timeimmortal

Angelweb posted a copy of a letter received from Rob Nicholson, the Canadian Minister of Justice, over at FreeMarkSteyn.com. The text of the letter is, frankly, damn promising.

Dear [name removed] :

The office of the Prime Minister has forwarded to me a copy of your correspondence concerning the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). I regret the delay in responding.

Freedom of expression is a fundamental freedom enshrined in the Canadian , which, in a free and democratic society, may be limited only when such an action is justified.

The Government of Canada is committed to the protection and promotion of human rights. To that end, the Government has introduced in Parliament Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, which calls for the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) to apply equally to all Canadians. Bill C-21 would repeal section 67 of the CHRA, which currently shields some actions of the federal government or First Nations entities from the application of the CHRA. The repeal of Section 67 would extend the rights of First Nations people, primarily those living on reserve, to file complaints with the CHRC.

Canada’s record on human rights is second to none; it is a record of which all Canadians can be proud.

As you may be aware, the CHRC, which administers the CHRA, operates at arm’s length from the Government of Canada and reports to Parliament independently.

However, I would like to inform you that my caucus colleague Mr. Rick Dykstra has tabled a motion that the House of Commons Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights examine and make recommendations with respect to the CHRC, including its mandate, operations, and interpretation and application of provisions relating to Section 13 of the CHRA, which addresses hate messages. I look forward to that review.

Please be assured that your concerns have been given proper consideration. I appreciate having had your comments brought to my attention.

Yours truly,

The Honourable Rob Nicholson

This is, as I said, damn promising — it re-affirms that the Canadian government is coming on-side against the HRCs and their flagrant abuse of (and transgressions against) a fundamental human right that is a cornerstone of every free society: freedom of expression.

Also, I think it’s time to put out a new banner:

(I direct the Reader to the media page)

The Auditor General has just delivered her report on how Canada is dealing with a variety of issues before it, including (perhaps most importantly) how the government is handling the issue of over 60,000 people who have immigrated here illegally.

That is also the most alarming of the statistics contained within the report:

The Canada Border Services Agency must improve how it tracks individuals ordered to leave the country. Last fall, the agency had no idea of the whereabouts of 41,000 individuals ordered out of Canada for being in the country illegally.

What I would like to know is: where are the majority of these people from? What countries did they immigrate here from? What are their criminal histories, if any? Do they have any affiliation with known terrorist groups?

And, of course: how the heck did we lose track of a group of people the size of the population of West Vancouver? Oh…wait…

Anyhow, here are some other interesting tidbits from the report:

- Children living on First Nations reserves are eight times more likely to seek the aid of child welfare services than children living off reserves. Last year, there were 8,300 on-reserve children using family service programs — about five per cent of all children in reserves.

- National Defence should improve how it sends supplies to troops in Afghanistan. The department has trouble keeping track of supplies being used in the war and maintaining some key equipment because of spare-part shortages, making it increasingly difficult to support the mission.

- Canadians pay too much for passports. The consular fee — about $25 of the $87 cost of an adult passport — is disproportionate to the cost of consular services being provided and should be adjusted.

- Health Canada has been charging too little for medicinal marijuana.

A 2007 report shows that the department underestimated the cost of administering and regulating the program, and the fee to consumers did not recover the full costs of the program.

- The Public Health Agency, created following the 2003 SARS outbreak, has trouble keeping track of the spread of infectious diseases due to gaps in its information-sharing agreements with the provinces and territories.

Kind of depressing, isn’t it?

…but in regard to the financial settlements that have been paid out in the wake of the many, many court cases filed over the issue, one can’t help but wonder if the cure was, in some cases, as bad as the disease.

I only remark on this because it seems that the First Nations in the Yukon are going to begin a survey in an attempt to count deaths related to the arrival of settlement monies from residential school claims. Evidently, since the dollars began flowing in, “Aboriginal leaders have noticed a higher than usual number of funerals in communities across the territory in recent months, even prompting one chief to organize a territory-wide prayer circle next week.

No one can say for sure how many of those deaths are attributable to the thousands of dollars in common experience payments going to former students and the social problems, from alcohol and drug abuse to suicide, that can arise from such payments, combined with their recollections of the residential school experience.”

Very troubling.

Did you know that, O Reader?

…But the surprise came from Duffy himself: he reminded viewers that the Canadian Human Rights Act does not apply to Canadian Indians. Right now, section 67 of the CHRA explicitly exempts Indian reserves from the application of the law.

This has been a long-time grievance of Aboriginal women, not because they have a hankering to file complaints about “hurt feelings” under the (recently-added) “hate speech” provisions of the Act, but because there has historically existed on many Indian reserves significant, real discrimination — such as the wholesale disenfranchisement of women who marry non-Indians, cutting them off from government funds and other rights as band members. Unlike for the rest of us who live in a free society, the libertarian solution to discrimination — simply move on to another restaurant, apartment, job, etc. — doesn’t work when the entire economy, and all property, are owned communally and are apportioned by fiat by chiefs and councils. That’s how it works under Canada’s Indian Act.

And guess what? Just last week, Liberal MPs tried to delay a Conservative initiative to extend the Canadian Human Rights Act to Indian reserves. Liberal Anita Neville showed the soft bigotry of low expectations, arguing that Indians just aren’t culturally ready for the kind of laws that apply to the rest of us.

Ms. Neville said there’s “a real ideological divide” over the issue of individual versus collective rights in the repeal legislation. “There doesn’t seem to be, on the part of the government, a willingness to respect the tradition of collective rights for First Nations on reserve.”

So, in the same week that we have Stephane Dion demanding that his MP, Keith Martin, rescind his private member’s motion to remove the “hate messages” provision of the CHRA, Dion’s MPs are blocking the entire CHRA from applying to hundreds of thousands of Canadian Aboriginals.

Hypocrisy from the Liberal Party? Perish the thought!

On a more serious note, however, I was actually unaware of the “exemption” provided under the CHRA for Natives. Personally, I think that’s absurd that this is, in fact, the case, and Ezra Levant enumerates a number of very real, and very good, examples why that is (above). Bigotry does not just flow one way, and there can be an immense prejudice on reservations against those who “go outside” the reservation in some way (the issue of marrying non-Natives is one example). Many people on reservations are very disenfranchised, precisely because of these reasons. Many people on reservations are denied basic human needs, and basic human rights, by usurious and greedy band councils.

I’m not saying that Natives should file more human rights complaints (if in fact they could) — the tribunals have to go, and nobody should patronize them. But the tribunals are one small part of what the CHRA deals with, and many of its other provisions are both relevant to the situations on many reservations, and also necessary tools for combatting those situations. And it’s shameful that Canada does not extend the legitimate protections of the CHRA to the Native people of this country.

Doubly shameful, of course, is that the Liberal Party has been attempting to block a Conservative Party attempt to extend the CHRA to include Natives and the reservations. Levant asks:

So which is it? Is the Canadian Human Rights Act so sacrosanct that not even a single section can be amended? Or is the Act so unimportant that Canadian Aboriginals can be denied all of its provisions for years to come? Mike Duffy pointed out this contradiction today; I wonder if any other journalists will follow up.

Personally, I very much doubt any of them will — our media is, as a general rule, terrified of printing anything that might result in a swell of support for Stephen Harper’s government. Which is a shame, because the hypocrisy of the Liberals over this issue is staggering.

Update: Welcome, Steynians and FreeDoMinions!