Ottawa Watch

by Alexandra Macqueen

Today, we'll continue our look at Bill C-6, the Specific Claims Resolution bill. This draft legislation, if passed, establishes the Canadian Centre for the Independent Resolution of First Nations Specific Claims, including a commission to assist First Nations and the Crown in resolving specific claims, and a tribunal to decide certain issues arising from those claims if they cannot be otherwise resolved.

An active file
The month of February was a whirlwind of activity on this bill: it was considered by the House after having been reported back (with one proposed amendment) by the Standing Committee in December, concurred in at report stage, debated at third reading, and referred for a third reading vote in mid-March.

One amendment passes
The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs reported the bill back to the House with one proposed amendment (read carefully! Here is the answer to last month's quiz!) The amendment would ensure reports of the Claims Centre were reviewed by the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs after they are tabled in the House of Commons. (Side note and quiz answer: this was the only amendment of about 40 proposed by Standing Committee members. This amendment was proposed by a Liberal member: all others were proposed by opposition members.) (Footnote to the side note: the amendment was itself amended so that reports will be referred to "the appropriate committee," not necessarily the Aboriginal Affairs committee.)

Bill "on track," say Liberals
On February 3, the bill was at report stage. A total of seven Members of Parliament spoke about the bill, including Liberal, Canadian Alliance, New Democratic and Progressive Conservative members. Stephen Owen, Secretary of State for Indian Affairs and Northern Development, spoke for the Liberals in favour of the bill. In his opening remarks, he said "the feedback we have had to date shows that we are on the right track [with this bill] to bring certainty to the process of specific claims settlement and bring closure to these historic grievances."
Gurmant Grewal, for the Canadian Alliance, fired back with the comment that "Bill C-6 has met with opposition from First Nations across Canada." According to Grewal, "this new institution would not be transparent. Government members of the Standing Committee voted against all amendments that would require the government to declare openly its reasons for deciding against a claim or for holding up this process...The bill needs major amendments."

Red book red flag
For Betty Hinton of the Canadian Alliance, the main criticism of the bill is that "there is no provision for the respect of existing private property rights or an open and transparent process involving all stakeholders. We need a process for resolving these claims that is fair to aboriginals and other Canadians as well." Hinton added that "the 1993 Liberal Red Book promised an independent claims commission that would be jointly appointed by aboriginals and the Government of Canada. Bill C-6 breaks yet another promise from that book."
Monte Solberg, another Alliance MP, criticized the concept of an independent claims commission: "if we were to establish this claims commission then we would lose the ability to hold these people to account." He compared the prospect of an independent agency to the federal firearms registry "where we decided to let the bureaucracy run the registry. It ran up a bill of $1 billion. It was 50,000% over budget and it withheld all kinds of information from Parliament..."
For the New Democratic Party, Bill C-6 is linked with the proposed Governance Act and Fiscal Institutions Act. NDP MP Pat Martin commented that "our party does not believe we can deal with or do justice to Bill C-6 when it is viewed in isolation. It really constitutes part of a larger suite of bills...aimed at what the government is selling as First Nations governance issues."

Closure...of dissent
Like the Alliance's Grewal, Martin noted that amendments proposed by opposition parties were voted down at the Committee stage. "I am disappointed to say that not one of these amendments was allowed to pass. It makes a bit of a mockery of the committee process."
Dick Proctor, also for the NDP, said that in contrast to Stephen Owen's declaration that the feedback the government is receiving about the draft bill is positive, "nobody on this [the opposition] side of the House shares that view," which he also characterized as the "father knows best attitude which First Nations have endured for several hundred years."

The NDP also criticised the consultation process on the draft bill, calling it "farcical...Just three weeks were set aside for consultation on the bill and there was no opportunity to really hear from the witnesses who wished to appear and register their objections."
In sum, for the NDP, "the bill is regressive even in comparison with the current system, the one that we want to fix."
On February 4, the House voted on a motion proposed by Indian Affairs Minister Nault that Bill C-6 "be concurred in at report stage." The vote on the motion was relatively close, with 138 "yeas" and 104 "nays." Having passed the vote, the bill was then scheduled for third reading debate on February 7.

The party line-"a good balance", says Nault
On February 7, Minister Nault himself spoke to the draft bill. In contrast to all opposition speakers on the draft bill, Nault opened his remarks by saying that the bill "reflects the priorities identified by Aboriginal communities." He also said he was "proud today to stand in this place to recognize the hard work of the Aboriginal joint initiative between ourselves and the First Nations, in particular the Assembly of First Nations." He commented that "I know that in any discussion we have with First Nations people, there are always other things they want as it relates to a piece of legislation...but I think we have achieved a good balance, a balance that the government needs to have."
On the same day, Yvan Loubier, a Bloc Quebecois Member of Parliament, told parliament that "the bill is now being considered at third reading without a single opposition amendment having been passed from the time the bill received first reading or during the legislative process that followed." He noted that during committee hearings, "there were so many deficiencies in the bill that both First Nations and the opposition parties were unanimous in asking for this bill to be dropped since it in no way meets the needs of aboriginals with regard to expediting claims."
In general, Loubier's comment about the bill was that, if passed, "it will not change a thing. It will not improve how quickly specific claims are settled nor ensure the impartiality that has been lacking from the beginning in the processing of these claims." For these reasons, "and for the sake of justice, equality, effectiveness and intelligence, the Bloc Quebecois will vote against this bill. He also advised that "members of this House should vote massively against this bill."
At third reading, NDP MP Pat Martin pointed out that "virtually everyone associated with aboriginal claims issues is opposed to the bill, with the possible exception of the Minister and his immediate staff." He added that "it is now our position that the bill is not redeemable. The bill in its current form unamended is not worthy of our support and will not be getting our support."

Acts of evil
Martin closed his remarks with the comment that "I appeal to the Minister to step back and look at the whole suite of legislation he has introduced, namely, Bill C-6, Bill C-7 [the Governance Act] and Bill C-19 [the Fiscal Institutions Act]. There are those of us on opposition benches who would like nothing better than to enthusiastically support legislation that will amend the Indian Act because we think the Indian Act is fundamentally evil. We believe it is responsible for 130 years of social tragedy. If I do nothing else in my time here as a member of Parliament, I would like to say that I moved the issue of aboriginal people one step forward."
Ultimately, the time allotted for debate on the bill expired. The House next considered the bill on the last day of February, when three Alliance, one NDP and one Conservative member all spoke against the bill. The day ended with a vote for third reading for this bill scheduled for mid-March.

Who is telling the truth? Who do you trust?
Put it all together and what do you get? On one hand, it all seems a bit like the "same old, same old" story: everyone, even people making opposing statements, says they are on the side of justice, the settlement of claims, and First Nations people. The Minister is on the side of First Nations, who he claims support him and worked with him to draft the bill. The Alliance is on the side of First Nations, but is also committed to "fairness," "transparency" and "equality," which has them oppose the bill. The NDP is against the bill and for First Nations, against the "father knows best" attitude and for a genuine partnership with First Nations. And the Bloc Quebecois is against the status quo, which means they must be for First Nations and against the bill (still following along?).
On the other hand, it reads a bit like the Minister of Indian Affairs is living in a parallel universe, as he openly lauds the Assembly of First Nations for participating in the creation of this bill while the AFN sends out press releases stating that the Liberal government "reneged on its deal with the AFN" regarding the joint task force on claims and urging First Nations to contribute to a "Freedom Fund" which would "be used to fight federal legislation," including Bill C-6.
What I do know is that if the same level of concern was consistently expressed by all these parliamentarians over time regarding claims settlements, we wouldn't be listening to this testimony about a bill which would establish a centre to resolve claims. The claims would be settled by now...wouldn't they?
Until next time, keep your ears to the ground and your eyes on the sky.

 

Alexandra Macqueen is a communications and government relations consultant based in Toronto, Ontario. You can reach Alexandra by e-mail at OttawaWatch@whamco.net.