in the context of what Mr. Loubier tried to introduce, issues associated with language, and those I tried to introduce associated with governance institutes being created. It's all relevant, and it's difficult to declare--and I note again that the chair has been generous in not trying to rule these things out of order--but we should keep an open mind to many of these concepts.

What I'm proposing now in terms of what might be a nominal fee or a reasonable fee I enter into almost in a sarcastic way, because I think it's ridiculous that we're dealing with minute details of that nature. I guess it's regrettable, but if we're going to deal with such insignificant, minute details as to what a fee might be to charge somebody for photocopying a piece of paper, at least it should be tied to something reasonable.

It should be escalated from year to year so that we don't need to have a legislated amendment to move the price of photocopying from three cents to four cents per sheet sometime down the road. It should be set by the administrator of the band, because that's the person in the band office who handles this kind of thing and will be charged with the responsibility of making a copy and distributing it to a person who sends in a request. And being tied to an escalation clause is a reasonable thing too. Any time you have a fixed fee set, you want it tied to an escalation clause so you don't have to open the bill and revisit, by legislation, a simple change such as the cost of living going up over time.

Since we last amended this bill in any substantial way, the cost of living has increased 450%. That's a substantial change, Mr. Chairman. There's even been a substantial change since the last time the Prime Minister found a northern Ontario Minister of Indian Affairs willing to ram through these changes to the Indian Act.

I'm reminded of all the discomfort associated with the final years of Ron Irwin's time as Minister of Indian Affairs, when he was saddled with the responsibility of trying to make many very similar changes, the level of acrimony that developed from that and the sad history of the tenure of that particular Minister of Indian Affairs.

Now we've found another Minister of Indian Affairs, again from northern Ontario, charged with the same responsibility of trying to implement the Prime Minister's 1969 white paper. Essentially, you could say the 1969 white paper has failed three times. It failed in 1969. It failed again with the Buffalo Jump, under Erik Neilsen. It failed again under Ron Irwin in the early 1990s, and now it's failing again under Bob Nault.

In the parlance of my colleagues in the United States, in the union I belong to, they say “That dog ain't gonna hunt”. After a certain period of time, you have to admit that that dog ain't gonna hunt, and this particular bill, this package of amendments to the Indian Act, ain't gonna hunt in terms of succeeding in any way.

½ (1935)

As we look at the amendment and dealing with amendment CA-45 and my subamendment to it, we should be guided by Dr. Harold Cardinal, to whom I made reference earlier. He reminds us, and I quote:

Our Elders admonish us to exercise great caution in dealing with the issue of law making--for they want to make sure that there is proper respect for and appreciation of the balances and relationships which exist between the various spheres of First Nation laws.

I think that's wise counsel. That comes from Dr. Cardinal's book, First Nation Law-Making--Historical & Contemporary Context, and is, I think, a very useful aspect.... Well, it was prepared for the Joint Initiative on Policy Development, a work we seem to have forgotten about, a work we seem to be showing a wilful blindness to.

In between failures like this, good work gets done and then ignored. It's the frustration. In a failure like Ron Irwin's Bill C-79 initiative, we had good work being done, documented and recorded to give guidance to the next generation so they'll put together something successful. But it gets ignored too.

This Joint Initiative for Policy Development says:

The capacity and ability to make laws is central to any notion of self-governance and self-determination. For First Nations the challenge is both daunting and complex. First Nations must secure recognition for their law making within an existing federal state and seek a legal framework within which the laws of First Nations can be nderstood, respected and accepted. At the same time, First Nations must carefully consider and, in many cases, ncover the essence of First Nation law making including their values, traditions and beliefs, many of which have been systematically attacked by colonization for well over a century.

Now, that's not the complaining or, as one of the articles circulated by the minister today says, whining--that's the way he puts it in the articles he wants you to believe. That's the joint policy document put together by INAC and the Assembly of First Nations.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Hubbard.

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

Speaking of the member for Winnipeg Centre, I'm not sure what history is going to say about the work we've been doing over the last 14 weeks. We're probably getting close to having spent 100 hours dealing with this legislation directly.

It is troubling, Mr. Chair, that we sit around this table and hear members who have no intention of trying to improve the legislation, but simply want us to not bring it back to the House. I think everyone knows that we received this legislation after first reading and that it provides us, as members of Parliament, the opportunity to be real participants in bringing out the problems with it and to make amendments to improve it, which can benefit all first nations people across this country.

But, Mr. Chair, I was very surprised when after we had spent time dealing with some 29 clauses in the legislation, talking about codes and band laws, that we have somebody, the member from Quebec here, suggesting that the clerk or the band administrator, or someone at the band office, suddenly has to produce in more than one language a law or system of codes to someone who wants them. We never talked about them being written in more than one language.

If they had been good legislators, they would have recognized that there was ample opportunity before for them to bring in amendments to enable this legislation to talk about different languages in the clauses that we have already passed, whether they be Cree, Mi'kmaq, English, French, or whatever they might be. But to come back and to take the time of all of these people.... I think it was General Wellington who said that the most precious commodity we have is time. Thieves try to take time from us, because all of us have only so long to go through this great world and to experience the great country that we have. To steal time from people is one of the worst things you can do.

Now, the honourable member talked about some dog a few minutes ago. I never hunted much with dogs, but I do have some experience with them. I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that when the honourable member talks about hunting, whether it be with arrows or bullets, or whatever it might be, he would recognize that his hunting for the last 90 hours has been with a boomerang. And the boomerang is going to come back and hit him and his party right where they deserve. You know how the aboriginal people in Australia use boomerangs.

He talks about his party, but I haven't seen too many first nations people wanting to participate in his party's activities, when it comes to running for members of Parliament. But on this side, we do have a number of people. My seatmate for a number of years—or in fact for at least a good period of time—was Elijah Harper. His party went out and took Elijah Harper out of the Parliament of Canada.

We want to make sure that we do our due diligence with this bill, so I hope we get back to not wanting to hit somebody in the head with a boomerang. If the honourable member from Winnipeg Centre, Mr. Martin, wants a boomerang, I think he's been throwing them for a long time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

½ (1940)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. He says that we are stealing people's time here, but I would remind Mr. Hubbard that the government stole 130 years from the First Nations.

The Chair: Mr. Loubier, I asked Mr. Hubbard not to use names. I would make the same request of you.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: My answer to the colleague that spoke before me would be that we stole 130 years from the First Nations, and that we are now fixing things to steal another 130.

I believe history will judge our work based on the following facts: people will see that after 130 years of the Indian Act, we still haven't learned anything. We still want to implement a system to subjugate First Nations. And they'll also see, in the record of our proceedings, the totally stupid and inappropriate joke made earlier by the Parliamentary Secretary. He said, disdainfully, that maybe we should have the text in English and Mi'kmaq even tough we had been talking for an hour about the importance of Aboriginal culture and languages, and reviewing statistics showing that for the most part, those languages are disappearing. That was an utterly despicable and racist joke; it made me absolutely sick. That is what history will remember, Mr. Hubbard.

The Chair: Mr. Loubier, I asked that you not use names and avoid making personal attacks. Also, your use of the term “racist” is based on your own judgment; that is not necessarily our opinion. There is nothing racist about what Mr. Hubbard said. So, let's have some order here, please.

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I'm going to say exactly what I feel like saying because we still enjoy freedom of speech in this country. That is at least one freedom we still have; the First Nations, however, do not.

You can hunt with the boomerang, but you can also hunt with the slingshot. When you use a slingshot, you aim the stone directly in front of you, not at the forehead. You should learn these things, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary.

To come back to Mr. Martin's amendment, I want to say that I agree with the first part, but I have some problems with the second part. Mr. Martin is probably starting to be tired. So am I, as is everyone else here. But I think the Liberals are starting to rub off on you, Mr. Martin. That's not a good thing. We certainly don't want that to continue.

I fully agree with the first part; I think it's very appropriate. You talk about payment of a fee for copies provided to be determined by the band administrator. I don't need to be sold on that at all.

But after that, where it talks about escalating the fee from here to here in accordance with the Consumer Price Index, well, that's quite another matter. Mr. Martin, once again we are being prescriptive. If I were to move a sub-sub-amendment to your sub-amendment, I would definitely delete that part. But I forgive you: we all get tired at some point. And in any case, it's not that serious. At least we're not talking about an affront to the distinctive characteristics of the First Nations. The point here was simply to be more precise, as was the case with Mr. Vellacott's amendment. And the result of all this was a proposal to escalate the fee in accordance with the Consumer Price Index.

But I do support the first part of your sub-amendment, where you say that the fees should be determined by the First Nations. That's the way it should be, in my view. It cannot be any other way. If we are in favour of governance and the First Nations' right of self-determination and inherent right of self-government, we have to allow them to exercise that right.

Personally, however, I think it's an absolute shame that we have ended up in this Bill with clauses of practically surgical precision. We are dissecting this Bill from start to finish. The government's attitude is that it's not going to deprive itself of any opportunity to force things on the First Nations, and in that respect, they are determined to get their money's worth. In every single clause, they are going to be told they have the right to do something, when in fact, they don't actually have the right to do it. They're going to be given complete flexibility, and yet it's the Minister who will be deciding for them. They will have complete latitude to make laws, but those laws had better not conflict with Acts of Parliament or other federal regulations, because otherwise, they will no longer be entitled to govern themselves.

So basically, they are being allowed to govern, and then being told they can't. It's one step forward, and two steps back. It's very much like those dances that were popular in the 1970s. Wasn't one of them called hip-hop? No, that's wrong; hip-hop is what they have now. But there were dances back then where people would take a few steps forward, a few steps back, and so on. With Bill C-7, I really get the feeling that's the stage we're at. We give them a little something, but then we take it right away.

In the wording of the preamble, it's really quite extraordinary to see the progress that is being made here by recognizing the right of self government. But as soon as we get into the body of the legislation, we immediately take a step backward, and that's the way it goes throughout the Bill. People may say we are stealing their time, but I don't think that's true. The fact is you are stealing the time from us, by not allowing these proceedings to be televised. When meetings are televised, First Nations people can listen to the debate. The people of Canada can listen and see for themselves that we're just doing a little dance here--an Egyptian dance, perhaps; I have no idea-- and that we're not actually making any progress whatsoever.

And that is due to the fact that the amendments coming forward are absolutely pointless. As far as we are concerned, for the past 98 hours--and I just want to say that it isn't 100 hours, but 98 hours and 8 minutes--we have been trying to improve this Bill. We have said everything that could be said. Look at the “blues”; they will remind you of everything we've said for the past 98 hours. We wanted to improve the Bill and help the government.

For the first time since I've been here, I actually wanted to help the government. I am doing the federal government a favour. You know why? Because everyone--the First Nations, the experts, the Canadian Bar Association, the Quebec Bar and the Aboriginal Bar Association--have been telling us that this Bill is shot full of holes and the language that will be challenged, either under the Constitution or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yet, you, in your great wisdom, refuse to accept our help. At some point, we're going to stop wanting to help you. We're being nice and kind with you now. We're offering our friendship, but you are categorically rejecting it, and being cynical to boot.

The First Nations are also offering their friendship. The fact is they should be seated at this table. They already offered to work with us to improve the Bill or to start all over, because it would seem that this legislation should be completely rewritten. They even suggested coming to help us draft the Bill, to have it jibe as closely as possible with the findings of the reports of the Dussault-Erasmus Commission and the Special Committee on Indian Self-Government. It seems to me we shouldn't be refusing these offers from our friends. You must be very unhappy in your own lives if you refuse love and friendship in that way.

½ (1945)

We tried to help you. We offered you our friendship, but you refused it. And now you find yourselves caught up in a kind of surreal political landscape worthy of the greatest surrealistic creations of Breton in the 1930s and 1940s. This is a pretty amazing political environment we're in here. You find yourselves in an unprecedented political mess where Members of Parliament continue clause-by-clause consideration of a Bill that's already been rejected by the future Prime Minister. Most of you support his candidacy. It must be difficult to have to refuse friendship, refuse love, and to love people but betray them at the same time. That's exactly what we're doing.

If we continue clause-by-clause consideration, even though we want him to be successful, that means that we are actually thwarting the will of the next Prime Minister. You can't support him and at the same time throw a monkey wrench in the works.

That makes them mad when we talk about that. They don't like being forced to confront the Kafkaesque situation we find ourselves in here. I understand the way you feel. I certainly wouldn't want to be one of the players. I'd feel very uncomfortable. I don't know how I could get through it.

Would I be able to get up in the morning and look at myself in the mirror, and be convinced that I'm doing my job right when I'm sitting here considering a Bill and rejecting every single amendment that comes forward to improve it, when my future boss has rejected this Bill, and when I continue to waste a lot of people's time and treat the First Nations with disdain? That's a pretty heavy burden of history to carry on one's shoulders.

I understand why the Parliamentary Secretary's shoulders are stooping. When he began 98 hours ago, it seemed to me he had square shoulders. But now I guess the weight of history is starting to bear heavily on him--very, very heavily.

All of that to say, Mr. Martin, that for the first time, I won't be able to support your sub-amendment, and I'm truly sorry about that. But at some point, maybe we'll pull ourselves together and the next sub-amendments will be even better. That is the only mistake in 98 hours. I also made one. I don't actually remember what it was, because it happened in our 32nd hour. In any case, we're now in our 98th hour, and you had not yet made one mistake. This is the first time. So, congratulations, Mr. Martin, but at the same time, I'm afraid I won't be able to support your amendment. I am really disappointed. This is the first time, but you are still my friend and my brother, because we are bound by the tremendous honour paid us by the Aboriginal peoples, in the form of the eagle feather.

½ (1950)

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Loubier.

Mr. Martin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Loubier, for your enlightened overview of my amendment. I can see you've given it full study and consideration. That's all I ask, that people around the table take my recommendations seriously enough to give them a detailed analysis.

I trust your judgment in these matters because I know you've been fulsome in your approach toward these many abstract issues, and it's difficult sometimes to give these issues the attention they deserve in the narrow time limits and constraints we have. It's difficult at times to even explore and expand on thoughts and ideas, given the limitations we've been subjected to by the parliamentary secretary moving time allocation at the committee stage.

I was shocked, when we're dealing with issues that have to do with aboriginal rights, constitutional issues, and Charter of Rights and Freedoms issues, that they would move closure on subjects of that nature. I was shocked and appalled that the first time in 35 years that we open the Indian Act to try to ameliorate or try to mitigate some of the worst irritants of the Indian Act, in that context we would decide we haven't time to really deal with it thoroughly, so we will deal with it hastily and ram through the government's wishes without taking into consideration the wishes of the very people who will be affected by this legislation.

So as disappointed as we are with the process we find ourselves in and the limitations of the subject matter, I think it can be excused that from time to time we may delve into, in this case, Mr. Loubier's sarcasm, because really it's my introducing the idea that this amount of money should be escalated from year to year in accordance with the consumer price index. I present and table as a way of illustrating how ridiculous it is to even dictate in any way, shape, or form how people will charge for a photocopy in a piece of legislation. It trivializes the important subject matter that aboriginal people face on a day-to-day basis on first nations reserves that the government of the day is seized of the issue of photocopying. This should be left up to Xerox, maybe, and people who might care about this issue. I, for one, think it does a disservice to the many pressing social crises in first nations communities for us to even be bogged down with the minute details of how, when, or why a first nations community might run off a copy of a bill to distribute it to someone who requests it.

I accept that I might not get broad support for this particular subamendment. Some of my subamendments fail to excite the people around the table. They often provoke a reaction from the parliamentary secretary, but he's easily irritated. Sometimes I think maybe his shoes are too tight, because he presents an irritable facade. If this were a medical clinic, you'd say he's presenting with certain symptoms that may be associated with badly fitting shoes. That's often the case when you meet somebody who's just that negative about otherwise constructive recommendations like I've put forward here today.

I think it's worth quoting again one of the presenters who made a presentation to the committee, the Keeseekoowenin Ojibway First Nation in Treaty No. 2, the Riding Mountain Band. Their comments were:

It is simultaneously obscene, ridiculous, and totally unacceptable that at the dawn of the 21st century we would have to be here as supplicants, defending ourselves from colonialism. It is obscene that our children would have to witness us having to protect ourselves in this way, that they will have to live their lives as we have, knowing that they must constantly have to be on the defensive, alert for impositions, and that our elders would be subject to this indignity.

½ (1955)

That's a pretty profound comment from one of the presenters who came before this committee expressing their frustration and disappointment that of all the things the government could have addressed in terms of the social crisis that exists among first nations, they should be tinkering with administrative details, up to and including the minutiae associated with subclause 30(5) that we seek to amend here today.

Whether the charge associated with reproducing a photocopy of a bylaw is reasonable, nominal, or tied to the CPI index is all meaningless. It's absolutely ridiculous. It's “obscene, ridiculous, and totally unacceptable”--in the language of the presenter I quoted--that we should be seized of this issue and squandering the capital, resources, and energy that could better be directed at, for instance, the diabetes epidemic in my riding associated with first nations people. It's more and more common. It's daily now to see double amputees being wheeled around in a wheelchair in the streets of the inner city of Winnipeg because the diabetes epidemic is so.... It's becoming ubiquitous all over the north. It's just everywhere.

Mr. Chair, I'm disappointed, in that I sense there's not going to be broad support for this subamendment I've put forward here today, but we will continue to submit subamendments and speak to the amendments that we believe are constructive. I believe the government's next amendment regarding clause 30 might be useful, in that it admits, at least, that none of the things we pass about whether or not and where a band code or bylaw is submitted or registered have anything to do with enforceability. They acknowledge that timeliness, the 14 days within which it has to be filed with a national registry, doesn't have anything to do with a first nation's right to set their own codes and bylaws. I think they recognize that this is one of the charter challenges or the court challenges that would have come along in a very predictable way had they not recognized this and amended it.

So we struggle through all these clauses that talk about how a band must do this, and they must register it in 14 days, and it must be notarized by a notary public, and it must be submitted to the national registry in a certain amount of time, and you must provide photocopies to anybody who asks. All that stuff is meaningless too. In fact, I think the government will admit that it's meaningless in their next amendment, because first nations have a right to design their own bylaws and codes, and it is not invalid only by the reason that it was not deposited or published in some national registry. That is not enough to negate or to say a code is not binding or relevant, or that a first nation doesn't have a right to set their own terms and conditions.

So the whole exercise to date has been frustrating to all of us concerned. We're always optimistic that perhaps the government will be looking for a way out of this mess they've created. It seems to be driven by one person and one person only. The only person in the country who can say anything positive about the bill is the minister himself, under orders from the Prime Minister, I suppose. But we haven't seen any evidence that anybody wants this bill. In fact, all we've seen is evidence that people are vehemently opposed to the bill.

The question is, which prime minister are we talking about, the provisional government or the government of the day? It's confusing to a lot of us.

The Kwakiutl District Council said:

Another point of why this isn’t going to work is the legislative model is one of delegation ofauthority rather than recognition of the first nation rights. And the proposed legislation setsminimum standards and grants limited powers to aboriginal peoples.

¾ (2000)

It “grants limited powers”, instead of acknowledging that the box was full before these powers were allocated or devolved to first nations by the federal government. So as a matter of principle--

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

We will have a recorded vote on the second subamendment to amendment CA-45, on page 191.

(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 1)

The Chair: We'll go to Mr. Vellacott for closing remarks on amendment CA-45.

Mr. Maurice Vellacott: Mr. Chair, I really opened up a can or worms there. Others far more eloquent than I spoke at great length on this, so I think I'm going to let it go right to a vote.

The Chair: We will have a recorded vote on amendment CA-45, on page 191.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 8; nays 2)

The Chair: Now we'll go to Mr. Hubbard, on amendment G-11.9.

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

Under clause 30 again, we're dealing with lines 32 and 33, on page 18, under subclause 30(7), which will read as follows:

be taken of a code or band law made under this Act that has been deposited in the national registry and published by the registry in the manner prescribed by the regulations.

With part (b) of the amendment, we're adding, after line 36 on page 18, under “Failure to deposit”, in the left-hand column,

30.(9) No code or band law is invalid by reason only that it was not deposited in, or published by, the national registry.

And again, in another new subclause,

30.(10) A person may be convicted of an offence under a band law that at the time of the alleged offence was not deposited in the national registry or not published, if it is proved that reasonable steps had been taken to bring the band law to the notice of that person.

Mr. Chair, perhaps our witnesses, Paul or Warren, could give a brief explanation of this section.

¾ (2005)

Mr. Paul Salembier: Sure.

What the amendment to subclause 30(7) is doing is providing that, for example, if a prosecutor is seeking to have a court take judicial notice of a band law, the court is going to want to make sure it has access to that law so that it can verify what the content of the law is; otherwise, the court is simply not going to be willing to take judicial notice, and they're going to ask that the law be proven if the law only exists in an individual registry.

Subclause 30(7) also adds the concept that these laws will be published by the registry. I believe you'll see in a further government amendment that there will be a regulation-making power prescribing the manner in which these laws will be published. So that kind of detail will then be available.

Subclauses 30(9) and 30(10) merely set out the same rules or the same provisions, provisos, for band laws that exist in respect of federal regulations. That's a rule that you'll find in subsection 11(2) of the Statutory Instruments Act. So again this is just extending the same regime to band laws as exists for subordinate legislation.

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

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hubbard.

Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

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

I am really surprised, indeed, exasperated, to see that, as we have said several times already, there is an almost pathological, even maniacal determination to talk about violations of codes and laws in this Bill. We have used so many lines, paragraphs and clauses to present things negatively, to say that if a community member does not abide by such and such a rule, he will be penalized in such and such a way; we have focused so much on explaining these violations of the established order that you really get the feeling that that's the only thing that ever happens amongst First Nations people. It makes First Nations people look as though they don't even abide by their own rules, the ones they set for themselves in most of their communities.

And this kind of negative drafting style is very much evident throughout the Bill. For example, a lot of emphasis is placed on transparency and accountability. This afternoon, in fact, a reporter I was talking to was telling me about the comments made by people in Minister Nault's office, who claim that there are problems of accountability, transparency, governance and respect for the most elementary rules of sound management among the Aboriginal nations. It's pathetic that the Office of the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs is making this kind of stupid and disastrous assertion. It is possible to pick apart, one by one, every single aspect of their assessment of the Aboriginal nations--a gloomy, black assessment that belongs on the black list of federal government assessments.

And just in terms of accountability and transparency as far as the way band affairs are managed, given that 95 per cent of First Nations communities table audit reports, wouldn't you say that's a good average? It's rather strange to see this kind of negative drafting in a Bill which paints such a negative picture of the way the First Nations manage their affairs in terms of democratic meetings, leadership selection and the calling of public meetings.

In terms of the calling of public meetings, we've heard some pretty amazing things around this table. They almost seemed to be saying that there wasn't one community that gave people sufficient advance notice of meetings for them to be able to attend the public meetings called by the band council. That is a serious accusation.

And here we have a government amendment that deals with the contravention of codes or band laws, whether or not they have been deposited in the national registry and published by the registry. Even the drafting style is negative. This is a little philosophical, but have a look at what it says. It reads as follows:

No code or band law is invalid by reason only that it was not deposited in, or published by, the national registry.

There are two negations in two and a half lines of text. That's incredible. They could have used a positive drafting style for this clause, and said: “codes or band laws are valid even if they have not been deposited in, or published by, the national registry”. But instead, they use this language “no code or band law is invalid by reason only that it was not deposited in…”.

Everything about this Bill is negative. It's pretty amazing. The approach used to depict the band is negative, and the government would even have serious journalists believe that there are grave problems among the First Nations in terms of governance. But when you look at the facts, you see that isn't true. In the vast majority, if not almost all of the First Nations' communities, there are no management or transparency issues. The only real issue is that fact that they lack funding to meet essential needs.

Like everyone at this table, I imagine, I was stunned to hear that many First Nations' communities don't have ready access to drinking water. I was absolutely bowled over by that. Indeed, the United Nations observer who travelled across Canada last week, actually visited two reserves, I believe. He couldn't get over it. He found it incredible that Canada, which is wealthy country, a member of the eight most highly industrialized countries in the world, a country with a fiduciary duty to the First Nations, cannot ensure them a higher level of development than what we see on most of the Aboriginal reserves and lands across the country. If a United Nations observer can make that kind of comment, then it's clear the situation is extremely serious.

¾ (2010)

And once again, we come up against these negations in the government's amendments. The fact is that if you look at all the amendments that came before it, negation is a permanent feature. On top of that, they deal with the penalties the First Nations will face if they don't abide by such and such a clause, or don't do such and such a thing, or if they don't submit to the prescriptive rules or discretionary power of the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs.

At some point, I think the government is going to have to stop taking this kind of negative approach to the First Nations and pick up where the Erasmus-Dussault Commission's report left off in 1997. Nothing really prepared us for this.

I am still under the shock of seeing the fierce determination with which the government is prepared to ram through Bill C-7. They also want to pass Bill C-6, because it will totally crush the First Nations' specific claims. It almost looks as though they are engaged in a wholesale exercise in demolition, a real demolition derby, and that this time, unlike what happened in 1969, they're going to make sure the First Nations swallow the affront they refused to swallow back in 1969.

I still find it surprising that these kinds of amendments are coming forward. It's true that when the government amendments were drafted, we had not yet had the benefit of 99 hours and some minutes of debate on the Bill. I can understand when these amendments were drafted, the drafters were not fully informed and educated as to the proper approach they should be adopting in relation to the First Nations. But still, there is a minimum level of decency that should be observed when drafting amendments or drafting a bill. You have to be careful not to depict problems as though they were a reality across the board. And in both the Bill and in the amendments, we shouldn't be painting a completely bleak picture of reality, leading people to believe that things are generally disastrous. We have to be careful about things like that.

I'm surprised that intelligent people could actually propose such things, using such a negative drafting style and describing with pathological precision the sanctions First Nations will face if they contravene laws.

In addition to that, we again come up against the problem of the language to be used. This talks about a code or band law “that has been deposited in the national registry and published by the registry in the manner prescribed by the regulations”.

But we don't know in what language it has been published. Mr. Salembier was saying earlier that it had to be one of the two official languages. I think I'd like to move an amendment to this government amendment. I move that we add, after the word “published”, the following: “in one official language or the other, or in the language of the First Nation”.

Now that would make a lot of sense. We would respect the fact that it should be one or the other official language, but would give the First Nations the freedom to draft the laws to be deposited in the national registry in their own language. That could be a very good beginning.

Perhaps the Liberals can try again, with my sub-amendment. Earlier they voted against three similar amendments with respect to Aboriginal languages. Maybe this time it will be different. That's what is interesting about debate.

I'm going to stop for a few minutes to give people a chance to read my amendment again. I'm not sure whether my Liberal colleagues heard it.

¾ (2015)

[English]

The Chair: Your subamendment is not acceptable. I'll ask our legislative clerk to explain why.

Mr. Jeremy LeBlanc (Procedural Clerk): Earlier on, the committee considered a subamendment to amendment BQ-41, which would have required that when the codes or laws are deposited in the band registry, they be deposited in one of the official languages or in the language of the first nation. That subamendment was defeated. So to require that the band laws or codes be deposited in the national registry here, again, in one language or the other.... The committee has already decided that it didn't want to do that, so it would be inconsistent with an earlier decision to allow this subamendment. For those reasons, it's out of order.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

Mr. Martin.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm surprised at that ruling, Mr. Chair. In my opinion, they're two separate things. Even if we failed to achieve the amendment regarding the filing of this code in the language of the first nation at the band registry level, it's a separate issue altogether to be filing this at the national registry level. It's interesting, because at the national registry level, it may be the source that people living off the reserve go to for information regarding codes, etc.

For instance, if an expatriate member of a first nation lives in Ottawa, instead of in northern Manitoba where their community is, it would be more convenient for them to access a national registry than it would be to access the band registry. It would be that much more relevant, in fact, that at this national level the language change should be made, even if it's not mandated at the band registry level. That would ensure that it's accessible to the maximum number of people. This national registry level might be where this should be undertaken. In fact, the national registry may have the resources--

The Chair: Mr. Martin, so that I can follow your presentation, are you debating the amendment or the one that was not accepted just now?

Mr. Pat Martin: I'm seeking to debate amendment G-11.9.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Pat Martin: But in preface to that I was commenting on how I don't understand how one precludes the other. But in the wisdom.... If it's not going to be permitted, it's not going to be permitted.

On amendment G-11.9, I agree with aspects of it. The failure to deposit the band bylaws, etc., in the national registry should not in and of itself be a reason to make that band law invalid. It would be fundamentally wrong, especially given the tight time limits associated with it. Elsewhere in the bill you'll find that a bylaw or a code ratified by the band must be filed within 14 days in the national registry. Now, I think that's an unreasonable time limitation, and I think it will be almost universally ignored. I don't think people will see that as a big priority in terms of getting it registered. For their own purposes and use at the community level, having it filed with a band registry is the most important thing; filing it at the national registry would be seen to be secondary, at best, if not way down the road in terms of priority.

It's been found time and again in a number of settings, judicial and quasi-judicial settings, that timeliness isn't a reason to invalidate anything, that if the code....

Mr. Chairman, I think we have a quorum problem.

¾ (2020)

The Chair: Quorum call.

¾ (2020)

¾ (2023)

The Chair: Mr. Martin, please.

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

Dealing with clause 30, I'm pleased to see the government acknowledges that clause 30 needs amending and has put forward an amendment that does speak to one of the fundamental problems of the bill. It puts in such a list of requirements and time limits on every one of those steps that it's almost set up to fail. It's almost doomed to fail because it's very unlikely that there'd be full compliance with the many provisions.

But built into it, they say you must craft or file a certified copy of the code or the bylaw, etc., with the band registry and with the national registry and it must be certified to be a true copy by a person designated, etc., etc. Then later on it will say that in the absence of doing any of those things...you know, it gives exits, escape routes you could drive a truck through. Here are all the things you must do, absolutely must do in the timeframe dictated by the act, but in the absence of doing all those things, it's still okay.

For instance, in subclause 30.(6) it says

In the absence of evidence to the contrary, a certified copy of a code or band law is proof of the original deposited in the band registry and the date of its deposit, without proof of the signature or official character of the person appearing to have certified the copy.

All this sort of contradicts, it seems, the finding of a person designated by the band to certify it to be a true copy, in subclause (3).

Now it is introducing new subclauses (9) and (10), that in the first case the code and the band law must be filed with the national registry and deposited and published by the national registry to come into force and effect, but then in proposed subclause (9) we see that no code or band law is invalid by reason of the fact that it was not deposited in, or published by, the national registry.

It's a waste of everybody's time and space, frankly, Mr. Chairman, micromanaging first nations and not even micromanaging well, or even micromanaging with any authority or power of law behind it, because at the end of every clause associated with clause 30, there's a contradictory clause tacked on to the end. You must do this, but if you don't, it's okay. You must do that, but if you don't, it doesn't really matter. It seems meaningless, Mr. Chairman.

I think an amendment could be made, a subamendment to add clarity to the new subclause (10), and I'll be looking at introducing a subamendment to that myself. But the new subclause (10) says:

A person may be convicted of an offence under a band law that at the time of the alleged offence was not deposited in the national registry...

So you must deposit this with the national registry within 14 days, under threat of God knows what--I suppose ministerial intervention and some looming doom that will occur if you don't do it in time--but then if you don't do it in time, a person can still be convicted of an offence under the band law that at the time of the alleged offence was not deposited in the national registry, or not published.

So which is it? Do you have to do it, or don't you? And why, within the same clause, clause 30, would you say that you must do it first, and then that you don't have to do it, second? And that's all within the same clause of this bill.

This really defies reason, and it illustrates that this whole exercise has been poorly crafted, poorly thought out, poorly implemented, poorly debated, poorly justified. The people who understand this bill, the people who actually read the bill and have a comprehension of the bill and have the expertise to have constructive input about the bill, were not consulted. In fact, they were specifically excluded from the process. Those people are the chiefs and leadership of first nations across the country, who the minister deliberately and specifically bypassed in his eagerness to do his duty to the Prime Minister by ramming this bill through.

¾ (2025)

They didn't want thoughtful positions, or ones that are well researched or developed from experience, contrary to the positions put forward, so they sought to find others. They couldn't even find any great number of them, but they sought to bypass the legitimately elected leadership and to go to the grassroots.

Even so, they really couldn't find a substantial number of grassroots people who had anything to say about this bill. When there were consultations throughout the country, the people who came forward didn't come forward to talk about administrative or bureaucratic tinkering with the Indian Act, but to talk about housing, health care, education, fresh water, health crises on reserves, lack of opportunity and lack of economic development. Those are the things the grassroots people spoke about when they came to those consultations.

In the consultations, no one made meaningful contributions regarding specific clauses of this bill, because most people in the field and in the communities, frankly, wouldn't have the expertise to comment on whether this was good legal language, or whether this was in violation of the Constitution. The people who are expert in those fields are the elected leadership, who were excluded from the process. They were elected leaders because of their expertise in these areas.

¾ (2030)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Mr. Hubbard is not here for closing remarks, so we will go directly to a recorded vote on amendment G-11.9 on page 192.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 3)

The Chair: We are now on the amended clause.

Mr. Pat Martin: On this clause, we do have a right to....

The Chair: Mr. Martin, it's your ten minutes.

Mr. Pat Martin: Mr. Chairman, clause 30 should fail, just as the clause before and after it should fail.

If we were paying any attention to what we were told by witnesses across the country, we wouldn't have the audacity or gall to sit here and pass legislation affecting the lives of first nations people without their participation and consent—consent being the operative word here, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: For 14 weeks, I've allowed members to speak about everything but what was on the floor. We are now starting to debate clauses after they are amended, so I will insist that you speak to the clause. Stick to the issue; otherwise, I'm going directly to the vote.

Mr. Pat Martin: I'd like to, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Pat Martin: I thought that's what I was doing.

I will speak to the clause. The clause is all about the development, registration, and submission of laws, bylaws--codes of governance--to band registries, national registries, and the effect this has, the process one has to take to properly register a newly ratified band law. The ratification was dealt with elsewhere, so I hope you don't rule it out of order that I speak to the ratification process, because you can't talk about the registration of the bylaw or the code without at least addressing the process of developing that code and the process of ratifying it, and then the very rigid and prescriptive terms and conditions associated with the registration and depositing of these new bylaws and codes with the band registry first, and then, by extension, to the national registry.

Now, in reviewing clause 30 as amended, we note the band has to maintain at its principal administrative office a band registry containing its codes and laws. No one found any fault with that. In fact, that is the practice across the country. For any of the codes and laws made by its council under the act, persons must have reasonable access. In fact, this micromanaging clause 30 even dictates that they should have reasonable access during normal business hours. People didn't object at any great length, even though we object to the principle that these clauses should be so limiting, narrow, and prescriptive in nature, but normal business hours seemed like a reasonable thing, if it's deemed necessary to dictate such minutiae for the way first nations conduct themselves.

I think it would be unreasonable for anybody to have to produce these band bylaws and codes at midnight or when anybody sees fit to demand to see them. That's the biggest issue regarding clause 30 as amended. It doesn't change this unreasonable requirement that any person, at any time, or at least during business hours, can demand and be given copies of any code or law the band develops.

Now, it may be perfectly reasonable that any band member may at any time that's reasonable demand and be given--the band would have to produce--a copy of the codes, but not any person at any time. I don't think I have the right to demand from the Pukatawagan First Nation of Manitoba that they produce and deliver to me a copy of their codes of governance. It's just an administrative nuisance that finds its origins, I think, in the basic premise that if they weren't ordered to do so, bands wouldn't provide anybody with copies of their laws and bylaws.

Well, I see Mr. Bryden, who has a unique capacity to antagonize people, is being antagonistic again by saying it's true. The member opposite is antagonizing me and first nations people who may be guests in this room by implying it's true that without this government's clear direction to do so, bands and councils would not make public to their membership copies of their codes and bylaws. The guy's got more gall than Caesar, Mr. Chair, and he had all Gaul.

I'll wait for a polite applause or chuckle. It's one of my better lines. I was hoping to get more of a laugh out of that.

So I think clause 30 fails to meet any reasonable person's standard as to what authority this committee has to interfere with the right to self-determination of first nations. I think we should have taken guidance from the policy document developed on law-making written by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada and the Assembly of First Nations cooperatively, when they reminded and suggested in their policy document, which was, as I say, jointly developed, that first nations reject attempts to restrict first nations law-making to delegated federal powers.

¾ (2035)

Typically, the use of delegated federal powers by first nations is resorted to when the federal government insists upon it, such as the requirement to pass a bylaw and carry out a referendum to designate lands on reserves for economic development. For some first nations, the people have lived so long with the Indian Act regime, they have come to adopt the band council system and its limited bylaw powers as the only form of local government available to them.

In the case of other first nations, traditional governance systems have survived, such as clan systems, despite the imposition of the Indian Act regime. Well, I put it to you, Mr. Chairman, that in the many first nations where traditional governance systems have survived, they would be offended by being limited and further restricted by these delegated authorities.

There's an element of rudeness associated with not even pretending to listen to what somebody is saying, but I'm getting used to that. It's been brought to my attention by many of the witnesses here that it's so contrary and contradictory to first nations custom to not listen to people when they speak that it does a disservice and a disrespect to not only the person speaking, but the very issues they're trying to share. This table is so incredibly contradictory to every aspect of traditional first nations culture in both its practice and the material it's dealing with.

Most first nations are in a transitional stage—the ones we've had contact with regarding this particular bill—and are gradually moving away from the Indian Act regime and resuming inherent jurisdiction. In this transitional period, according to this policy document, first nations are using a range of governmental and quasi-governmental arrangements to exercise different types of law-making power, including first nations traditional governments, section 74 Indian Act band councils, custom band councils, treaties, self-government and comprehensive claims agreements, and regional governance structures such as tribal councils or provincial organizations.

Many first nations, Mr. Chairman, have made it clear to us that they have clear visions of the scope and the content of their inherent law-making powers and they have governance structures that enjoy the support of the people. To imply otherwise is to be ignorant of the facts, Mr. Chairman. We have tourists at this committee who drop in from time to time and antagonize people with outlandish comments. They're doing a disservice to the people they represent, I suppose.

Mr. Chairman, these first nations that have a clear vision of the scope and content of their inherent law-making powers are gradually resuming the exercise of their inherent law-making powers that are available to them, and they resent and they object to clause 30 as amended. On their behalf, I object to and protest, and in no uncertain terms I tell you that we can not support clause 30 as amended in the context. We don't believe it was amended in any substantive way or amended deeply enough to give satisfaction to the many concerns we brought forward.

Mr. Loubier brought forward meaningful amendments to this bill that we thought would be useful in trying to recognize the traditions and customs of first nations. We are disappointed that none of those amendments succeeded. I think the government should be regarding its self-government policies as an opportunity to negotiate the implementation of the inherent right to self-government, not to be dictating and prescribing structures on first nations that have made it abundantly clear they neither want nor need this particular level of interference and intervention.

¾ (2040)

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Martin.

Are we ready for the question?

Monsieur Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I'm wondering how we can possibly pass clause 30, as amended. Given all the criticisms levelled during our proceedings, I have to say I'm quite amazed. In terms of the testimony we received on clause 30, which was very aptly summarized by the Library of Parliament, what we see here are amendments that are rejected when we moved them, even though they reflect the issues our many witnesses pointed to. The only amendments that have been passed are government amendments, except one moved by Mr. Vellacott about fees for photocopies or a true copy of the original. These government amendments in no way address the concerns raised with respect to clause 30, particularly by Mr. Bradford Morse, a professor with the Law Faculty of the University of Ottawa.

I think it would be a very worthwhile exercise to take another look at the brief he tabled; I invite you to do that. That was at our 20th sitting. It was pretty clear. According to him, even with the changes proposed by the government, clause 30 was totally unacceptable. I would like to quote from the brief he presented at our 20th session here in Ottawa:

The requirement that each First Nation maintain a registry of its own codes and laws is clearly necessary, just as it is necessary to have a national registry.

He is not denying that. So, just continuing to quote this professor from the Law Faculty of the University of Ottawa:

However, we are missing an opportunity here, in that sub-clause 30(2) should be amended to provide for a national registry that would be an institution independent of government and reporting directly to Parliament…

I clearly recall what he said--and if it wasn't him, it was another professor emeritus--about the absolute need for the federal government and the Executive to remove themselves from the management of these registries, since they had been so poorly managed by the federal government in the past, and therefore we needed to avoid a situation where the new registries would be just as poorly managed.

And it's the same thing for clause 30, as initially drafted. But even amended, it doesn't meet the concerns of the Pikwakanagan Algonquins. They appeared at our 19th sitting, and I would again invite you to look at the brief they presented:

Bill C-7 gives the Minister new powers to supervise a national registry of First Nations' laws. However, given that the federal government has done a very poor job in the past of managing these registries, this option should not be retained.

So, as you can see, they are saying exactly the same thing.

So here we are at clause 30, and it is clear to see that the much criticized language of the original provision was not corrected by the amendments that were moved.

A brief was also presented by an individual in Alberta at our 27th meeting. Unfortunately, I was not able to attend that meeting, but I did read the brief. I

In Red Deer, a gentleman presented a brief in which he made the following comment:

It is scandalous and absurd that Bill C-7 should provide that the Statutory Instruments Act will not apply to band codes or laws, because there will be absolutely no guarantee that band codes and laws will not go even further than the provisions of Bill C-7.

Here he has put his finger on a point that is absolutely true about clause 30, and all the other clauses as well, and that is the fact that we don't know what the boundaries of this Bill are. We don't know to what extent this Bill, including clause 30 and all the other ones, could result in endless legal proceedings. It's open season for legal challenges. So, I think it would be a very bad idea to pass clause 30. Pat Martin and

Pat Martin and I tried unsuccessfully to amend clause 30. With respect to band codes and laws and the registry where they're to be deposited, M. Salembier said that they had to be drafted in one of the two official languages. We tried to amend that in clause 30 so that they could be drafted in the language of the First Nation, so that First Nations could make laws and then deposit those codes or laws in the registry.

¾ (2045)

Some people sitting at this table have no respect for anything, in any case, but if we're going to talk about respect for cultures, we have to talk about respect for languages as well. We tried to get the government to accept the idea of introducing respect for Aboriginal languages in the wording. Would the Italian government be asked to make laws in English or in Slavic languages? That would be completely ridiculous. Would the American government be asked to make laws in Spanish, for instance? Or would we ask the Spanish government to make laws in English or in German? No. But are we asking a third order of Aboriginal government to make laws in a language other than their own? Yes, strangely enough. That is unacceptable, and yet we are being asked to pass clause 30, which has not been amended in any way in that respect, even though this is a fundamental point. You can't recognize a level of government and then prevent it from making laws in its own language; that's impossible.

That may seem absurd when applied to examples of nations around the world, but it's perfectly logical and acceptable to apply it to the Aboriginal nations. And yet the Aboriginal nations are recognized by the United Nations as true nations. So, if they are true nations, they have the right to transpose their national character through the purest expression of Aboriginal culture, their Aboriginal languages.

As regards the registry of codes and laws, or when developing and passing their codes and laws, under clause 30, the First Nations will not be able to use the language of their choice and, more importantly, their own language. They are being denied the right to deposit their governance laws or codes in the registry in their own language. That registry will be managed by the Minister. We have no choice in that regard, because clause 30 has not been amended to say otherwise.

I am totally bowled over by this. They hear us giving these examples. It seems incongruous to talk about countries using foreign languages when governing themselves, and yet it becomes perfectly banal, when we're talking about Aboriginal governments, to say that Aboriginal languages will not be used. I just can't seem to figure that one out.

There is surely something that escapes me; I probably don't understand where the First Nations want to go with this plan to take control of their own destiny and revive their languages and culture. I would find it perfectly correct, normal and natural for a Aboriginal government to want to make its own laws and express its right to exist and to speak its own language. I would see it as normal for members of the community who speak a specific language to be able to express themselves in that language.

That would be demonstrating our respect for those languages. Mr. Martin and I moved three or four sub-amendments. Every time, I said to myself that perhaps we hadn't explained them properly; we'll just repeat what we're aiming to do with clause 30 and with the amendments we're moving. But even after repeating them and presenting submissions that appeal to people's plain old common sense, their respect for other peoples and what they represent in this world, and even after trying to appeal to a desire to enrich our cultural diversity, we received such a hostile reception from our Liberal colleagues that I am still suffering from the shock.

We were unable to amend clause 30, in spite of considerations as noble and natural as the best interests of nations. Here we could talk about the best interests of nations. Outside the Canadian nation, that they claim to want to defend, there is no salvation. In any case, we were served up this medicine for years, if not decades, and now it's being served up to the First Nations, something that should never be seen in a provision like clause 30. That clause has been amended, but in a way we really weren't expecting, given the kind of testimony we received.

If there is a lesson to be drawn from the discussions we've had here, it is that we still have a long way to go.

¾ (2050)

The Chair: Mr. Loubier, thank you.

[English]

(Clause 30 as amended agreed to: yeas 8; nays 2)

The Chair: If our five House leaders are paying attention to what's happening in these proceedings, they will note from the record that we spent five and a half hours on one clause.

The meeting is adjourned.