[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, November 5, 1996
.1107 
[English]
The Chairman: Order. We are here pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) for a debate on the motion of Elijah Harper:
- That this Committee urge the government to recognize the rights of Canada's Aboriginal
People throughout the entire nation of Canada, which are inherent in their presence in Canada
since time immemorial and the rich culture and heritage that they have created, and further that
the government recognize the rights guaranteed under s. 35 of the Constitution, which include
Treaty rights, land claims settlements (Agreements), and self government.
[Translation]
in the French version, it would mean substituting ``reconnaître'' by ``confirmer de nouveau''.
[English]
I will attempt to reach majority agreement that we accept those changes. Is there any problem with those changes, or do you want to treat it as an amendment?
Mr. Harper (Churchill): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I hadn't officially moved the motion yet.
The Chairman: You have introduced it. It was scheduled. It's on the table.
But I don't see any problems.
[Translation]
Does anyone have a problem with this?
Mr. Bachand (Saint-Jean): I have a procedural question.
A motion was put forward by Mr. Harper. Can he not word it exactly as he wishes? Does he need the committee's approval on the wording?
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Bachand: He does? Hadn't he already tabled the motion?
The Chairman: When a notice of motion is given, committee members are convened to discuss it. If we come to the meeting and the wording of the motion has changed, there may be some who had no problem at all with the original notice of motion, but who now have one with the new wording and who do not show up at the meeting.
Therefore, in all fairness -
[English]
Therefore I'm seeking majority consent that we accept the changes. If I don't get it, then we treat it as an amendment.
Mr. Duncan (North Island - Powell River): For clarification, there's just one change, is there not?
The Chairman: It's the same word, but it appears twice in the motion.
Mr. Duncan: Right. And for clarification, what does ``majority consent'' mean? Consensus?
The Chairman: It means 50% plus 1, the same as for an amendment.
Mr. Duncan: Okay.
.1110
The Chairman: Those in favour of accepting the new drafted copy, which you have in front of you as the motion -
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Chairman: We are now dealing with the motion as corrected. That is the main motion, and I invite Mr. Harper to speak on his motion. Mr. Harper will also have the opportunity to be the last speaker.
The floor is yours.
Mr. Harper: Thank you. Do I need a seconder?
The Chairman: No, it has been moved. It's on the table.
Mr. Harper: Originally I had intended to move this motion as an amendment to the Bloc motion that had been introduced before - I don't have a copy of the original motion - but because -
The Chairman: I'll make a correction: it was to the Reform motion.
Mr. Harper: Yes, it was to the Reform motion.
I had sought advice from the House on the appropriateness of the motion, and they told me it would have changed the entire motion. They suggested that I just move this motion forward, which is what I did.
It was to address the rights of the aboriginal people, and I might say that the motion we had dealt with did not include the rights of the aboriginal people throughout the country. What I want to address is that the rights of the aboriginal people be addressed throughout the entire nation of Canada. We want to make sure that the rights of the aboriginal people are recognized and affirmed as in the Constitution.
There has been some debate as to what rights aboriginal people have. We - and when I say `we', it's as an aboriginal person; I'm of course speaking as a first nations member - have been here since time immemorial, and the rights of the aboriginal people were those also included when we signed the treaties.
There are some pre-Confederation treaties, treaties after Confederation, and treaties that are being negotiated today in Canada, particularly in the territories and in British Columbia. We tend to call those modern-day treaties or land claim settlements as they are reached today, such as the Sahtu Dene treaty that was reached a few years ago, the Yukon settlement, which of course included not only the land rights but also their rights to govern themselves, self-government agreements.
So those rights are also recognized within the Canadian Constitution, and I've always felt that there is some misunderstanding as to the rights of the aboriginal people within Canada.
It has come to my attention and surprise as I've travelled across Canada that there are many Canadian people who don't understand treaties or don't even know that a special relationship exists between the federal government and the aboriginal people in this country. I've spoken to many people across this land, and there seems to be a misunderstanding on that, that somehow we as first nations people are special and are treated differently from any other citizen of this country.
.1115
We are special; not special in that we are better than anyone else, but special in that we are the first inhabitants, the first citizens of this land, the first nations of this country. This has to be understood by Canadian people. We have made many contacts, many presentations to Canada, to the federal government, in order for them to understand the treaty, to honour the treaty.
We know there are outstanding treaty obligations that the federal government has to fulfil. It's an ongoing process, which continues from before Canada was created. The relationship goes far back into maybe 500 years of relationship in which aboriginal people made agreements with the people who came to this land. There are examples of that. I'm sure we can refer to those if we need to establish the relationship that existed prior to this country known as Canada.
Our relationship goes far back. A lot of people I speak to have always asked me what I mean by self-government, and what do I mean by treaties. My explanation, for instance on treaties, is that it is an agreement that is reached between two peoples, between two nations or governments.
It is about establishing relationships. That's what the treaties are all about. The treaties we signed fifty or a hundred years ago didn't stop at that time. It's a continuing process in which we continue to try to resolve the treaties. It's an ongoing process. So it's about establishing the relationship.
Unfortunately, what happened during the treaty process, particularly in my area with which I'm most familiar, Treaty No. 5, was that we made treaties in return for certain benefits. Of course our forefathers, when they signed the treaties, had a different perception and understanding of the treaties, particularly with regard to land because we have a different view of land, in which land is something that is provided by the Creator to us as aboriginal people and this land should be benefiting everyone who has come to this country. That's one obvious example, in treaties that were made with aboriginal people, of a clash in understanding and a way of looking at life.
I can give you other examples of the understanding of your treaties, but that is one example. The European concept of land tenure was, of course, totally different, in which one could own land, and exploit and develop the land, and extract the resources for the benefit of not necessarily the surrounding people, but for the benefit outside to the people far away. It was a concept that was totally alien to the aboriginal people. Of course, when Canada's officials signed the treaty, they may not have understood or appreciated the aboriginal people, our way of thinking, our culture and our values. They may have recorded the goings-on of the treaty process according to their own understanding.
.1120
The relationship established was one of dominance, in which the federal government proceeded to enact legislation in administering the affairs of aboriginal people. They went on to define the aboriginal people - who the Indian people are.
This whole process of enacting the Indian Act did not involve aboriginal people. As you know, aboriginal people never had the right to vote in a democratic process until 1960. In the province of Quebec I think it was 1969, and the Inuit had a vote earlier on, in 1950.
We have been involved in this democratic process for only the last 37 years, and we haven't had very much opportunity to really incorporate our values into Parliament and the institutions of Canada. As a matter of fact, we have been excluded from being involved in those institutions.
To go back and unravel that history for the last 400 years, and for the last 126 years since Canada became a country, is a very difficult process. We can't turn the clock back and make it right, but we have to address the issues today, because we are the only ones who can do it. We are the ones who make those decisions. We are the people alive today who have to change those things. People who are long gone can't do anything about it; people who are not born yet can't do anything about it. It is we who have the responsibility to correct what has gone wrong.
As I mentioned, we have been under tremendous pressure to be assimilated, to be integrated. This whole position is in the written debates of the time of the consolidation of the Indian laws in 1867, when Canada was created. It's in black and white. It's quite clear it was the intent of the government to get rid of what they called ``the Indian problem''.
But we haven't changed. We still are aboriginal people. We still exist as a distinct group of people in this country, as first nations. We have managed to survive through this process.
During that whole process, the government tried many ways to destroy the aboriginal people. Laws were passed, as many of you know, to outlaw our Indian ceremonies and our languages. The government used many institutions to deny the aboriginal people their culture and their identity. They used churches and education as ways of dealing with this issue, in addressing the Indian people and administering the Indian people.
.1125
I myself went to a residential school. I was removed from my parents and my brothers and sisters, taken away from the environment I was raised in. Fortunately I went to school toward the end of the residential school era. From what I hear in talking to other people, residential schools were terrible. People were abused.
I saw a lot of strapping. I saw abuse. I saw a beating take place where a couple of young boys were put on a table with their underwear down and strapped over a hundred times. They were screaming, and we were forced to stand at attention for a whole hour to watch this event take place.
I saw a young woman being made an example of because she communicated to her parents in syllabic writing.
Those are things that have happened in residential schools. I hear other stories that are much worse than the ones I've experienced and seen myself.
I have made it my political career to be involved in this process. It is easy just to stand back and say ``I give up'', but I get involved, and I try to do it within the larger Canadian society, within Parliament. It's important that aboriginal people be involved. For example, Ethel and Jack have been involved in this process for a long time.
I don't do this just for political reasons. I do this because there needs to be understanding and appreciation of each other in this country and of what has happened in Canada, what has happened between east and west and what has happened between the French and the English. There are always ongoing debates.
I've always reached back to my own beliefs and values about how these things should be handled. Those values are the ones that were taught to me by my elders, by my parents and by my grandparents. Those are the values that I feel will begin to restore the confidence and pride of our people.
Today we see many problems confronting our young aboriginal people because they have lost their identity. They are searching for something they don't understand. They seem to be caught up in both worlds, and they don't fit in either world. That's the reason I reach back to my culture, to my identity, to the place where I was raised. I always try to do that.
And that's the reason I brought this motion. I felt I could go ahead and talk from the government side about what we have done and certainly be partisan about it. I could do that, but I don't think it would do justice to do that because of what I believe in and because of what our people believe in. It's certainly inherent in the treaties that were signed.
.1130
My motion was not to create discussion about the Reform, or the Bloc, or even the government, and what we have done. Certainly we have made some progress in recognizing aboriginal people. I lay this before you not just because I'm a government member, not because I'm a Liberal, but rather because as an aboriginal person I try to make people understand. Usually when you speak in Parliament you speak to the people of Canada. This institution, this Parliament, is the highest law-making authority in the country. Where else can you expect the people to go? If we continue to ignore or not to address the issue, what faith or trust do aboriginal people have?
I feel we are making inroads in recognizing the aboriginal people, their self-government, their treaty rights. It is moving very slowly, I might add, not fast enough. We have problems in the communities. But I challenge our own people too. Just because we don't have the resources to do it - We can go ahead and start educating people on our own, making people aware. This is the point I make before this committee.
I just want to conclude by thanking the chair and committee for allowing me to speak on this motion. I look forward to debating more on aboriginal rights in the future. I hope more claims will come forward so we can debate these rights. I hope more issues come forward so we can resolve the questions. I know the royal commission will be making their report, and certainly there are a lot of things we'll be looking forward to.
Thank you for listening to me and having this debate here for today.
[Member speaks in his native language]
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Harper. Before opening up the debate, I would like to ask you what consequences you are asking this committee for as a result of this motion being carried. Are you asking that a report be done and that it be tabled in the House - that is an option - or are you asking for a letter from the chair of the committee to the minister or to whomever? What is the consequence, so we would know before we undertake the debate?
Mr. Harper: People don't like making reports, but I think what is important is to let the government know in a letter recommending that these issues be dealt with.
The Chairman: You are asking the committee - I think it's important, Mr. Harper, that everybody understand what will happen to this motion after it's either passed or not.
Mr. Harper: As I said, we bring these issues to the Parliament of Canada. I hope they'll be addressed and recommended to the government.
The Chairman: The normal process is to have a report and table it in the House. Is this what you're asking for?
Mr. Harper: If that's the normal process; or if it has been done in a letter - I know it's easier to write a letter than to make a substantial report. I think the words themselves are sufficient. We can pile up a whole bunch of words that mean nothing.
The Chairman: I understand.
Mr. Harper: That's what I want to do: just make the case before Parliament that we take this issue seriously, and it's about time.
The Chairman: Do you agree, then, that we discuss this and that at the end, if it carries, we will have a few minutes to debate whether it's a letter that is sent by the chair or a report tabled in the House? We'll leave it to the end?
Mr. Harper: We'll leave it to whatever the wish of the committee is.
The Chairman: Okay. So we will bring up that issue at the end, if the motion is carried.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand.
.1135
Mr. Bachand: I would like to propose an amendment, but I wouldn't want to go ahead of my Reform Party colleague who has already announced his amendment. I merely want additional information about a procedural matter. If John presents his amendment, we will deal with it first and then I can propose my own. Is that correct?
The Chairman: If there is both an amendment and a sub-amendment, according to procedure, we deal with the sub-amendment before agreeing to consider the second sub-amendment. However, if there is no sub-amendment, we deal with the amendment and then we can move on to another one.
Mr. Bachand: In that case, I don't like the idea of a sub-amendment and an amendment because in my view, the sub-amendment must relate to the amendment.
The Chairman: You're correct.
Mr. Bachand: If my sub-amendment bears no relation to John Duncan's amendment -
The Chairman: In that case, we dispose of the amendment.
Mr. Bachand: And then I can propose my own amendment.
The Chairman: You can propose as many as you like.
Mr. Bachand: Very well.
The Chairman: We will dispose of all the amendments and sub-amendments before reverting to the main motion.
[English]
You can submit as many amendments or subamendments as you want, but we only deal with one subamendment at a time. If we dispose of that, we can accept another subamendment. If an amendment is dealt with, we can introduce another amendment. You can keep me here for the rest of my life, if you want.
Mr. Duncan, you have indicated that you have an amendment. Or do you want the floor?
Mr. Duncan: I have an amendment, but in terms of our normal speaking order the Bloc has every right to go first. I was just trying to fill airtime earlier on. Do you want to -
Mr. Bachand: I was just trying to be polite.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Duncan: So am I. I'm trying to be polite. No amendments -
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Chairman: I'll regain control of the meeting.
We are now opening the debate on the motion. Who wants the floor?
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand.
Mr. Bachand: I have an amendment to propose: that in the English version, the words ``throughout the entire nation of Canada''be stricken from the bill and that in the French version, the words ``dans toute la nation canadienne'' also be stricken.
Allow me to explain my reasoning.
Is the amendment receivable?
The Chairman: Yes, it is.
Mr. Bachand: Can I explain the amendment?
The Chairman: The debate on the amendment will now begin.
Mr. Bachand: I listened to Mr. Harper and I agree with most of what he said and with his description of the current situation.
I don't doubt his sincerity in the least. If we think back to Meech, it's clear that Mr. Harper carried native demands quite far. It is also clear that the gist of his proposal is sincere and consistent with his position in recent years. I support him on this point.
My objective in moving this amendment is to avoid watering down the debate that we are engaged in. I can bring forward several arguments to support my position.
First of all, the proposal contains a reference to ``throughout the entire nation of Canada''. As you know, when we start to talk about nations and peoples, we always have a problem with Quebec. I maintain that there is a Quebec nation and a Quebec people. Moreover, a number of legal documents have recognized that there is an aboriginal nation, a Quebec nation and a Canadian nation.
My proposal in no way diminishes the one before us, because it refers to Canada's aboriginal peoples. The aim is to recognize the rights of Canada's aboriginal peoples and to my mind, this encompasses all of Canada. There is no need to include the notion of a Canadian nation because, as I just mentioned, this would repudiate the participation of the Quebec nation. In your text, you are also repudiating the participation of aboriginal nations.
Earlier, you mentioned treaties and the fact that a treaty is concluded between two nations or two peoples. If you maintain that treaties are concluded throughout the nation of Canada, then you are defeating your own basic argument about treaties.
.1140
I don't wish to go on at great length. I think you are limited as to what you can say. In view of your sincerity and all of the injustices you have observed, your motion is aimed, in my view, at correcting these injustices. You could speak at some length about them and so could I.
Therefore, I agree fully with the substance of the motion, but to sidestep the entire issue as to whether aboriginals are a nation or a people and whether Quebec is a nation or a people, I would prefer to strike the words ``nation of Canada'' from the motion.
Even without these words, your motion achieves its objective because it aims to recognize the rights of aboriginal peoples in Canada. This way, we avoid major debates on the question of nations and peoples. That is the reason for my amendment.
[English]
The Chairman: Does anyone else have a comment on the amendment?
Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper: I have just a short comment. The reason we have ``the entire nation of Canada'' there is that it would be inclusive of Quebec. It would include the aboriginal people in the province of Quebec, and under this their rights would also be maintained. It was put there so that the rights of the aboriginal peoples are consistent throughout the entire nation.
The Chairman: Does anyone else have a comment on the amendment?
I call the question. Those in favour of the amendment -
You'll have to jump in before I call the vote, Mr. Finlay.
Mr. Finlay (Oxford): Does it only amend the French version?
The Chairman: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Finlay: Are we only striking the expression ``dans toute la nation canadienne''
[English]
or does it remove ``throughout the entire nation of Canada''?
The Chairman: Both. We cannot do to one what we don't do to the other.
Mr. Finlay: Okay. I just wanted to question that, because my question - Monsieur Bachand explained it pretty well - to Elijah would have been about exactly what he meant by ``throughout the entire nation of Canada'', because there are parts of Canada that were not inhabited, as far as I know, or never were inhabited by aboriginal people. I may be wrong. I don't want to split hairs.
The Chairman: The federal government can only reaffirm rights for what it's responsible for.
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: Does anyone else have a comment on the main motion?
Mr. Duncan: Is this the time for me to introduce an amendment?
The Chairman: Yes, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan: I'm going to need a little help here. Perhaps I can get some assistance. I'm going to need help because the more I read the French version of the motion, the more I realize I don't understand - or they don't appear to be saying the same thing in terms of the part I wish to strike, which is -
The Chairman: Let's do this from the point of information. We'll clear that up together.
Mr. Duncan: I would like to strike the section in the English version that reads, ``which are inherent in their presence in Canada since time immemorial'', and I would like to add the words, ``and land claim settlements'' in the second-to-last line and delete ``and self-government'' from the very last line.
The Chairman: I've just been advised that the translation is not -
Could you make the point?
Ms Jane Allain (Committee Researcher): For the section in English that reads, ``which are inherent in their presence in Canada since time immemorial'', the only concept that was translated was droits inhérents, so depuis des temps immémoriaux isn't mentioned at all. They then refer that to the ``rich culture and heritage that they have created'', so they've linked the two together, but they haven't really translated the concept of inherent rights that have existed since time immemorial. That's correct.
Mr. Duncan: Yes, that's the problem I was having.
The Chairman: Could we not correct the translation now and add those words?
Mr. Duncan: Correct it in order for me to delete it, or -
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Duncan: That's the irony in it.
The Chairman: Yes, but the motion was submitted in English. It was translated and there seems to be an error.
Mr. Duncan: Yes, there does.
.1145
The Chairman: I think we should correct that error and make sure both are the same. For proper procedure we should correct it, and then if you want to delete it, your motion will delete it on both sides. Is that agreeable?
Mr. Duncan: Yes.
The Chairman: In French, what do we add and where? Who's the expert - M. Patry,M. Bachand, translators?
[Translation]
Mr. Patry (Pierrefonds - Dollard): No, we could simply say - The English version reads as follows:
[English]
``which are inherent in their presence in Canada since time immemorial'',
[Translation]
while the French version refers to ``les droits inhérents de par leur présence au Canada depuis toujours''. That's
[English]
after ``inherent''.
Mr. Finlay: Yes.
[Translation]
Mr. Patry: Therefore, we now have ``les droits inhérents à leur présence au Canada depuis toujours''. Is that fine with you, Mr. Bachand?
[English]
The Chairman: Do we have a majority consensus that we put that correction in? There are no problems there. Now both interpretations should be exactly the same.
The floor is yours.
Mr. Duncan: So everybody heard what I wanted to delete. I wanted to delete the words ``which are inherent in their presence in Canada since time immemorial'' and I wanted to delete the last three words of the statement, which are ``and self-government''. Thus I would add the word ``and'' prior to ``land claim settlements'' in the previous sentence.
Has everybody caught up to that?
The Chairman: Is everybody clear on the amendment?
Mr. Duncan, would you speak to the amendment?
Mr. Duncan: Okay.
The Chairman: Excuse me. Mr. Finlay, you'll have to jump in earlier. Maybe I'm going too fast. If I am, stop me.
Mr. Finlay: The English says, ``the rights guaranteed under s. 35 of the Constitution, which include Treaty rights, land claims settlements (Agreements), and self-government''.
Now, I don't have a copy of section 35 in front of me, but if that's what section 35 says - and I assume maybe it does - then I suggest that part of the amendment, Mr. Duncan, is out of order because you're deleting part of section 35.
The Chairman: The floor's yours, Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan: Okay. Thank you.
Obviously I quibble with that. What I'd like to say about Elijah's motion, in a general context, is that there are aboriginal rights and these rights are protected by section 35 of the Constitution.
The exercise has really become defining what those rights are. What I'm saying, obviously, with my amendments is that I find the motion quite supportable.
The rationale for my first amendment, which is to strike ``which are inherent in their presence in Canada since time immemorial'', is to square the facts with the statement, in that not all aboriginal peoples in Canada have been here since time immemorial, in my view.
Some groups in the country moved north from what now constitutes the United States, for example. The other major complexity that is very difficult to cover by this statement is the issue of the Métis. They are indeed defined as aboriginal peoples, but it would very difficult to state that they have been here since time immemorial, since the definition of a Métis is post-contact almost by definition.
So I have quite a bit of difficulty squaring that.
.1150
In the second amendment I'm deleting ``and self-government'' from ``the rights guaranteed under section 35 of the Constitution''. There has been a great deal of debate as to whether or not self-government arrangements and agreements are covered by section 35 of the Constitution. It's very clear that if the self-government arrangement is part and parcel of a treaty arrangement, then the self-government arrangement is protected by section 35.
Under the previous government, self-government arrangements were very clearly kept separate and apart from land claims agreements for the very rationale that it did not view it as wise policy to have self-government arrangements put into the inflexible arrangement of constitutional protection and the straitjacket that arrives in terms of flexibility, once you put something into constitutional concrete.
We did not see constitutional protection of the self-government arrangement to any real degree until we had the Yukon land claims arrangements go through this Parliament. Until that time, the northern agreements had basically tried to separate the self-government arrangements for the most part.
Now, within the province of British Columbia under the current Nisga'a agreement, they are proposing to put the self-government arrangement under the Nisga'a agreement into the treaty and not in a treaty-protected or section 35 arrangement. There are very many people objecting strongly to that because it is really is an untried, untested form of governance. It becomes virtually impossible to change this without common will from all parties. Of course, that might not occur.
It's been pointed out by many people that some of our greatest governances - the great cities in Canada, for example - operate under virtually no constitutional arrangement whatsoever. They're not recognized as orders of government. They are really just creatures of the provinces, and this gives ultimate flexibility.
This has been the secret of the success of our cities, in the view of many. It has led to their effective forms of government, and in many respects probably more effective forms of government, than the provincial or federal levels of government.
I would strongly argue that self-government protection under section 35 of the Constitution be avoided rather than encouraged. It's currently being encouraged by government policy and I think it's inappropriate. For that reason, I offer that amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
The Chairman: Anyone on the amendment? Mr. Hubbard, Dr. Patry and Mr. Harper.
Mr. Hubbard (Miramichi): First of all, very briefly, on the amendment I have two points. I'd also like to make some comments later to Mr. Harper on the main motion, in terms of some of the statements that were made.
I'm also concerned with words ``inherent in their presence in Canada since time immemorial''. In Atlantic Canada, especially, a lot of people have moved down along the seaboard. We speak of aboriginal peoples and their rights - their rights at what point in time?
There are certainly many people living in the Boston area who left New Brunswick or Nova Scotia and were probably aboriginal people at the time of the Indian Act of 1871. Can they come back and have rights in terms of the concept we're putting forward here?
.1155
Secondly, about section 35, I would like to be able to read that at least briefly before I vote on this amendment. Do we have a copy of Mr. Duncan's amendment to peruse?
The Chairman: Are the researchers in a position to interpret what section 35 says? Is that a fair challenge?
Ms Allain: We can tell you what it says. Subsection 35(1) says that Canada hereby recognizes existing aboriginal and treaty rights. That is not specifically defined per se in the section, but there is a reference later on. I can't remember what subsection it is, 35(4) or 35(5), that refers to land claims settlements. But the concept of self-government isn't enumerated in section 35 of the act, I can tell you that.
The Chairman: It's a statement of principle; it doesn't detail it?
Ms Allain: It doesn't define it.
The Chairman: Section 35 does not define it.
Is that the response on section 35?
Mr. Harper: I'm just going to read what section 35 says here on land claims agreements. Subsection 35(3) says:
- For greater certainty, in subsection (1) ``treaty rights'' includes rights that now exist by way of
land claims agreement or may be so acquired.
- So land claims agreements can be treaty rights, or modern-day treaties.
The Chairman: Out of order. Now we're debating.
Mr. Harper: Anyway, that's the point I was trying to make.
The Chairman: Mr. Patry.
[Translation]
Mr. Patry: I beg to differ with my Reform Party colleague. If we remove ``les droits inhérents de par leur présence au Canada depuis toujours'', not only are we amending the initial motion, we are also watering it down considerably.
Aboriginal peoples were Canada's first inhabitants. They were here thousands of years before the arrival of the Europeans. They instituted many systems of government which reflected the diversity of their cultures, spiritual beliefs as well as economic, social and geographical situation.
After the European settlers arrived in Canada and established a colonial system of government, many aboriginal groups signed treaties. Government authorities subsequently adopted laws and policies aimed at bringing about the assimilation of aboriginal peoples into the non-native society. In the process, the authority and duties of traditional aboriginal governments were undermined.
One thing is certain, and I agree with Mr. Harper on this point: aboriginal peoples never willingly accepted this assimilation process. Their cultures, traditions and own languages remain an integral part of the Canadian mosaic. Today, government policy indirectly acknowledges that past policies failed and recognizes the need to establish a new partnership between aboriginal peoples and government authorities. Therefore, I cannot go along with the Reform Party member's interpretation and I can't support his amendment. Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Harper.
Mr. Harper: I would also oppose the Reform amendment, first of all to remove ``which are inherent in their presence''. I think what you are doing is ignoring the whole history of Canada. Basically you can't ignore the reality that existed before the arrival of the Europeans. The world didn't exist at the arrival of the Europeans. We had been here for thousands of years and we had certain inherent traditions and values, not even necessarily within what we call Canada, but throughout North America. But what we're trying to address here, at least, is within the competence and administration of Canada, of the federal government. I think that is very clear.
Even in the province of Quebec - The aboriginal people want to remain in Quebec, within the Canadian state. They have stated that. So to remove that will be to ignore history.
.1200
Also, with regard to self-government, as I was beginning to say, consider the very act of signing treaties. When the British sovereign state signed treaties with our forefathers, it never asked our forefathers whether we had self-government or whether we would define it for them. They just assumed that we had that authority all along. It wasn't a subject for debate. Otherwise, the whole agreement would be totally illegal today, and we would return to that state in which there was no relationship established at all.
In doing so, Canada was able to develop its laws and institutions and also develop the land. So it is very clear that the aboriginal people have had that self-determination and self-governance since time immemorial.
If you want to go into history in terms of the relationship that existed among aboriginal people, that's another debate. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you. Is there anyone else on the amendment? I call the question.
Amendment negatived
The Chairman: We are back with the main motion. Is there any debate on the main motion? Are we clear on the corrections we've made on the French? Are we ready for the question?
Mr. Duncan: Maybe this is the appropriate time. Before you call the vote, I think we should have a recorded vote on the final question.
The Chairman: Yes, it's the proper time to ask. A recorded vote on the main motion as corrected, not as amended. We all agree on that.
Motion agreed to: yeas 7; nays 1
The Chairman: Now we'll take a few short minutes to try to reach a consensus as to your intention of what to do with this motion now that it has passed. Do you wish to have a tabled report in the House or do you merely wish a letter sent? If so, to whom should it go? Both are easy to do, so don't let the extra work worry you. One is as easy as the other.
Mr. Harper: What has been the general procedure?
The Chairman: We would normally draft a report to the House, and I would table it so as to advise the House of a motion we have passed.
Mr. Harper: I would recommend we report it to the House.
The Chairman: We'll have an open discussion on that. The request is that we table a report in the House.
Mr. Duncan: After you have prepared the report, would it come to this committee before it's tabled in the House?
The Chairman: No.
The Clerk of the Committee: Yes.
Mr. Duncan: The clerk says yes.
The Chairman: The motion has been passed. The report says that this committee has passed a motion. We give them the motion. When we have tabled a report, we have never brought it back to the committee.
I can do it, however.
Mr. Duncan: But a report from the committee that goes to the House surely has an opportunity for a minority report. Unless it comes back to the committee, how can a minority report be appended?
The Chairman: I'm open. My understanding of a report on this was to tell the House that this committee has passed this motion. We give them the exact wording of the motion, which is all that's on the report.
Mr. Duncan: Can we ask for a clarification from the clerk, please, Mr. Chair?
The Clerk: If the committee agrees to report to the House, then the terms of the report is the motion. It tells the House that the committee has agreed to this motion. There are no more substantive amendments to the motion.
The Chairman: The report only states to the House that this committee has passed this motion. It quotes the motion, and that's it. The report is not an interpretation of the debate. There's nothing else. That's all that's in the report.
If you want to see it first, I have no problem.
.1205
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: If I understand correctly, we are only reporting to the House, without discussing the content of the motion.
The Chairman: That's correct.
Mr. Bachand: When the report is submitted to the House, will it be debated?
The Chairman: No.
Mr. Bachand: Then what will happen to it? Will it be put on a shelf and that will be the end of it? If that's the case, then this morning's discussion will have been pointless.
The Chairman: Is it the role of committees to adopt this kind of motion? That is something that we discussed initially, but what's done is done. What we must do now is advise the House of Commons and the government that this committee is urging them to reaffirm -
[English]
The clerk has advised me that any member of this committee could draft a motion in the House asking that this report be adopted by the House. As a committee, all we do is recommend to the House. If anyone feels like standing in the House to ask for the report to be adopted by the House, they can do that individually.
Mr. Duncan: Does that require the unanimous consent of the House?
A voice: No.
[Translation]
Mr. Bachand: The Procedure Committee decides whether a motion is votable or not. Even if the opinion of the committee is unanimous, this doesn't mean that everything is settled. The Procedure Committee decides whether or not a motion is votable. Isn't that right?
Mr. Patry: This is not a motion from the committee; it's a motion from the House.
[English]
The Chairman: At this point, it's a recommendation to the House by this committee. All committees do is recommend. We recommend to the House that this be done. As for what the House does with reports after that, we will not change this here.
Mr. Harper: I was going to ask for clarification. When a member of this committee stands in the House and asks for this motion to be adopted in the House, at which time do you do it? Is it also a votable motion, or is this a statement?
The Clerk: If a member, as an ordinary member, has proposed a motion in the Notice Paper of the Order Paper, it then goes through the process of the notice. It's brought into the House under motions. You can stand in the House and move your motion, but normally the process is that it gets sent into the big basket of motions to be chosen, which happens in a draw. Then when the time comes, you can move it and debate it. It may never come, but the best way to do it is to refer it to the government.
The Chairman: All we can do at this point is to refer it. Whatever mechanics are there -
Mr. Patry: I think we're talking about two different things totally. Speaking when we're going to a private motion or a private member's bill is totally different from when a committee reports to the House. It's two different things. They don't have the same rules. The rules are totally different.
What about what's non-votable? The House has nothing to say about this. It's a different procedure from what you mentioned. You're going to report to the House through a report or a letter. In time, it ends up there. If government wants to do something with this, that's up to it.
The Chairman: All this motion says is that this committee urges the government to reaffirm. It can reaffirm or not. We have decided to urge it to reaffirm. That's all we've done here. I think we're putting more meat into the motion than there is.
Mr. Duncan: I have a further question. When this goes forward to the House, is the government under an obligation to respond?
The Clerk: If the member can put a motion -
Mr. Duncan: It's only if something further happens, okay.
The Clerk: When the government calls motions, the member can stand up and say that he would like the report of the committee to be adopted. Then there's debate. The government can take a vote on it, postpone the debate or postpone the motion under government orders.
.1210
The Chairman: I will ask the clerk to submit to all members of this committee a short report of what will happen to this report after it's tabled. Okay?
[Translation]
Mr. Patry: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you could ask our clerk what happens to the reports that we issue, for our own information, even though we have been here three years. He could let us know exactly what happens. Then we will know for the next time.
The Chairman: I understand.
[English]
Is there anything else?
On the consultation, there seem to be problems with having consultations this Thursday, so we have cancelled that. We are attempting, with your concurrence, to have a day of public hearings on November 19. At this time, we would have a mixture of videoconferencing and people.
Do you authorize me, with the clerk and researchers, to plan that day for November 19, or do you want us to have a meeting before that to establish -
Mr. Duncan: Go ahead.
The Chairman: Okay. We'll try to invite as many people as we can who are relevant to the issue. On that day, if you feel some have been left out, we will still have the opportunity to invite them for other consultations.
The meeting is adjourned.