Feds to get rid of human rights act exemption

Page 12

The section of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) that prevents those living under the Indian Act from filing human rights complaints will soon be a thing of the past if the government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper gets its way.

On Dec. 13, Indian Affairs Minister Jim Prentice introduced legislation to repeal Section 67 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

"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 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."

The Justice minister also weighed in on the subject.

"The repeal of Section 67 represents an important step in furthering and enhancing the individual human rights protections enjoyed by all Canadians," said Vic Toews.

Section 67 of the CHRA states simply that "Nothing in this act affects any provision of the Indian Act or any provision made under or pursuant to that act."

Since 1977, that one sentence has meant the CHRC cannot hear human rights complaints against chiefs and councils, or against the federal government in some cases. Grassroots First Nation activists have long complained that they are not offered the same protections as other Canadians and are suffering as a result.

The section was included in the CHRA when it was first drafted in 1977. It was to have been a temporary measure.

The reason given at the time was that it would give the government time to address the issues that led to an amendment to the Indian Act. That amendment, Bill C-31, sought to eliminate the sexual discrimination against Native women who lost their status after they married non-Indian men even though Native men did not lose their status when they married non-Native women.

When the Conservative government announced the legislation, Aboriginal leaders complained that the government was using its authority to push this legislation ahead rather than working with them as partners.

Assembly of First Nations National Chief Phil Fontaine said the legislation's goal is one he shares, but he has concerns about the government's approach.

"We don't want to be misunderstood on this matter. We support human rights for all people and, of course, that includes our people," he said. "We just want to make sure that appropriate consultation takes place and that First Nation governments and our communities have the capacity to deal with these matters."

Some grassroots activists surprised us this month by calling to warn that this plan could backfire if not implemented carefully. We were warned that band council business could grind to a halt if every person who felt they were being discriminated against by a council decision chose to file a complaint.

Ottawa sources say the First Nations' governance act plan to get rid of the Indian Act exemption to the CHRA was accompanied by a plan to change the legal nature of band councils so they could be considered persons under the law and could then be successfully sued. Those sources say the second prong of the plan is absent in the Conservative approach and that could lead to trouble.

Fontaine worried that First Nation governments would not have the financial or manpower resources that would be required to deal with human rights complaints.

"At the moment our fear is that we are not in a position to respond positively and appropriately to these matters," he said.

He also noted that the government was being strong on human rights and weak on Indigenous rights at the same time.

"We are calling on the government to be consistent in terms of the protection of human rights.

Here they argue that Section 67 is going to be repealed because it undermines the human rights of First Nations people becauseof the Indian Act. That's OK. We agree with that," he said. "But on the other hand they vote against the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples. We see some inconsistency here."