First Nations now share Canadian human rights law protection

[Aboriginal Human Rights]

On-reserve and you've got complaints against Indian Affairs?
There's a new human rights law now in effect to help. . .
June 18, 2008
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =9395#9395
- - -

Urban Aboriginal leader calls for speedy passage of Human Rights legislation
December 2007
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =8790#8790
- - -

First Nations want human rights changes but not imposed by government
December 2007
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =8789#8789
- - -

Dene perspective
December 2007
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =8797#8797
- - -

November 2007
Controversial legislation to improve human rights in First Nations communities
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =8734#8734
- - -

October 2007
Playing politics with First Nations human rights . . .
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =8643#8643
- - -

Assembly of First Nations, Native Women's Association of Canada call for full consultation before the repeal of Section 67 of Canadian Human Rights Act

OTTAWA, Dec. 13, 2006

The federal government today announced its intention to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA), after 30 years of lobbying. Both the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC) are supporters and advocates of human rights. We support the repeal in principle but only after proper consultation.

"The Government of Canada has not consulted First Nations, even though this action was anticipated almost three decades ago," said AFN National Chief Phil Fontaine. "Now, the government intends to simply repeal this section without due regard to the unique legal context and development of associated capacity for First Nations relating to the CHRA. This is simply a recipe for ineffectiveness and will add new costs for First Nations governments already under-resourced.

"It is difficult to understand how this government says it supports the human rights of First Nations through the repeal of section 67, while at the same time it rejects the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Peoples," said the National Chief. "It also appears the road that Minister Prentice is traveling down is contrary to the Canadian Human Rights Commission's recommendation of an 18 to 30 month period of transition and implementation to address capacity issues."

"We believe that the repeal of Section 67 without engaging in meaningful consultations with Aboriginal peoples could only lead to disaster," said NWAC President Bev Jacobs, "We are still dealing with the aftermath of Bill C-31, which was a result of not having meaningful consultation with First Nations, including Aboriginal women."

NWAC and its Board are equally distressed that a solid plan, entitled Access to Legal Justice and Indigenous Legal Traditions, which was submitted to the federal government in May 2006, has been completely disregarded. "We put forward a solid and comprehensive plan to meaningfully engage communities and individuals to prepare for the impacts of a repeal of section 67, and feel very strongly that this is the only way which would result in the successful protection of the full range of collective and individual human rights for Aboriginal women," stresses Ms. Jacobs.

Both the AFN and NWAC call on the government to immediately undertake an open, transparent process for assessing the impacts on individuals and First Nations communities, and to commit to an implementation that is collaboratively developed by government and the First Nation communities including the full and meaningful participation of Aboriginal women.

-30-

For further information: For more information on both AFN's and NWAC's
position on the repeal of section 67 please contact: AFN: A/Communications Director Bryan Hendry, (613) 241-6789, ext 229, cell (613) 293-6106; Nancy Pine, Communications Advisor to the National Chief, (613) 298-6382; NWAC: Executive Director, Sherry Lewis, (613) 222-1097; Legal Advisor, Mary Eberts at (416) 966-0404; Interim Media Coordinator, Jennifer Lord at (613) 722-3033 ext. 235/

- - - - - - -

Gary Merasty, M.P.
Member of Parliament for Desnethé-Missinippi-Churchill River
Associate Critic for Indian Affairs


News Release

For Immediate Release December 14, 2006

PRENTICE 'S REFUSAL TO FOLLOW DUTY TO CONSULT IN REPEALING SECTION 67 DISAPPOINTING: MERASTY

OTTAWA – Gary Merasty, Associate Critic for Indian Affairs, expressed deep disappointment at Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice's refusal to acknowledge his court affirmed constitutional duty to consult Aboriginal people before he moved to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA).

"I strongly support and advocate for human rights and I support this move in principle," said Mr. Merasty. "But Minister Prentice has completely ignored his Supreme Court affirmed duty to consult. Haida Nation , Taku River and Mikisew Cree all expressly set out this right in clear language. Yet time and time again he has ignored this duty to maintain the honour of the Crown, which I find very concerning."

"I am also disappointed that Minister Prentice can claim to be so supportive of human rights when he has so aggressively rejected the United Nations Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. He has ignored the recommendations of NWAC's plan to deal with the impacts on communities and individuals of this repeal, entitled Access to Legal Justice and Indigenous Legal Traditions . He is also ignoring recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission for a proper period of transition and implementation."

The Native Women's Association of Canada (NWAC) and the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) have also asked for proper consultations. NWAC President Bev Jacobs has said, "We are still dealing with the aftermath of Bill C-31, which was a result of not having meaningful consultation with First Nations, including Aboriginal Women." AFN National Chief Phil Fontaine has expressed deep concerns that the government is continuing to ignore "the unique legal context and development of associated capacity for First Nations relating to the CHRA."

"Minister Prentice needs to follow a process of inclusion and collaboration if this process is to be successful," said Mr. Merasty. "He needs to engage and respect the duty to consult. He must acknowledge and follow the recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Aboriginal leadership to ensure that a proper transition period is identified. I also strongly advocate that the Minister engage First Nations in discussions towards establishing a First Nations Human Rights Commission utilizing experts, Elders and others to advise on balancing collective and individual rights while respecting First Nations traditions and beliefs. If he is serious, then he should make a serious effort to engage and collaborate with First Nations."


-30-

For more information, contact:
Steven Dribnenki
Legislative Assistant
Office: (613) 995 8323
Cell: (613) 222 5292

- - - - - - -

Canada's new Government introduces legislation to strengthen human rights protection for Aboriginal Canadians

December 13, 2006

The Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development and Federal Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians,
today introduced legislation to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human
Rights Act.

Introduction of the bill is the first step to ensuring that all Canadians
have equal access to human rights protections, and to empowering First
Nations individuals with the ability to seek recourse. The proposed
legislation is a tangible example of this Government's commitment to
enhancing the quality of life of Aboriginal people.

"Since its inception, section 67 has been the subject of numerous calls
for repeal, including calls from the United Nations Human Rights
Committee and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, as well as from
Canada's national Aboriginal organizations," said Minister Prentice.

"Today, this Government is moving forward to finally repeal section 67 to
ensure that all Aboriginal people have the same access to human rights
protections as all other Canadians."

Under the existing system, individuals, largely Aboriginal persons living
and working on reserves are prevented from filing complaints of
discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act in cases that involve
actions taken or decisions made under the Indian Act. As a result, since
1977, First Nations people have been denied full access to human rights
protections which other segments of Canadian society have taken for granted.

"The repeal of section 67 represents an important step in furthering and
enhancing the individual human rights protections enjoyed by all
Canadians," said the Honourable Vic Toews, Q.C., Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada.

"Now that full human rights protection is being extended to all First
Nations people, the Canadian Human Rights Commission will act quickly to
open discussions with those communities on how best to implement this
much-needed change," said Commissioner David Langtry of the Canadian
Human Rights Commission.

The Government of Canada has already undertaken other initiatives to
address rights and empower First Nations people including: the ongoing
consultations towards finding a legislative solution to the issues of
matrimonial real property on reserves; support for family violence
prevention programs and shelters; and legislation to enable First Nations
to assume meaningful control over on-reserve elementary and secondary schools in British Columbia. The repeal of section 67 will build on these
initiatives and strengthen individual rights in Canada.

BACKGROUNDER

Repeal of Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act currently states that: "Nothing in this Act affects any provision of the Indian Act or any provision made under or pursuant to that Act."

This exemption has the effect of shielding the provisions of the Indian Act and any decisions made or actions taken by band councils and the federal government, made under or pursuant to the Indian Act, from the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

As a result, section 67 disproportionately impacts Aboriginal persons,
especially those living or working on a reserve. This means that they don't have full access to human rights protection and are unable to file complaints with the Canadian Human Rights Commission alleging discrimination on a prohibited ground arising from actions taken or decisions made under or pursuant to the Indian Act.

Section 67 was part of the Canadian Human Rights Act when the Act was
introduced in 1977. At the time, discussions were underway with Aboriginal groups about possible reforms to the Indian Act. Section 67 was originally adopted as a temporary measure because it was recognized that the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act to all matters falling under the Indian Act could have resulted in certain provisions of the Indian Act being found discriminatory before the discussions with Aboriginal groups about reforming the Indian Act had concluded.

Since its inception, however, section 67 has been the subject of numerous
calls for repeal from national and international organizations, such as the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, as well as from Canada's national Aboriginal organizations.

Legislation to repeal section 67 represents another step by this Government to empower First Nations individuals, especially women.
Ensuring that fundamental human rights of all Aboriginal people are
protected is part of this Government's goal in shifting Aboriginal people
from dependence to self-reliance.

Upon receiving Royal Assent, the repeal will immediately apply to the
Government of Canada. Application to First Nation governments will be
delayed six months to allow them to prepare for implementation. The
Canadian Human Rights Commission will be discussing implementation
measures with Aboriginal people and organizations during this delay period.

For the first time in thirty years, individuals will be able to file a
complaint of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act for
actions taken or decisions made pursuant to the Indian Act.
http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca

[Human Rights Protection]

For Immediate Release
April 24, 2007

OTTAWA – The Canadian Bar Association supports the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) – which protects the Indian Act from scrutiny under the CHRA – but says preliminary steps must be taken before the repeal comes into effect.

The CHRA prohibits certain discriminatory practices, but section 67 has exempted the Indian Act from the scrutiny of the CHRA. Bill C-44 would repeal that exemption.

“While the CBA supports the repeal in principle, a number of steps must be taken, including full consultation with First Nations, the introduction of an interpretive clause, and adequate time and resources for Indian bands to prepare for the scope and number of changes and challenges that are likely to follow,” says Christopher Devlin of Victoria, Chair of the CBA’s Aboriginal Law Section.

Bill C-44 proposes a six-month delay between the Act coming into force and its application to bands. The CBA argues that an 18- to 30-month delay would be more appropriate. An interpretive clause would guide the application of the CHRA to stress that nothing it contains should be seen as taking away from existing rights of Aboriginal Peoples, and also emphasize that the rights extend equally to both women and men.

In its nine-page submission, the CBA says many parts of the Indian Act would no doubt attract human rights scrutiny, and review or repeal of that Act may well be overdue. “But if the underlying intent or even the likely result of Bill C-44 would be to gradually erode the Indian Act through piecemeal amendments, the better approach would be to meet that challenge directly and comprehensively,” reads the CBA submission.

The CBA says the proper approach would be through normal parliamentary process, with appropriate attention and a full public policy debate of the important and complex issues involved.

The submission is available on the CBA website at http://www.cba.org/CBA/submissions/pdf/07-23-eng.pdf

Christopher Devlin will present the CBA submission to the Commons Aboriginal Affairs Committee on Tuesday, April 24 at 11 a.m. in Room 268 of the West Block.

The Canadian Bar Association is dedicated to improvement in the law and the administration of justice. Some 37,000 lawyers, law teachers, and law students from across Canada are members.


Canadian Bar Association
www.cba.org

- - - - - - -

The repeal of section 67 has the potential of positively affecting over 460,000 people in 600 communities.

" . . .30 years is too long to wait for human rights. Yet First Nations people have been waiting that long to have their rights recognized. Because of twenty-one words tacked on to the very end of the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1977 they often have no means of having their human rights concerns addressed."

Statement by Chief Commissioner, Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on Bill C-44, An Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act

Speaking Notes
for an appearance by
Jennifer Lynch, Q.C.
Chief Commissioner
Canadian Human Rights Commission
as a witness before the
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs
and Northern Development
on
Bill C-44:
An Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act

April 19, 2007



Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, merci pour votre accueil.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee today to discuss Bill C-44.

I would like to introduce my colleagues:

To my immediate right is Mr. David Langtry, a full time Commissioner who has been engaged in the consideration of the section 67 issue since his appointment to the Commission last June.

To my immediate left is Madame Hélène Goulet, the Secretary General of the Commission.

To Madame Goulet’s left is Sherri Helgason, the Director of our recently created National Aboriginal Program located in Winnipeg.

To Mr. Langtry’s right is Harvey Goldberg the Team Leader of our Strategic Initiatives unit, who has concentrated on the repeal for several years.

As Canada’s national human rights institution, it is important that the Canadian Human Rights Commission have a strong line of communication with Parliament. That is why I am pleased so early in my mandate to have an opportunity to appear before you to discuss as fundamental a human rights issue as the repeal of section 67.

I will focus today on five key areas. These are:

First, the Commission’s support for the repeal of Section 67. The repeal of this section is long overdue – its existence has real and negative impacts on people every day. It must be repealed now. We are very encouraged by the introduction of Bill C-44 and support its enactment as soon as possible.

Second, the Commission submits that an interpretative provision should be created that will help to ensure that the Canadian Human Rights Act is interpreted in a manner that appropriately considers, and strikes a balance between, individual rights and Aboriginal community rights and interests.

Third, we submit that the transitional period should be longer than the six months proposed in the legislation.

Fourth, we submit that both the Commission and First Nations need to be properly resourced to ensure successful implementation of repeal.

Fifth, I will clarify the Commission’s broader mandate as a Guardian of Human Rights.

Now I will expand on each of these five areas.

#1: The urgency of repeal

Why is repeal so urgent?

The Canadian Human Rights Act was enacted 30 years ago.

The Purpose of the Act speaks powerfully to every Canadian. It reads:

s.2 - The purpose of this Act is to extend the laws in Canada to give effect, ….. to the principle that all individuals should have an opportunity equal with other individuals to make for themselves the lives that they are able and wish to have and to have their needs accommodated, consistent with their duties and obligations as members of society, without being hindered in or prevented from doing so by discriminatory practices based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.

The rights enshrined in the CHRA - the right to be free from discrimination and where discrimination occurs to have it redressed - are fundamental to our citizenship.

In everyday life that means when a Canadian believes that a federally regulated employer did not hire him because of his race he can seek redress. It means when a person who uses a wheelchair is prevented from entering a building because there is no ramp she has a way of getting that barrier removed. It means when a woman is sexually harassed on the job she can have the matter considered by a competent body. It means that when a Canadian believes that federal legislation discriminates against him or people like him, he has a means of contesting the validity of that legislation.

Yet the Canadian Human Rights Act does not mean these things for many First Nations citizens. As a result of section 67, the Act and its noble purpose do not apply to them.

Repeal is urgent because 30 years is too long to wait for human rights. Yet First Nations people have been waiting that long to have their rights recognized. Because of twenty-one words tacked on to the very end of the Canadian Human Rights Act in 1977 they often have no means of having their human rights concerns addressed.

Section 67 has real and serious implications in their everyday lives. And the repeal of section 67 has the potential of positively affecting over 460,000 people in 600 communities.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission has consistently called for the repeal of section 67. We are encouraged that, while there are differences on how to best accomplish repeal, the government, the members of your Committee, the AFN, NWAC and other stakeholders all support the Commission’s opinion that section 67 must be repealed.

#2: The need for an interpretative provision

The need for an interpretative provision is one important area where differences of view have been voiced. Bill C-44 is silent on this matter. With respect, we submit that it should not be.

First Nations communities and people have a unique history and special status in the Canadian constitutional and legal system. Their existing Aboriginal and treaty rights are affirmed in the Constitution, have been progressively confirmed by the Courts and are recognized by governments at all levels.

An interpretative provision is, in our submission, imperative to give application to the inherent right to self-government and is fundamental to developing an appropriate system for First Nations human rights redress. An interpretative provision would help to ensure that individual claims are considered in light of legitimate collective rights and interests.

While many agree on the need for an interpretative provision there are differences on how this should be achieved. Some have suggested that an interpretative provision be added to Bill C-44. In our special report on section 67, A Matter of Rights, the Commission recommends that an interpretative provision be developed post repeal in dialogue with First Nations, to allow for needed dialogue, analysis, and consideration to take place without unduly delaying repeal.

Today the Commission would like to recommend a third solution that incorporates the best of both approaches. We propose that Bill C-44 be amended to provide for two clauses:

(1) a statutory statement of principle that would enshrine the principle that the
Canadian Human Rights Act should be applied to First Nations in a manner that appropriately balances individual rights and collective rights and interests;

(2) a mandate to the Commission to develop, through a process of dialogue with First Nations and other stakeholders, the appropriate instrument for applying the statutory interpretative principle in the handling of human rights disputes.

This could be accomplished either by way of regulation or, perhaps by resort to the Commission’s statutory powers under s. 27(2) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Under section 27(2) the Commission has the authority to enact Guidelines on how the Act should be applied with regard to a particular class or group of complaints.

What might be included in a statutory statement of principle?

The statutory statement of principle should have as its objective a clear articulation of the desired balance, while not indirectly re-instituting the very effects that the repeal is intended to relieve.

This is completely consistent with the recommendations of the Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel, led by former Supreme Court Justice Gérard La Forest, in their 2000 report, Promoting Equality: A New Vision.

#3: Length of the transition period

The length of the transition period is another issue where differences of opinion have been expressed. The Commission submits that six months is not sufficient time to allow First Nations and the Commission to properly prepare for repeal.

The challenges of implementation are large, yet they are manageable. A significant amount of engagement and dialogue between First Nations and the Commission is desirable to manage the implementation.

This is not a simple matter of “repeal it and complaints will flow to the Commission in the normal course”. In modern conflict management approaches, strong complaint processes are important, yet should be a remedy of last resort. Our legislation is consistent with this, and encourages parties to a complaint to try and resolve their dispute within their own milieu before coming to the Commission.

The need for local level systems to resolve conflict and provide redress of complaints is critical to the success of repeal.

No matter how much the Commission alters its procedures and processes to be responsive to the unique status and circumstances of First Nations, and the Commission intends to do just that, it will always be preferable to resolve human rights issues in the communities and workplaces where they occur, respecting their cultures.

To allow this to happen, the Commission and First Nations must embark on an appreciative process of listening and learning; designing and building; and finally implementing and realizing a new First Nation integrated human rights and conflict management system, based on core principles that can be adapted to the needs of different communities, cultures and traditions.

It is important to articulate that our vision is for much more than an internal complaints system. Formal dispute resolution, although important, should be a relatively small part of an overall system that would also embrace prevention and education.

There is such enormous potential here to develop a whole system that starts with a dispute resolution structure providing multiple options for the resolution of disputes, and is supported by other processes and practices that will shift the emphasis towards the “front end”: prevention of discrimination, and education. The core principles to be developed should have as their goal the fostering of a culture that treats conflict resolution as a building block to creating inclusive and productive communities and workplaces.

By establishing integrated human rights and conflict management systems, First Nation citizens will better understand their rights and how to realize them; First Nation governments will better appreciate the rights they are mandated to promote and respect; and all parties will be able to work together to prevent discrimination and resolve human rights complaints.

First Nations already have systems of dispute resolution including traditional practices such as healing circles and community sanctioning. We honour and respect these practices. We have much to learn from First Nations and we will.

All of this will take time to realize; indeed it will be an ongoing process. This is why the Commission believes that a longer transition period is critical if we are to get this process off to a good start. This, in addition to the need for time to develop an interpretative provision, will, we submit, require at a minimum 18 months and would benefit from a period as long as 30 months.

#4: Resources

I would like to articulate clearly the imperative need of ensuring that both First Nations and the Commission have the resources needed to ensure that implementation is successful. No matter how well an interpretative provision is drafted or how long the transitional period is, implementation will not be successful without adequate resources to build needed capacity. Without that capacity, implementation may falter and this would bring the Canadian Human Rights Act into disrepute. No one wants this result.

First Nations have limited financial and human resources and have pressing problems they must address every day. At present many First Nations do not have the means to participate in the type of appreciative dialogue and collaborative problem solving I have just discussed. Nor do they have the resources to develop internal redress and dispute resolution mechanisms. That is why the Commission welcomes Minister Prentice’s statement to the Committee that he would welcome the Committee’s views on the operational impact of repeal on First Nation communities.

The government has already indicated that resources will be provided to the Commission to carry out our expanded responsibilities when repeal proceeds. For this we are grateful. Should Parliament decide to expand the Commission’s responsibilities beyond those in the current Bill, we would of course want to discuss the resource implications of such changes with the government in order to ensure that we are adequately further resourced to carry out our responsibilities as mandated by Parliament.

#5: The Commission’s Mandate

Finally, I would like to clarify that the Commission’s statutory mandate goes well beyond the investigation and resolution of human rights complaints. The Act makes the Commission the guardian of human rights by giving the Commission broad powers to ensure that human rights are effectively implemented in the federal jurisdiction.

As a statutory agency, independent of the government or other parties, the Commission has, and will continue to assert a leadership role in human rights by constantly encouraging all organizations under our purview to strive for excellence in the promotion and protection of the human rights of all Canadians in accordance with our Act.

It was in the exercise of this mandate that the Commission issued A Matter of Rights in 2005 in order to bring to the attention of Canadians what the Commission believes is a gaping hole in the fabric of our human rights protections.

In particular section 27 provides that the Commission:

(e) may consider such recommendations, suggestions and requests concerning human rights and freedoms as it receives from any source and, when deemed by the Commission to be appropriate, include in a report referred to in section 61 reference to and comment on any such recommendation, suggestion or request;

(f) shall carry out or cause to be carried out such studies concerning human rights and freedoms as may be referred to it by the Minister of Justice and include in a report referred to in section 61 a report setting out the results of each such study together with such recommendations in relation thereto as it considers appropriate;

(g) may review any regulations, rules, orders, by-laws and other instruments made pursuant to an Act of Parliament and, where deemed by the Commission to be appropriate, include in a report referred to in section 61 reference to and comment on any provision thereof that in its opinion is inconsistent with the principle described in section 2;

(h) shall so far as is practical and consistent with the application of Part III, try by persuasion, publicity or any other means that it considers appropriate to discourage and reduce discriminatory practices referred to in sections 5 to 14.1.

In the process of implementing the repeal of section 67 the Commission will use these powers as appropriate to call attention to progress in implementing repeal as well as impediments that need to be addressed. For example, the Commission may decide, after a time period, to issue a special report on the implementation experience.

The government and First Nations could also request that the Commission use one of our statutory mandates to work with them to delineate operational implications of the repeal, bringing our extensive experience in translating human rights principles into action.

To prepare, we are acting proactively to strengthen our relationships with First Nations:

- We established a National Aboriginal Program in September 2006, of which Ms. Helgason is the Director, based in Winnipeg. The Program is mandated to lead and coordinate our ongoing work on this issue;

- The Aboriginal Program is being supported by Commission officers who have expertise in areas such as policy development, legal analysis, communications, complaints handling, alternate dispute resolution and conflict management systems.

In summary, the Commission recommends:

* the immediate repeal of section 67;
* the incorporation of both a broad statutory statement of principle on the need to appropriately balance individual rights with community collective rights and interests and a mandate for the Commission to develop an appropriate instrument on this matter;
* a transition period of 18-30 months;
* appropriate resources to support the implementation.

The time for action is now. We all agree on that.

With imagination and cooperation the Commission is confident that repeal can happen soon.

And with repeal we will, collectively, open a new door and collectively build a First Nation human rights system that honours and respects Aboriginal and treaty rights and treats all First Nation governments and peoples with the full measure of dignity and respect to which they are entitled.

We at the Commission welcome this unique opportunity to work with First Nations, their governments, peoples and organizations, the Government of Canada and Parliament, to build this better future together.

We are all here to respond to your questions.

- - - - - - -

BACKGROUND

Overview
Strategic Initiatives
A Matter of Rights

First Nations Human Rights Redress

The Commission's primary objective is the immediate repeal of section 67. Doing so will ensure that First Nations people have the same access to human rights dispute resolution as other people in Canada. This matter of fundamental rights must be acted on quickly.

In this context, the underlying principles of the Act (the right to be free from discrimination and to have access to redress) must be distinguished from the institutional mechanisms that the Act establishes to resolve human rights complaints. While the Commission is firmly committed to the fulfillment of the principles of the Act, the institutional mechanisms to ensure this may differ from what is currently in place and may evolve. This may mean a diminished role for the Commission, as the direct administration of human rights resolution processes is devolved to First Nations. This could result from further amendments to the CHRA or from the enactment of special First Nations human rights legislation, if deemed appropriate.

The Commission believes that a detailed discussion of the mechanisms to be adopted would not be productive now and would likely distract from the urgent need to repeal section 67. Once section 67 is repealed, it will be necessary for the Commission, First Nations and other interested parties to work collaboratively to determine how the human rights principles at the heart of the CHRA could best be applied in the context of First Nation communities. A transitional period, such as that suggested for the interpretative provision, would allow for this important work to be carried out.

There are two issues that the parties will likely want to consider during the design phase: community-level redress and Commission-level redress.

Community-level redress

Discrimination can occur in a community, a particular workplace or a school. It can also be found within the substantive content or impact of a particular law or within the operations or policies of an employer or service provider. It often concerns organizational dynamics and interpersonal factors that are difficult for an uninvolved party to fully understand. Human rights disputes that are left unresolved harden positions and increase animosity and bitterness between the parties to the dispute. This is why human rights bodies such as the Commission are increasingly attempting to resolve complaints as soon as possible and as closely as possible to where they originated.

The need for a community-level response to human rights disputes is especially important for First Nations considering the diversity and special nature of First Nations. There are more than 600 First Nation communities, most of them rural or isolated, that would be affected by the repeal of section 67. They have diverse cultural and political values, languages, levels of support, knowledge of and interest in the CHRA, and levels of capacity to accommodate legislative and administrative change. For these reasons it will be important for First Nations to determine what mechanisms they wish to implement to resolve disputes before they become human rights complaints.

Ensuring that First Nations have adequate human and financial resources to design and implement viable human rights systems is of critical importance. Although the burden of setting up a human rights system should not be exaggerated, significant investment in capacity building will be required. It is essential that First Nations not be forced to divert resources from critical programs, such as housing and education, in order to fulfill statutory human rights obligations.

Commission-level redress

Those, hopefully few, cases that are not resolved locally may become formal Commission complaints. The Commission is mandated to ensure that it serves all respondents and complainants effectively, fairly and efficiently. In the case of First Nations, this will likely mean that the Commission will want to consider measures to ensure that complaints regarding First Nations are handled in a manner consistent with the particular situation of First Nations communities. This will certainly involve an ongoing dialogue between First Nations and First Nation people on how the Commission can best serve the needs of communities and individuals, in a manner consistent with the CHRA.

A First Nations Human Rights Act

The proposed interpretative provision and adaptations of the Commissions procedures would make the CHRA and the Commission more accessible to and consistent with First Nation needs and aspirations. This is an important step. However, in accordance with the constitutional rights of First Nations and the inherent right to self-government, it may also be desirable, if such is the wish of First Nations, to consider specific legislation to deal with human rights in First Nations communities.

There are various institutional models that could be considered, such as the creation of a national First Nations Human Rights Commission and an independent First Nation Human Rights Tribunal. These new institutions might operate in conjunction with the existing Commission and Tribunal or as separate institutions. Alternatively, there might be human rights institutions established in individual First Nations, in regional groups of First Nations or on some other grouped basis. These bodies might act independently or in conjunction with national institutions. http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca

- - - - - - -

Overview
Strategic Initiatives
A Matter of Rights

Human Rights and Self-Governing First Nation

As a result of land claims and self-government agreements and the laws made to implement those agreements, some 20 First Nations operate outside the Indian Act. Other First Nations are in the process of negotiating such agreements. Self-government agreements generally replace the Indian Act. Consequently, First Nations governed pursuant to such agreements are not covered by the section 67 exemption.38

Most self-government regimes make no specific reference to human rights. However, the CHRA applies as a result of provisions in self-government agreements that certain federal laws, such as federal human rights legislation, will apply to First Nations government and take precedence over laws adopted by First Nations governments.

Although self-governing First Nations and their citizens do not suffer the human rights disenfranchisement resulting from section 67, the effective promotion and protection of human rights is more complicated than simply removing the impediment of section 67. The protection and promotion of human rights and nondiscrimination are fundamental to good governance.

In this regard, there have been some encouraging developments. The Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement39 contains a provision confirming the application of the CHRA to Westbank First Nation Lands and Members, and also provides an interpretative provision. Clause 291 of the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement states:

Nothing in this Agreement limits the operation of the Canadian Human Rights Act in respect of the Westbank First Nation and Westbank Lands and Members. The interpretation and application of the Canadian Human Rights Act in respect of the Westbank First Nation and Westbank Lands and Members shall take into account:

a. the nature and purpose of this Agreement; and

b. the entitlement of Westbank First Nation to provide programs and services either exclusively or on a preferential basis to Members, where justifiable; and

c. the entitlement of Westbank First Nation to give preference to its Members in hiring employees and contractors for Westbank First Nation operations, where justifiable.

Another encouraging development in recent self-government agreements is the inclusion of a clause by which the First Nation commits itself to assisting Canada to meet its international legal obligations. These obviously include obligations in relation to fundamental human rights protected by a range of conventions and treaties. In the Westbank First Nation Self-Government Agreement, for example, clause 36 provides:

As a general principle, Westbank First Nation shall take all necessary measures to ensure compliance of its laws and actions with Canada's international legal obligations.

The clause goes on to commit the First Nation to remedy any Westbank law or action found to be inconsistent with Canada's international legal obligations by an international treaty body or other competent tribunal. A similar provision for ensuring compliance with international legal obligations can be found in the Tlicho Self-Government Agreement.

The Commission recommends that the Government of Canada and First Nations, when negotiating self-government or claims agreements, consider the inclusion in those agreements of special provisions dealing with human rights protection and promotion. First Nations already operating under their own enabling legislation should consider recommending legislative amendments or implementing administrative measures and policies to protect the human rights of their citizens.

Human Rights Compliance

Repeal of section 67 will, for the first time, allow First Nations persons to file human rights complaints with regard to provisions of the Indian Act and actions carried out pursuant to the Indian Act by the Government of Canada (as well as complaints against First Nation governments). Various provisions of the Indian Act invoke human rights concerns and could be the subject of possible complaints to the Commission. This is why section 67 was enacted in the first place and also why it must be repealed.

Although section 12(1)(b) was repealed in 1985, concern remains that the Bill C-31 amendments themselves may not pass human rights muster. Of most concern is that women who lost status before 1985 do not have the same ability to pass status on to their children and grandchildren as do their brothers and male cousins who also married non-status individuals. The lack of any provisions dealing with matrimonial property, a situation severely prejudicial to First Nation women, is, as already noted, another pressing issue. A variety of other issues would also raise human rights concerns.

It is not within the scope of this report to examine these issues in detail. Nor is it clear that these matters could necessarily form the basis of a complaint under the Act. As with all other complaints considered by the Commission, each complaint would have to be considered on its own merits and in accordance with the law and jurisprudence. If section 67 is repealed, the Commission will pursue such complaints to the full extent of the law.

However, the Commission would prefer that the Government take a proactive approach to preventing potential discrimination and not wait for complaints to be filed and potentially lengthy proceedings to take place. The Commission, therefore, urges the Government, in consultation with First Nations, the Commission and other relevant bodies, to review provisions of the Indian Act and relevant policies and programs to ensure that they do not conflict with the Canadian Human Rights Act and other relevant provisions of domestic and international human rights law. Such a review should focus in particular on the impact of Bill C-31 and how membership and entitlement to status could be managed equitably for all parties.

- - - - - - -

Overview
Strategic Initiatives
A Matter of Rights

Conclusion and Recommendations

The Canadian Human Rights Commission recommends to the Parliament of Canada that:

1. Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act be repealed immediately.

2. The repeal legislation include provisions to enable the development and enactment, in full consultation with First Nations, of an interpretative provision, which will take into consideration the rights and interests of First Nations. The interpretative provision will guide the Commission, and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, in the application of the Canadian Human Rights Act with regard to complaints against First Nations governments and related institutions.

3. The application of the Canadian Human Rights Act to First Nations, and related institutions, be suspended for a transitional period of between 18 and 30 months in order to allow for:

a) consultations on, and enactment of, the proposed interpretative provision;

b) preparatory actions to ensure that First Nations and the Commission have in place the measures necessary to effectively, efficiently and quickly resolve complaints.

4. The application of the Canadian Human Rights Act to the Government of Canada, with regard to matters previously shielded by section 67, take effect immediately on repeal with no transition period.

5. The Government of Canada and First Nations, when negotiating self-government or claims agreements, consider the inclusion in those agreements of special provisions dealing with human rights protection and promotion.

As explained in the report, this is a matter of rights. Rights that have been denied for twenty-eight years. They must not be denied any longer. The time to act is now. Failure to do so will result in a continuing blemish on Canada's reputation, both at home and abroad, as a defender of the fundamental rights of all.

The Commission looks forward to continuing dialogue with the Government of Canada, parliamentarians and First Nations as the process of repealing section 67 proceeds.





Footnotes

1 In this report "First Nations" is used, in general, to refer to First Nation governments operating under the Indian Act and which are statutorily recognized as "band governments". This is not meant to diminish the status of other Aboriginal Nations and communities including those of the Métis and Inuit peoples and others that operate outside the Indian Act.

2 These grounds are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability or conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted.

3 Thus, for example, the CHRA was used to successfully challenge provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act because they discriminated on the basis of sex.

4 The Commission also opposes limitations with regard to mandatory retirement, pension plans created prior to 1977, and the fact that some federally incarcerated inmates cannot file complaints against the Correctional Service of Canada.

5 In May 2005 the Supreme Court ruled that, with limited exceptions, the CHRA also applies to employees of Parliament, Canada (House of Commons) v. Vaid, 2005 SCC 30.

6 By-laws enacted pursuant to the Indian Act can have wide applications covering many areas of activity.

7 Desjarlais (Re), [1989] 3 F.C. 605; (1989), 12 C.H.R.R. D/466; [1990] 1 C.N.L.R. 39; 102 N.R. 71 (C.A.).

8 Bill C-25: An Act to Extend the Present Laws in Canada that Proscribe Discrimination and Protect the Privacy of Individuals, 1977.

9 Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, March 10, 1977.

10 Then section 63.

11 Sandra Lovelace was a Canadian Indian who in 1970 lost her status on marrying a white man, per the Indian Act. Lovelace, having exhausted domestic remedies, took her case to the United Nations Committee on Human Rights. She alleged that the Act breached her rights under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights by denying her Indian status and the right to be part of her community and culture. In 1981 the Human Rights Committee ruled in her favour. They found that the Indian Act contravened section 27 of the Covenant, which states, "In those States in which ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities exist, persons belonging to such minorities shall not be denied the right, in community with the other members of their group, to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, or to use their own language."

12 Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, May 25, 1977, page 45-46.

13 House of Commons Debates, June 2, 1977, page 6201.

14 Section 28 read, "Notwithstanding anything in this Charter, the rights and freedoms referred to in it are guaranteed equally to male and female persons."

15 Legislation to abolish section 67 was introduced in 1992 and again in 2001. However, in both cases, as a result of issues not related to section 67, the legislation was not enacted.

16 Winnipeg School Division No.1 v. Craton, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 150.

17 Newfoundland (Treasury Board) v. N.A.P.E., [2004] 3 S.C.R. 381.

18 [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493.

19 E/CN.4/2005/88/Add.3: Report of Rodolfo Stavenhagen, Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people - Mission to Canada. The reference in the last sentence to the government's 2003 agreement in principle to repeal section 67 refers to the inclusion of a repeal provision in an omnibus First Nations Governance Bill which subsequently did not proceed.

20 For a copy of the Accord see: http://www.afn.ca/article.asp?id=1218

21 Report of the Aboriginal Justice Inquiry of Manitoba, Chapter 13: Aboriginal Women, online: http://www.ajic.mb.ca/volumel/chapter13.html

22 Walking Arm-in-Arm to Resolve the Issue of On-Reserve Matrimonial Real Property, Report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, June 2005. See: http://www.parl.gc.ca/InfocomDoc/38/1/p ... rp05-e.htm.

23 Evidence of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development (hereinafter called Evidence), 12 April 2005.

24 Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests), [2004] 3 S.C.R. 511, 2004 SCC 73.

25 Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, World Conference on Human Rights, Vienna, 14-25 June 1993, A/Conf.157/23 See: http://www.unhchr.ch/huridocda/huridoca.nsf/(Symbol)/A.CONF.157.23.En?OpenDocument.

26 For example, an airline can refuse to hire a pilot who does not have the visual acuity required to safely fly an aircraft.

27 Jacobs v. Mohawk Council of Khanawake (1998), Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

28 For example, section 24. (1) of the Ontario Human Rights Code provides:

The right under section 5 to equal treatment with respect to employment is not infringed where:

a) a religious, philanthropic, educational, fraternal or social institution or organization that is primarily engaged in serving the interests of persons identified by their race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, creed, sex, age, marital status, same-sex partnership status or disability employs only, or gives preference in employment to, persons similarly identified if the qualification is a reasonable and bona fide qualification because of the nature of the employment;

29 It should be noted that the Commission and Tribunal have neither the capacity nor the expertise to interpret sections 25 and 35.

30 Promoting Equality: A New Vision, Canadian Human Rights Act Review Panel, 2000.

31 This reflects section 35(4), Constitution Act, 1982:

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, the aboriginal and treaty rights referred to in subsection (1) are guaranteed equally to male and female persons.

32 This wording was included in Bill C-7, the First Nations Governance Act, which died on the Order Paper when Parliament was prorogued in fall 2003.

33 The interpretative provision would be used only in relation to complaints against an Aboriginal government organization. This phrase excludes DIAND and other federal departments. It includes all Aboriginal government organizations and not just First Nation governments. Consequently, organizations such as school boards and hospital authorities would be covered by the clause.

34 While this wording makes specific reference to gender equality, it has also been suggested that reference also be made to other vulnerable groups such as persons with disabilities and two-spirited people (gays, lesbians, bi-sexual and transgendered people).

35 Submission of the Canadian Human Rights Commission to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, January 28, 2003.

36 Under section 27(2) of the CHRA, the Commission has the authority to enact guidelines on how the Act should be applied with regard to a particular class or group of complaints:

27(2) The Commission may, on application or on its own initiative, by order, issue a guideline setting out the extent to which and the manner in which, in the opinion of the Commission, any provision of this Act applies in a class of cases described in the guideline.

Guideline binding

27(3) A guideline issued under subsection (2) is, until it is revoked or modified, binding on the Commission and any member or panel assigned under subsection 49(2) with respect to the resolution of a complaint under Part III regarding a case falling within the description contained in the guideline.

Guidelines under the Act are "statutory instruments" giving them the same legal weight as regulations. The constitutionality of the Commission's guideline making power was affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of Bell Canada v. Canadian Telephone Employees Association, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 884.

37 Corbiere v. Canada (Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 203.

38 The case of Azak v. Nisga'a Nation heard before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal considered the issue of whether a human rights complaint against an institution of the Nisga'a Nation should be heard by the B.C. Tribunal or referred to the Commission. The Tribunal found that institutions created by federal legislation under the Nisga'a land claims agreement came under the jurisdiction of the CHRA.

39 See: http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/nr/prs/s-d2003/wst_e.pdf.

[FirstNations Human Rights]

CAP and Harper Government
Playing politics with First Nations human rights

News and Comment
by Tehaliwaskenhas
Bob Kennedy, (Oneida)
Copyright
Turtle Island Native Network
http://www,tyrtleisland.org

October 12th, 2007

This is interesting - as the Harper Government prepares to bring back daily politics Monday, with the resumption of Parliament - the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) is speaking out on an issue the Prime Minister and his Indian Affairs Minister will applaud.

CAP's Patrick Brazeau, called on the federal government to reintroduce legislation "that aims to ensure that First Nations peoples living on Indian Act reserves have access to the same measures for protection of human rights as all other Canadians".

In fact, the Harper Government has said it wants to repeal Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act that shields Indian Act matters. It is the only exception in the Act that affects any individual mainly on the basis of race.

"At every turn, the continued imposition of the Indian Act blots out any ray of hope for rights protection for our brothers and sisters living on Indian Act reserves. To see this occurring in Canada in the 21st century is wrong for so many reasons", said the CAP leader. The politics plays into this picture, because CAP is a strong supporter of the Conservative government that blames the Opposition for delaying tactics at the Aboriginal Affairs Committee.

Discrimination must end - but when and how?

In fact, the Opposition MPs support the stance of the Assembly of First Nations, that full, meaningful consultation with First Nations is required, plus adequate resources to address any impacts the legislative changes will have in the reserve-based communities. "First Nations people have been waiting thirty years for the protection of their rights to be dealt with," added Brazeau.

AFN National Chief Phil Fontaine said, "The Assembly of First Nations supports the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This position was tabled with the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs during its hearings into Bill C-44, which would repeal section 67 of the Act.

Unfortunately, Bill C-44 is flawed and unworkable. Our position is supported by many other experts, including the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Bar Association, the Native Women's Association of Canada and many others. Anyone who calls for the re-introduction of this flawed legislation is out of step with the legal community and First Nations people. It is unclear why anyone would say that flawed legislation is the way to go. We are prepared to work with the federal government, our own people, and human rights experts to create an approach that is truly effective and workable. First Nations know better than anyone in Canada about the need to protect and uphold our rights, and we are ready and willing to work with all partners on a new approach."

- - -

Assembly of First Nations National Chief Restates and Reaffirms First Nations Full Support for Human Rights

OTTAWA, Oct. 12, 2007

Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine said today that First Nations support human rights protection for First Nations and also support the repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA).

"The Assembly of First Nations supports the repeal of section 67 of the
Canadian Human Rights Act. This position was tabled with the Parliamentary
Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs during its hearings into Bill C-44,
which would repeal section 67 of the Act," National Chief Fontaine said.

"Unfortunately, Bill C-44 is flawed and unworkable. Our position is supported
by many other experts, including the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the
Canadian Bar Association, the Native Women's Association of Canada and many others. Anyone who calls for the re-introduction of this flawed legislation is out of step with the legal community and First Nations people."

"The federal government should work with First Nation governments to
provide even greater human rights protection for all First Nations citizens.
If the government reintroduces fundamentally flawed legislation that cannot be implemented or enforced then it can only do further harm to our people. We have the solutions. Let's work together and get the Bill done right."

"It is unclear why anyone would say that flawed legislation is the way to go," National Chief Fontaine said. "We are prepared to work with the federal
government, our own people, and human rights experts to create an approach
that is truly effective and workable. First Nations know better than anyone in
Canada about the need to protect and uphold our rights, and we are ready and
willing to work with all partners on a new approach."

The Assembly of First Nations is the national organization representing
First Nations citizens in Canada.

Attachment: Backgrounder with Excerpts from Submissions on Bill C-44 by
the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Bar Association to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development

Backgrounder
------------

In summary, Bill C-44 was introduced in 2006 as a way to repeal section 67 of the CHRA, which states that the CHRA does not apply to First Nations reserves. The concept is supported but the Bill had a number of fatal flaws. These include:

<<
- The lack of any capacity by First Nations to deal with human rights
complaints, which is not addressed in the Bill (the Chief
Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission stated:
"implementation will not be successful without adequate resources
to build needed capacity.")

- A completely inadequate timeframe of 6 months to implement the Bill (The Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission
recommended that implementation would require: "...at a minimum 18 months and would benefit from a period as long as 30 months.")

- a complete lack of consultation with First Nations as to how best
to bring about this change in a workable manner (the Canadian Bar
Association stated: "without proper consultation and capacity
building with First Nations individuals in relation to the
application of the CHRA, the Bill is unlikely to amount to
effective access in many First Nations across the country")

- the lack of any mechanism to balance individual rights with First
Nations collective rights, protected in the Constitution (the Chief
Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission stated:

"An interpretative provision is, in our submission, imperative to give
application to the inherent right to self-government and is
fundamental to developing an appropriate system for First Nations
human rights redress.")
>>

The following are excerpts from submissions on Bill C-44 by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development as presented by Jennifer Lynch, Q.C., Chief Commissioner, Canadian Human Rights Commission before the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on Bill C-44: An Act to Amend the Canadian Human Rights Act April 19, 2007.

Concern: Bill C-44 Lacks an Interpretive Clause

The need for an interpretative provision is one important area where
differences of view have been voiced. Bill C-44 is silent on this matter. With
respect, we submit that it should not be. First Nations communities and people have a unique history and special status in the Canadian constitutional and legal system. Their existing Aboriginal and treaty rights are affirmed in the Constitution, have been progressively confirmed by the Courts and are
recognized by governments at all levels.

An interpretative provision is, in our submission, imperative to give
application to the inherent right to self-government and is fundamental to
developing an appropriate system for First Nations human rights redress. An
interpretative provision would help to ensure that individual claims are
considered in light of legitimate collective rights and interests.

Concern: Length of Transition Period is Too Short

The Commission submits that six months is not sufficient time to allow First Nations and the Commission to properly prepare for repeal (of section 67). ...

The need for local level systems to resolve conflict and provide redress
of complaints is critical to the success of repeal. ...To allow this to happen, the Commission and First Nations must embark on an appreciative process of listening and learning; designing and building; and finally implementing and realizing a new First Nation integrated human rights and conflict management system, based on core principles that can be adapted to the needs of different communities, cultures and traditions. ...All of this will take time to realize; indeed it will be an ongoing process. This is why the Commission believes that a longer transition period is critical if we are to get this process off to a good start. This, in addition to the need for time to develop an interpretative provision, will, we submit, require at a minimum 18 months and would benefit from a period as long as 30 months.

Concern: Inadequate Resources

I would like to articulate clearly the imperative need of ensuring that
both First Nations and the Commission have the resources needed to ensure that implementation is successful. No matter how well an interpretative provision is drafted or how long the transitional period is, implementation will not be successful without adequate resources to build needed capacity.

The following are excerpts from the submission by the Canadian Bar
Association Submission on Bill C-44 to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal
Affairs and Northern Development, April 2007:

Concern: Lack of Consultation and Capacity Building

(W)ithout proper consultation and capacity building with First Nations
individuals in relation to the application of the CHRA, the Bill is unlikely
to amount to effective access in many First Nations across the country,
particularly in geographically remote regions.

As with First Nations individuals, consultation and capacity building
with First Nations governments are prerequisites to the successful application
of the CHRA by those governments.

Concern: Bill C-44 Requires Amendments

Bill C-44 must be amended to ensure the necessary preliminary steps are taken. These include full consultation with First Nations, the introduction of an interpretive clause and adequate time and resources for bands to prepare for the scope and number of changes and challenges that may follow.

Much in the Indian Act requires human rights scrutiny. Review or repeal of the Indian Act may well be overdue. In our view, if the underlying
intention or even the likely result of Bill C-44 would be to gradually erode
the Indian Act through piecemeal amendments, the better approach would be to meet that challenge directly and comprehensively, with appropriate attention and a full public policy debate of the myriad of important and complex issues involved.


For further information: www.afn.ca
- - -

CAP CALLS FOR AN END TO DISCRIMINATION OF FIRST NATIONS PEOPLES GOVERNED BY INDIAN ACT

NATIONAL CHIEF CALLS ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO RE-INTRODUCE RIGHTS PROTECTION

(Ottawa ON, October 12, 2007) Canada’s youngest national Aboriginal leader today called on the federal government to reintroduce legislation that aims to ensure that First Nations peoples living on Indian Act reserves have access to the same measures for protection of human rights as all other Canadians.

Patrick Brazeau, National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) issued the challenge today in Ottawa at a joint news conference with former Canadian Human Rights Chief Commissioner, Maxwell Yalden. Mr. Yalden was also a former member of the United Nations Human Rights Committee.

Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act shields Indian Act matters from the application of the provisions of the Act, including things such as who is eligible for registration under the Indian Act. It is the only exception in the Act that affects any individual mainly on the basis of race.

“At every turn, the continued imposition of the Indian Act blots out any ray of hope for rights protection for our brothers and sisters living on Indian Act reserves. To see this occurring in Canada in the 21st century is wrong for so many reasons”, said the National Chief.

The National Chief was clear in his call for reinstatement of the proposed legislation that sought to repeal Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act: “We were pleased when the federal government took the step to put an end to the discriminatory measures currently in place which prevented First Nations citizens from receiving the same degree of human rights protection as all other Canadians.

Human rights, and measures taken by the state to ensure their protection, are fundamental to a free, democratic and accountable society,” said Chief Brazeau.

“There can be no cause for delay, no reason to wait. Canada and all national Aboriginal leaders have a moral duty, and an obligation to First Nations people to put aside partisan views and to act with clarity and conviction. First Nations people have been waiting thirty years for the protection of their rights to be dealt with,” affirmed Chief Brazeau.

“How can it be that Canada’s First Peoples are not entitled to protection of their human rights? Our people have placed their trust in us to deal with this matter. What legitimate reason can there be to continue to deny them this essential right and threaten their freedom?” asked the National Chief.

Mr. Yalden was quick to affirm Chief Brazeau’s position. "From the very beginnings, over thirty years ago, of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, we have been calling for the repeal of Section 67. It’s time to get on with the job".



- 30 -


For further information
abo-peoples.org


Speaking Notes for Congress of Aboriginal Peoples
National Chief Patrick Brazeau

For a News Conference on

Protection of Human Rights for First Nations Citizens



Ottawa, Ontario
October 12, 2007

{Check Against Delivery}
Good morning, Ladies and Gentlemen.

Thank you for being here today, and for taking an interest in what I believe to be a matter of enormous importance to Aboriginal Peoples in Canada in 2007.

My name is Patrick Brazeau and I am the national leader of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. Our organization represents the interests and aspirations of Canada’s off-reserve, non-status and Métis peoples.

We’re here today to talk about human rights, and the need to ensure that all Canadians are entitled to, and indeed receive, protection of their human rights.

I recently had the opportunity to attend the United Nations to witness the signing of the Declaration on Indigenous Rights.

While Canada’s position on that declaration was disappointing to me, I recognize that, compared to the other nations of this world, Aboriginal Canadians have the potential to benefit from modern democratic and legal instruments that do not exist in other parts of the world.

One of the most fundamental of these democratic and legal instruments is the Canadian Human Rights Act. The Canadian Human Rights Act protects nearly all Canadian citizens from discrimination.

Yes, most, but not all Canadians are able to benefit from the provisions made available through the Canadian Human Rights Act.

It is hard to believe that for over 760,000 Registered Status Indians in Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Act does not apply.

There are those in many countries around the world who struggle to achieve even the most basic of human rights.

There are those who must flee their countries of origin in search of a better place, where the protection of human rights is embraced and treasured.
Canada is one such country that ensures those who choose this country, have access to protection of their human rights, which is as it should be in a nation as free and democratic as ours.

Yet, for some of Canada’s indigenous peoples, this is not the case.

I am a Registered status Indian under the Indian Act, and a member of the Algonquin Nation.

I live in Canada today without the full protection of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This has been the case all of my life.

How can this be, in a country as free and democratic as Canada?

Well, at root of the problem is the Indian Act. This piece of governing legislation is a statute that neither I, or indeed any Canadian, can regard with pride.

Since 1982, when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into being, it has been demonstrated and proven in the courts time and again that the Indian Act is part of a racist and colonial legacy that makes it legal in Canada today to discriminate against Aboriginal peoples.

In 1977, when the Canadian Human Rights Act was passed, I was two years old. At that time, Parliament decided that my access to the rights protection afforded by that important piece of legislation could be delayed for a few more years.

It was believed, at that time, that a delay was necessary to allow governments to consult and prepare for the transition that would happen when the Canadian Human Rights Act finally cast a human rights light on the Indian Act.

Now, thirty years later, I am a father. Since then, there have been eight different Prime Ministers - both Liberal and Conservative – leading successive governments in the House of Commons.

And the basic human rights protection that I have been waiting thirty years for is now being denied to my children.

My parents, my generation, and my children have never had full access to the Canadian Human Rights Act where the Indian Act is concerned.

As a consequence, the light of human rights protection does not shine upon us - we live in a legislative shadow.

At every turn, the continued imposition of the Indian Act blots out any ray of hope for rights protection.

While elected officials - both Aboriginal and Parliamentary - continue to argue and debate this issue, the third generation has now been born.

As an Aboriginal person, a Registered Status Indian, a father, and a leader, I am here to tell you today that I cannot - I will not – and we must not -- accept the continued denial of basic human rights protection to myself, my children and the people that I am obligated to represent and on whose behalf I speak today.

Il est inacceptable que la Loi sur les Indiens ne soit pas encore soumise à la Loi Canadienne sur les droits de la personne.

Il est temps d'agir afin que tous les Indiens puissent avoir pleinement acces à la Commission canadienne des droits de la personne.

Les Indiens ne peuvent comme les autres Canadiens bénéficier de la protection de la Loi canadienne sur les droits de la personne.

Je demande aux Libéraux, au Bloc et au NPD de cesser leur obstruction quant à la protection des droits fondamentaux des Indiens.

Anyone who tells you that it is important to defer protection of basic human rights to Aboriginal people in Canada is focused on other needs than those of the people.

Governments exist to serve people, and to meet their needs.

I cannot - I will not – and I must not -- accept any approach that places the needs of any institution or group ahead of those of the people at the grassroots level.

Justice delayed, is indeed justice denied.

The people I represent need the discrimination to stop today. They need access to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. They need justice.

Democracy is sometimes imperfect. It challenges us to deal courageously and honestly with difficult issues.

Today, I am challenging Canada, and each and every Canadian, to insist on the repeal of Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, without further delay.

Equally, I invite the leaders of the Assembly of First Nations and the Native Women’s Association of Canada to join us in this important endeavour.

I know that Canadians are concerned with the plight of Aboriginal peoples in Canada.

I know that they want to address the legacy that colonialism has had on Aboriginal people.

I also know that Aboriginal peoples are sometimes angry and frustrated about their place in Canadian society, and by the nature and essence of their relationship to Canada.

It is time for us to act together, as a nation, and work to address this unfinished business.

When Parliament prorogued in September, the latest attempt to repeal Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act died on the Order Paper.

Next week, the Government of Canada will lay out its vision and work plan for the next session of Parliament.

On behalf of Aboriginal Canadians, I urge the Government of Canada to bring back before the House of Commons, legislation to finally repeal Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

But the onus for change is not solely on the shoulders of Parliamentarians. Every one of us - as citizens of this great country – has to take on this challenge.

If you are Aboriginal and have never written or spoken to your Member of Parliament, now is the time.

Make them fulfill their duty to you as Parliamentarians. Insist on democracy. Demand justice. Speak up for yourself.

If you are not Aboriginal, but want to help us, now is the time.

Your Member of Parliament has an obligation to you as well. Contact them.

Let them know that continued exclusion of Aboriginal people from the Canadian Human Rights Act offends you. Make sure they know that protection of basic human rights for Aboriginal peoples in Canada cannot be delayed again.

From the perspective of Aboriginal Canadians right now, Canada is about discrimination – rather than being a nation of inclusion and protection of rights for all.

I want to change this. We need to change this. We have an opportunity to change this.

With the repeal of Section 67, Canada and the leadership of national Aboriginal organizations have the opportunity to make positive and significant change in the relationship between the Government and Aboriginal Canadians.

As I’ve said, the time is now.

Meegwetch, Thank you, and I’d be pleased now to answer any questions you may have.

MORE . . .
http://www.abo-peoples.org/policy/Section_67.html

[Human Rights "On-Res]

Human rights protection for First Nations people living "on-reserve"

News and Comment
by Tehaliwaskenhas
Bob Kennedy, ( Onyota'a:ka / Oneida)
Copyright
Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

November 13, 2007

Despite opposition from the Assembly of First Nations - Chuck Strahl, the Minister of Indian Affairs today reinstated legislation to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act - the section that prevents First Nations people governed by the Indian Act, from receiving the same legal protection against discrimination that all other Canadians have.

National Chief Phil Fontaine has made it clear that First Nations ( reserve-based communities ) need human rights equality, but the government must provide meaningful consultation on how to proceed, and adequate resources so communities can cope with the impacts the change will bring.

However, bolstered by support from the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples ( representing off-reserve interests only ), the Harper government is proceeding the way it wants.

In a news release, the Indian Affairs Minister stated, "Section 67 was meant to be a temporary measure to allow certain reforms of the Indian Act, but that was thirty years ago. Reinstatement of Bill C-44 represents this Government's second attempt at rectifying this historic wrong. It will provide legal protection to some of the most vulnerable members of Canadian society".

Originally introduced in December 2006, as Bill C-44, the reinstated bill will return to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for study. ( previously the bill was stalled in the committee as opposition politicians sided with First Nations leaders who testified and provided clear perspectives on why the legislation must only be introduced if community interests are addressed. )

The Indian Affairs news release today, went on to say "Acknowledging the testimony expressed by witnesses that appeared on Bill C-44, Minister Strahl indicated that the government intends to move the same amendments in Committee that it had proposed prior to the prorogation of Parliament. These include an amendment to extend the transition period from six to eighteen months and new language to define to whom the transition period will apply".
- - -

Background on Bill C-44 / First Nations and Government's perspectives . . .
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =7861#7861
- - -

Government of Canada Moves to Deliver Human Rights Protection for Aboriginal Canadians, Again

November 13, 2007

OTTAWA, ONTARIO

The Honourable Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians, today reinstated legislation to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This section prevents First Nations people governed by the Indian Act from receiving the same legal protection against discrimination that is afforded to all other Canadians.

"Section 67 was meant to be a temporary measure to allow certain reforms of the Indian Act, but that was thirty years ago," says Minister Strahl. "Reinstatement of Bill C-44 represents this Government's second attempt at rectifying this historic wrong. It will provide legal protection to some of the most vulnerable members of Canadian society."

Originally introduced in December 2006, as Bill C-44, the reinstated bill will return to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development for study. Acknowledging the testimony expressed by witnesses that appeared on Bill C-44, Minister Strahl indicated that the government intends to move the same amendments in Committee that it had proposed prior to the prorogation of Parliament. These include an amendment to extend the transition period from six to eighteen months and new language to define to whom the transition period will apply.

"As such, I call upon all the opposition members of the committee to proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of the bill as quickly as possible," added Minister Strahl.

"Passage of the bill will mark a significant step forward in fulfilling the Government's ongoing commitment to the preservation of individual rights for all Canadians, including First Nations individuals," said the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, the Honourable Rob Nicholson, P.C., Q.C., M.P. for Niagara Falls.

This release is also available on the Internet at www.inac.gc.ca

[Human Rights LAW]

Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine seeks support and assurances from the Federal Government on proposed changes to Bill C-21

OTTAWA, Nov. 20, 2007

Today, the Standing Committee agreed to proceed with a clause by clause review of Bill C-21 (formally Bill C-44) -- an amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The previous bill died when the government prorogued this fall, however, the bill was reinstated in the House of Commons last week without any amendments.

"First and foremost I want to re-iterate that the Assembly of First Nations (AFN) fully supports the collective and individual rights of all First Nations people and as such, we support the Canadian Human Rights Act," said AFN National Chief Fontaine. "However, we would like to see an adequate transition and implementation period for the legislation. Just as the federal government was able to conduct an impact assessment of the bill on its own operations prior to its introduction, we too need the time and resources for a similar opportunity to assess this bill's impact on First Nation communities," the National Chief added.

"We want to work with the government to ensure that all human rights are upheld and maintained," said National Chief Fontaine. "We want a commitment from the Minister to work jointly with First Nations to identify the extent of preparation, capacity, and fiscal and human resources required to comply with the application of the Act. Our commitment to human rights is firm and was demonstrated in our support for the passage of the United Nations Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in September of this year."

To achieve the necessary balance of individual and inherent Aboriginal and Treaty rights, the AFN also recommends that Bill C-21 include interpretative and non-derogation clauses. All of these concerns were previously brought forward to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development last spring and summer. At that time the committee heard from the AFN, along with 20 other presentations. Those presentations indicated a need for modest and practical amendments similar to what was proposed by the AFN.

The Assembly of First Nations is the national organization representing First Nations citizens in Canada. www.afn.ca
- - -

Repeal of S.67 Requires Consultations and Resources - NWAC

Ottawa, ON (November 16, 2007) – Ensuring Aboriginal women have legal protection against discrimination as afforded to all other Canadians is a top priority with the Native Women’s Association of Canada (NWAC). This week’s re-introduction of Bill C-21 by the federal government to repeal section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is premature. The repeal of section 67 must take into account the concerns identified by NWAC with both the process and the Bill itself.

NWAC President Beverley Jacobs has made numerous presentations before the House of Commons Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development urging that any repeal of section 67 be delayed for up to 36 months to allow for adequate and meaningful consultations to clearly identify the potential impacts of the pending legislation. Such consultation is, in fact, required by section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 and the Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized this requirement in a number of cases. It sets a dangerous precedent for the federal government to change legislation without consultation with Aboriginal peoples, as required by law.

President Jacobs says, “Yes, we have waited three decades but I am concerned that fast tracking this process now, without proper consultation, will actually hurt more Aboriginal women than it will benefit. From our past experience and lobby efforts, equitable and effective access to human rights requires much more than simply changing the black letter of the law.”

President Jacobs also added, “Twenty-five years after having the Charter, NWAC is well aware that having rights on paper does not guarantee the ability of all individuals to exercise those rights. NWAC believes that consultation with Aboriginal peoples and specifically, Aboriginal women, is necessary to ensuring the rights are meaningful and exercisable. We are also well aware that membership provisions under Bill C-31, off-reserve rights, health, housing and education policies as well as the continuing lack of a matrimonial real property law regime that applies on reserve are issues that the federal crown will most likely see complaints filed about. The attempted resolutions of these issues in the past created a lot of disunity and harm in our communities and we are not convinced that the human rights process is well equipped to address these issues.”

Further, President Jacobs questions, “What happened to the Standing Committee decision during the emergency meeting this past July where it was decided to delay the repeal process for 10 months to allow for consultations?” Instead, the Conservative government has rejected its Committee’s own recommendation and is moving rapidly ahead with its own agenda.

NWAC believes that the federal government is required to do more than the simple job of writing repeal legislation. They must take into account the impact of 30 years of being statutorily barred from the exercise of human rights by Aboriginal persons. President Jacobs reiterated, “Most First Nations communities have no relationship with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and such an imposed form of ‘formal equality’ may feel very much like further colonialism. It is important for both the CHRC and First Nations communities to have the resources to build a relationship that acknowledges and respects human rights.” This is the only way equal rights for all can be promised.

NWAC remains steadfast that a repeal of section 67 is in the interests of Aboriginal women, but the repeal must take into account the concerns identified with both the process and the Bill itself to ensure that the human rights of Aboriginal women are fully protected.

The NWAC is an aggregate of 13 native women’s organizations and is the national voice of Aboriginal women in Canada.

–30 –

For further information:

Robert McDonald, Team Lead of Communications and Education
(613) 850-6922 mobile
rmcdonald@nwac-hq.org

Joshua Kirkey, Media Coordinator
(613) 722-3033 ext. 231
jkirkey@nwac-hq.org
- - -

Bill C-21 - The AFNQL asks for a year's delay

WENDAKE, QC, Nov. 16, 2007

The Assembly of First Nations of Quebec and Labrador (AFNQL) is deeply disappointed that the federal government has opted to reintroduce a bill largely unchanged from Bill C-44 from the last Parliament.

Bill C-44 was debated at the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs last spring where it heard from the First Nations that Canada's Constitution obliges that any Federal initiative that impacts the rights of the First Nations must first be discussed with us and is subject to our consent. Bill C-21, like Bill C-44 before it, will affect our rights and neither the consultation nor the consent has occurred.

The AFNQL works hard to maintain an attitude of respect toward the Federal Government when that element essential to good relations is not reciprocated. As leaders of modern First Nations planning well into the future for the well being of our peoples we are almost incredulous that we must face such repeated insults by Canada to our status as nations and to our collective rights.

The AFNQL hereby repeats its position presented to the Standing Committee
in spring 2007, that has two basic elements: " Delay the bill for a year to allow for proper consultations with First Nations and provide adequate funds to First Nations so that we can properly evaluate its effects and to develop sound means to mitigate any possible harm to our collective rights ", states the AFNQL Chief, Ghislain Picard.

The Assembly of First Nations of Québec and Labrador is the Chiefs of the
First Nations of Québec and Labrador regional organization.


For further information: Alain Garon, Communications Officer, AFNQL,
(418) 842-5020, Cellular: (418) 956-5720

[First Nations HumanRights]

The Chair of the Assembly of First Nations Women's Council, and other female chiefs, are concerned about the implementation process of Bill C-21

OTTAWA, Dec. 4, 2007

The Assembly of First Nations Women's Council says the federal government should work with First Nations to assess the impact of Bill C-21 (formally known as Bill C-44) on First Nations communities.

"The application of the Canadian Human Rights Act must be implemented in
an orderly and responsible manner that respects the rights of First Nations
women and children who will be significantly impacted by this bill", said AFN
Women's Council Chair, Kathleen McHugh. "However, female leaders have not been afforded an opportunity to address how this Act can be implemented so that capacity concerns of First Nation governments are addressed. In addition, our collective inherent and treaty rights must not be diminished or adversely
impacted," added Chair McHugh.

The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development is planning to examine Bill C-21 clause by clause on December 4, 2007. Last spring, MPs on the committee called upon many witnesses to present their views on the bill. Twenty out of twenty-one of those presentations indicated the necessity to make some amendments to the bill. One of the presenters was Chief Marie Anne Daywalker-Pelletier of the Okanese First Nation in Saskatchewan and Chair of Saskatchewan First Nations' Women's Commission of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations.

"It is no secret many homes on reserves are crowded and below acceptable living standards and some communities do not have adequate drinking water. The federal government is responsible for the deplorable water and housing situation many First Nation communities face. While Bill C-21 may provide an
important opportunity to address this crisis, First Nation Governments are on
the front lines and must also be afforded assistance to prepare for these
types of complaints," Chief Daywalker-Pelletier reiterated today.

The Assembly of First Nations is the national organization representing
First Nations citizens in Canada. www.afn.ca

[Speed Up Human Rights]

Brazeau's Letter to the Editor
December 8th, 2007

Throughout the world, Canada is widely recognized for its commitment to democracy, freedom and the protection of human rights. Given this, it's ironic that certain parliamentarians aren't more eager to ensure that all of Canada's citizens share the same protection of their human rights.

The federal government has introduced legislation to ensure that the fundamental human rights of First Nations people are protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act. But the opposition seems unwilling to pass it without delay.

The Congress of Aboriginal Peoples has been engaging in a dialogue since early fall with members of Canada's off- reserve aboriginal population to enhance the proptection of their rights.

We've learned that a majority of the human rights violations that Bill C-21 seeks to redress are directed at aboriginal women, who feel they have no means to deal with their complaints and that there is an urgent need to repeal Section 67 of the Human Rights Act.

Effortsto deal with this have been going on for 30 years. That is more than long enough for consultation. There is no reason for further delay.

The leaders of some First Nations communities seem preoccupied with timing and their demand for further consultation. What about the concerns of the people? Do they not matter?

Those people are telling us that Canada needs to get on with this matter and grant them the same accommodation and protection of rights as all other Canadians.

There's no agenda here other than ensuring that the rights of some of Canada's most disadvantaged citizens are protected.

Patrick Brazeau, national Chief, Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, Ottawa
- - -

Brazeau urges Parliament to move immediately on passage of human rights protection legislation

No need for further consultation or to deny Aboriginal rights

OTTAWA, Dec. 4, 2007

In the wake of the federal government's recent introduction in the House of Commons of legislation to ensure that the fundamental human rights of First Nations people are protected under the Canadian Human Rights Act, Canada's youngest national Aboriginal leader is calling for the voices of First Nations women to be heard by Members of Parliament to ensure that the Bill is passed without delay.

National Chief Patrick Brazeau of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples (CAP) today stressed the need for First Nations women and youth, and those who support their plight for protection of their human rights, to ensure that
their position on the matter is made known to Parliamentarians.

Representatives from the Congress of Aboriginal people have been taking
part in a dialogue since early fall with members of Canada's off reserve
Aboriginal population. This countrywide dialogue is aimed at enhancing the
protection of Human Rights for First Nations people living away from Indian
Act reserves.

CAP has undertaken a series of consultations with grassroots Aboriginal
people concerning the Repeal of section 67 among other issues. These meetings have taken place in selected urban areas across the country including
Winnipeg, Sturgeon Falls, Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina, Thunder Bay, Vancouver, and Prince George.

The conclusion of these meetings, clearly demonstrate that an overwhelming majority of the human rights violations are directed towards Aboriginal women. These women feel they have no appropriate mechanisms in place to deal effectively with their complaints and that there is an urgent to need to deal with this problem through the repeal of section 67 of the Human Rights Act.

The Congress has been urging all Canadians to let their Members of
Parliament know that they are in strong support in favor of the immediate
repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which does not
currently permit human rights complaints of First Nations peoples to be
directly dealt with, as is the case for all other Canadians.

The National Chief reiterated the call to action in the face of opposition by some in the First Nations community to making immediate moves to repeal Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

"Any suggestion that there hasn't been an opportunity to address how this
proposed Act can be implemented so that capacity concerns of First Nation
governments are addressed is not dealing with fact. At the heart of this
matter are peoples' rights. There's no evidence at all to support that granting access to First Nations peoples of the same redress mechanisms as all other Canadians denies inherent and treaty rights in any way," emphasized National Chief Brazeau.

"Efforts that seek to deal with this have been ongoing throughout the last thirty years. That is more than long enough for consultation. After such a lengthy period there can be absolutely no reason to delay forward movement on such a fundamental matter any further. This is a major step forward for the rights and interests of First Nations peoples at the grassroots level. I've heard it firsthand in communities across the country in the past two months, and particularly from women and youth," said Chief Brazeau.

While certain of the leadership in First Nations communities seem preoccupied with concerns over timing and their demand for further consultation, Brazeau has been dealing with the concerns of the people on the ground.

Brazeau concluded, "People are feeling frustrated by the needless delays.
They're telling us that Canada needs to get on with this matter and grant them
the same accommodation and protection of rights as all other Canadians. All
Canadians and their parliamentarians need to know this. We intend on shouting
this message from the rooftops until the legislation passes. There's absolutely no agenda at play here other than ensuring that First Nations people are afforded exactly the same measures of protection of human rights as any other Canadian. After thirty years of delay, we need to get this dealt with by Parliament now".

www.abo-peoples.org

[Human Rights - Backfire]

News and Comment
by Tehaliwaskenhas - Bob Kennedy ( Onyota'a:ka / Oneida )
Copyright
Turtle Island Native Network
http://www.turtleisland.org

April 11, 2008

After trying to bulldoze it through without changes recommended by First Nations, now the Harper Government has pulled the plug on its own legislation Bill C-21, an Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Since 1977, Section 67 has prevented First Nations people from lodging complaints of discrimination against the federal and First Nations governments in relation to acts and decisions authorized by the Indian Act.

This week's decision by the Conservative government to repeal its own legislation giving First Nations people full rights protection under the Canadian Human Rights Act, follows Opposition and First Nations efforts to introduce amendments.

Liberal MP, Indian Affairs critic Anita Neville said, "This bill would give First Nations people full rights protection under the Human Rights Act. It is inexcusable that the Conservatives would kill their own legislation because they don't like some of the amendments passed during the committee process. Their refusal to bring back their own legislation is not all that surprising when you take into consideration their opposition to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It sends the wrong message to Aboriginals. It sends the message that the government is not serious about their rights and not serious about their equality."

Amendments put forward by the Opposition, are in line with those called for by the majority of the witnesses who appeared before the committee including the Assembly of First Nations and Native Women's Association. They include a 36 month delay before the Human Rights Act takes force in aboriginal communities, in line with the implementation period recommended by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

"The amendments reflected the views of Aboriginal leadership in this country," said Ms. Neville.

- - -

Bill C-21 An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act
http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISINFO/index.a ... Session=15

Previously reported on this subject . . .
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =7861#7861

More . . .
http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =8497#8497

Also of interest . . .
Canadian Human Rights Commission Aboriginal Initiative
http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/nai_ina/default-en.asp

- - -

The NDP Backgrounder: previously C-44 ( then C-21) an Act to Repeal Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) exempts the Indian Act from the provisions of the CHRA. That means that any decisions or authorities under the Indian Act cannot be challenged under the CHRA. This includes band councils, since they were created by and gain authority from the Indian Act. More importantly, the Conservative government’s decisions on allocation of resources for housing, education and health all fall under Section 67.

During the meetings of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs on C-44, more than 20 groups representing First Nations from across Canada expressed their concern that this bill could have unintended consequences for them. Their main concern was that under-funded band councils would have to reallocate precious resources for housing or education in order to comply with Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decisions. That is why they requested a longer transition time for First Nations, enabling them to better prepare for the implementation of human rights legislation on reserve. However, that transition time will be meaningless if the Conservative government does not offer more resources to band councils to ensure that all residents receive services comparable to those enjoyed by other Canadians.

That concern arises from an omission in the drafting of the bill. There is no interpretive clause that would guide the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Human Rights Tribunal and the courts on how to balance individual human rights with collective rights. Many aboriginal and treaty rights, such as the right to control over reserve land, are held by First Nations as a collective group, not as individuals. First Nations worry that if some guidance on how to balance those rights are not explicitly laid out in legislation, collective rights will suffer.

The Canadian Bar Association warned that without these changes, including an interpretive clause, a longer transition time and a non-derogation clause to ensure existing aboriginal and treaty rights are maintained, C-44 would open the door to decisions that erode First Nations communities’ control over their land and resources.

The NDP does not believe we should correct the mistakes of the past by making mistakes now. The current version of C-44 is flawed and the Conservatives should take the time to consult properly with First Nations and bring forward legislation that truly protects both collective and individual human rights.

[HumanRightsNow On-Reserve]

Canadian Human Rights Commission Applauds Extension of Rights Laws to First Nations

(Ottawa, June 18, 2008) – The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) celebrates the Royal Assent of Bill C-21 which extends human rights protection to First Nations peoples living under the Indian Act.

“After more than 30 years, First Nations peoples in Canada finally have access to the same level of fundamental human rights protection that most Canadians take for granted. The passage of this bill is a milestone in the development of human rights law in Canada,” said CHRC Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch, Q.C.

Ms. Lynch was responding to Bill C-21's receiving Royal Assent, repealing section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which denied full access to human rights law under the Act to First Nations peoples.

Effective immediately, the Commission can accept complaints against the federal government dealing with the Indian Act that were previously exempted because of section 67. The bill provides for a three-year transition period before complaints can be received against First Nations governing authorities.

The Commission has entered into discussions with key national Aboriginal organizations to plan for implementation. “The Commission looks forward to working closely with Aboriginal organizations to build a human rights system that reflects and respects Aboriginal peoples’ cultures and traditional laws,” Ms. Lynch said.

The Commission emphasized the importance of the requirement that a joint study be undertaken by the Government of Canada with representatives of First Nations in order to identify what is needed to ensure effective implementation, including fiscal and human resources. The amended bill also includes a non-derogation clause and an interpretive clause.

Royal Assent of Bill C-21 marks the first substantive amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Act since it was changed to recognize the duty to accommodate in 1998.
- - -

OTTAWA, ONTARIO -- 06/19/08 -- The Honourable Chuck Strahl, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Metis and Non-Status Indians, with Patrick Brazeau, National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, today announced that legislation extending fundamental human rights protections to all First Nations communities has received Royal Assent.

"Passage of Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Human Rights Act marks a significant turning point in the relationship between First Nations and the Government of Canada," says Minister Strahl. "It underscores this government's strong commitment to protecting the human rights of all Canadians."

"First Nations citizens governed by the Indian Act have waited thirty years for this simple yet significant accommodation," said Patrick Brazeau, National Chief of the Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. "We view it as another constructive, meaningful step on the road to recognizing and responding to the real needs of Canada's First Nations citizens, both on- and off-reserve. First Nations citizens can now finally enjoy the same protection of their human rights as all other Canadians have had available to them for the past

thirty years."

Repealing section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is the culmination of a concerted effort by the federal government to bring an end to a legislative gap that has left many individuals, mainly those living on reserves, without full legal access to the Act.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) has hailed the repeal of s. 67, and has announced its commitment to work in close collaboration with First Nations organizations and the Government of Canada to design and build a human rights system that reflects and respects Aboriginal peoples' cultures and traditional laws.

Bill C-21 was reinstated and deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development on November 13, 2007, where a number of amendments were made in response to testimony heard from witnesses representing a broad variety of interests.

The bill as amended in the House of Commons and passed by the Senate includes a three year transition period for application of the repeal to First Nation governments, a non-derogation and interpretive clause and the requirement of a joint study to be undertaken by the federal government with representatives of First Nations during the transition period to prepare for implementation. Application of the Act is immediate to the federal government.
- - -

More . . . http://www.turtleisland.org/discussion/ ... =7861#7861

[Human Rights On Reserves]

CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

2008 Annual Report
March 2009

The repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act gave more than 700,000 First Nations people full access to protection under the Act. As a major advocate of repeal for the past thirty years, the Commission has been proactive in providing research, consultations and guidance to First Nations organizations, as all stakeholders prepare to implement this monumental inclusion.
- - -

Repeal of Section 67: Full Equality of First Nations People Before the Law

This year marked a significant milestone in Canadian human rights history. The repeal of section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act in June 2008 lifted the 30-year exemption on complaints related to the Indian Act, and extended full human rights protection to more than 700,000 First Nations people.

Previously, section 67 impaired the Commission’s ability to deal with status issues associated with the Indian Act, housing and education decisions made by Band Councils, and by-laws or federal government decisions pursuant to the Indian Act.

A three-year transition period built into the repeal legislation means that the Canadian Human Rights Act does not yet fully apply to First Nations governments, though the Act now applies to the federal government’s administration of programs and services under the Indian Act.

The Repeal of Section 67

With the Repeal of section 67 the Commission is developing internal legal expertise in Aboriginal law. The Commission has also taken proactive steps to provide specialized training to front-line staff and developed guidelines for receiving complaints from Aboriginal people.

Now more than ever, it is clear that the situation of First Nations people is one of the most important human rights issues confronting Canada today. The reality for many First Nations communities is ongoing poverty and an increasing gap in living conditions compared with other Canadians. Improving this situation will require concrete action by all parties.

With the repeal of section 67, First Nations people now have a new avenue to raise concerns of discrimination. As well, the establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission, and the government’s apology to Aboriginal peoples for abuses experienced in residential schools are also both steps in the right direction.

The repeal of section 67 marks a beginning, not an end. The achievement of repeal brings new challenges, and heightened responsibility. One key responsibility is to increase awareness and understanding of human rights principles within the context of the unique histories and cultures of First Nations in Canada. This enormous task will require a new outlook on collective rights as they are balanced with individual rights and how they fit in the bigger perspective of advancing the human rights of Aboriginal peoples in Canada.

The three-year transition period provides an opportunity for First Nations governments to examine policies and practices to ensure that they respect and recognize the human rights of First Nations people in Canada under the Canadian Human Rights Act.

As we progress towards implementing repeal, the Commission looks forward to working closely with First Nations organizations to build a system that reflects and respects their cultures and traditional laws. Many communities already have their own ways of protecting these rights. The Commission and the Canadian public have much to learn from the rich history of traditional methods, which include healing circles and other elder-assisted processes.

Human rights issues are best resolved in the communities where they occur. Working together, we can ensure that the appropriate processes, resources and capacity are in place to do so.